The point being that you can only push the ecosystem so far before its degradation starts having an adverse effect on you.
Yeah, but that's just plain old "we're using up all of our resources", not some act of a vindictive earth-deity. You can make it seem more profound by using symbolism and any other literary device, but it's pretty straightforward.
I understand that you believe that your currently impressive quality of life depends, in many ways, on continued assaults upon the Earth's ecosystem
Again, words like "assault"... you can say you are being literary again, but that word has meaning and immediately polarizes the discussion. We are part of the ecosystem. We can change it but we can't "assault" it. Even if we somehow wiped all multi-celled life off of the surface of the planet, the earth would continue to spin around the sun for a few billion years before the sun finishes off whatever's left.
Your points are perfectly valid - there aren't enough resources for us all to live a Western lifestyle forever given the current level of resources and technology. Reducing resource consumption is certainly likely to be a big part of our lives going forward. We also need to be more careful with our environment - but this has been known and acted upon for at least 40 years in Western countries. If you are trying to convince people that we need to do more, you might find more neutral language more effective. You start in with "assault" and "mother earth" talk and you'll get a positive response from people who are already converted, but a defensive reaction from the rest. Nuclear energy may well need to be scaled back, but not because it hurts the Earth God's feelings.
Make no mistake: continue abusing the planet and the planet will strike back. Hard.
Do you anthropomorphize everything, or just the Earth? Even with global warming and all of it's worst predicted effects, my life expectancy and quality of life are likely to be better than those of my Gaia-worshiping Greek analogue, who was probably a subsistence farmer.
That's great and all, but human nature being what it is, no politician would ever get elected saying that.
So high-profile targets like airplanes will always get undue attention, and low-profile things like tens of thousands of highway deaths will always be on page 5.
I suggest accepting this and trying to be pragmatic about it, rather than being frustrated that human nature isn't logical. It's going to drive you nuts.
Luck the emergency generators worked, but they don't always.
If only there were some way to have a SECOND set of emergency generators? And if only there were a way to put generators on some kind of transportation device such that they could be brought to a place when needed...
And if there were some way to build a containment vessel around the dangerous stuff, in case everything went wrong...
I wasn't referring to it being banned. I was referring to him claiming it wasn't an option, and how his was a bogus argument. You are not limited to Javascript on an iOS device.
You're criminalising behaviour because it makes you feel icky.
Intent is often the most important facet of a law. Take manslaughter/murder. A serial killer with 20 victims will get a life sentence or be executed. A bus driver who falls asleep at the wheel can kill the same number of people and get a few years in prison.
Another example would be taxes. If you make a mistake and short the government money on your taxes, they will demand repayment and fine you. If you deliberately evade the same amount in taxes, you go to jail. Either way, the effect is the same - but you consider intent.
So then we get to Per Wigren's example: killing mosquitoes for public health/comfort reasons is a necessary evil. They are parasites that bite us and suck our blood. Deriving pleasure from the torture of mosquitoes is disturbing and probably warrants some attention. Not that you can torture something with such a simple nervous system, but I digress...
You might point to fishing as an example of acceptable torture (especially "catch and release"), but I've yet to meet a fisherman who fishes to inflict pain on the fish. Most are there for the challenge. If you meet someone who just likes getting hooks in fish, keep an eye on that one!
I've always argued that it's clearly got to do with mental capacity.
The more like us something seems, the less we want to harm it. A worm is about as far away as you can get - they are repulsive looking and superficially resemble us in no way. Dogs are the other extreme - they have co-evolved with us such that they present behavior that seems like human emotion. So we put dogs on a higher pedestal than any other animal - even our 98% similar chimp cousins.
Sometimes a weird accident of genetics produces something that is not much different from a regular fish, but has some feature that we deem worthy - like a seahorse or starfish. Butterflies fall into this category, too.
So yes, mental capacity is part of it - but it's bigger than that. Dogs and horses seem to get most of our respect, despite there being birds with larger mental capacity (or at least tool use). Dogs and horses are the only animal in the US with a taboo on eating. In fact, I think in might actually be illegal! How's that for irrational?
I maintain a COM addin for Outlook 2003 written in C. It has a companion service program also written in C and calls only Win32 APIs. I really doubt that I am the only one. How is COM dead?
I'm risking a "whoosh" here... did you really just ask why your program written for an 8-year-old piece of software is considered... a bit dated?
However, the article makes the point that Microsoft's.NET framework capabilities are increasing substantially, not decreasing. This speaks positively for its future.
That's true if the desktop stays dominant. With C++, you can write desktop, iPhone, and Android apps (well, you need to learn enough Java/Objective C to do the interfaces)... so I guess if non-windows platforms take off, you might still see.NET wain.
You have a funny definition of "mainstream". Apache? Java? Firefox? Android? Linux? GCC? Hell, even the "closed" iPhone has free software at it's roots.
Apple was able take a pre-written free kernel and FreeBSD and pop some proprietary shine on it and rival the largest software company in the world on the desktop, and hand them their ass in mobile.
Naw, they'd still be dicks. The people in IT don't get extra money - just extra work.
By the way, my experience with IT is generally positive. But I'm a dork myself and stay very friendly with the IT guys. But I see the snark and sarcasm that they use to respond to non-technical people and it makes me cringe. IT people need to be more diplomatic, and they need to learn a bit from the sales guys.
Anybody who thinks health care will cost less after the federal government gets a hold on it hasn't looked much at everything else the federal government already has a hold of.
The 47% of Americans who currently pay no income tax don't care how much it costs. They still won't pay any income tax.
The rest of us might not suffer as much as you think, as our health bills won't have to subsidize the non-payers anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
The point being that you can only push the ecosystem so far before its degradation starts having an adverse effect on you.
Yeah, but that's just plain old "we're using up all of our resources", not some act of a vindictive earth-deity. You can make it seem more profound by using symbolism and any other literary device, but it's pretty straightforward.
I understand that you believe that your currently impressive quality of life depends, in many ways, on continued assaults upon the Earth's ecosystem
Again, words like "assault"... you can say you are being literary again, but that word has meaning and immediately polarizes the discussion. We are part of the ecosystem. We can change it but we can't "assault" it. Even if we somehow wiped all multi-celled life off of the surface of the planet, the earth would continue to spin around the sun for a few billion years before the sun finishes off whatever's left.
Your points are perfectly valid - there aren't enough resources for us all to live a Western lifestyle forever given the current level of resources and technology. Reducing resource consumption is certainly likely to be a big part of our lives going forward. We also need to be more careful with our environment - but this has been known and acted upon for at least 40 years in Western countries. If you are trying to convince people that we need to do more, you might find more neutral language more effective. You start in with "assault" and "mother earth" talk and you'll get a positive response from people who are already converted, but a defensive reaction from the rest. Nuclear energy may well need to be scaled back, but not because it hurts the Earth God's feelings.
Make no mistake: continue abusing the planet and the planet will strike back. Hard.
Do you anthropomorphize everything, or just the Earth? Even with global warming and all of it's worst predicted effects, my life expectancy and quality of life are likely to be better than those of my Gaia-worshiping Greek analogue, who was probably a subsistence farmer.
People die every day
That's great and all, but human nature being what it is, no politician would ever get elected saying that.
So high-profile targets like airplanes will always get undue attention, and low-profile things like tens of thousands of highway deaths will always be on page 5.
I suggest accepting this and trying to be pragmatic about it, rather than being frustrated that human nature isn't logical. It's going to drive you nuts.
planetary-scale hazardous installations that can poison entire countries.
Liechtenstein?
Luck the emergency generators worked, but they don't always.
If only there were some way to have a SECOND set of emergency generators? And if only there were a way to put generators on some kind of transportation device such that they could be brought to a place when needed...
And if there were some way to build a containment vessel around the dangerous stuff, in case everything went wrong...
I recall reading of at least one plant worker that died due to radiation exposure.
And I recall that a plant worker has died from a heart attack, 2 were treated for radiation exposure, and several others for physical injuries.
No doubt that some of these workers now have an increased risk of cancer, but why make this sound worse than it really is?
I wasn't referring to it being banned. I was referring to him claiming it wasn't an option, and how his was a bogus argument. You are not limited to Javascript on an iOS device.
How do iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad devices run JavaScript sites without a JavaScript interpreter?
Javascript is provided by Apple, so it is obviously allowed.
Don't laugh!
Because Apple has banned it from the iPhones and iPads that most of the "cool kids" are using nowadays.
Bogus. All interpreters are banned, not just BASIC.
And they run javascript sites just fine, some of which implement BASIC.
LOL, I know but you see the humor in pointing to your Office 2003 project as a contemporary example in the year 2011...
"For every 1 man you kill we'll donate $1,000,000 to save a thousand from starvation."
Do I get to choose the guy?
You're criminalising behaviour because it makes you feel icky.
Intent is often the most important facet of a law. Take manslaughter/murder. A serial killer with 20 victims will get a life sentence or be executed. A bus driver who falls asleep at the wheel can kill the same number of people and get a few years in prison.
Another example would be taxes. If you make a mistake and short the government money on your taxes, they will demand repayment and fine you. If you deliberately evade the same amount in taxes, you go to jail. Either way, the effect is the same - but you consider intent.
So then we get to Per Wigren's example: killing mosquitoes for public health/comfort reasons is a necessary evil. They are parasites that bite us and suck our blood. Deriving pleasure from the torture of mosquitoes is disturbing and probably warrants some attention. Not that you can torture something with such a simple nervous system, but I digress...
You might point to fishing as an example of acceptable torture (especially "catch and release"), but I've yet to meet a fisherman who fishes to inflict pain on the fish. Most are there for the challenge. If you meet someone who just likes getting hooks in fish, keep an eye on that one!
I've always argued that it's clearly got to do with mental capacity.
The more like us something seems, the less we want to harm it. A worm is about as far away as you can get - they are repulsive looking and superficially resemble us in no way. Dogs are the other extreme - they have co-evolved with us such that they present behavior that seems like human emotion. So we put dogs on a higher pedestal than any other animal - even our 98% similar chimp cousins.
Sometimes a weird accident of genetics produces something that is not much different from a regular fish, but has some feature that we deem worthy - like a seahorse or starfish. Butterflies fall into this category, too.
So yes, mental capacity is part of it - but it's bigger than that. Dogs and horses seem to get most of our respect, despite there being birds with larger mental capacity (or at least tool use). Dogs and horses are the only animal in the US with a taboo on eating. In fact, I think in might actually be illegal! How's that for irrational?
I maintain a COM addin for Outlook 2003 written in C. It has a companion service program also written in C and calls only Win32 APIs. I really doubt that I am the only one. How is COM dead?
I'm risking a "whoosh" here... did you really just ask why your program written for an 8-year-old piece of software is considered... a bit dated?
However, the article makes the point that Microsoft's .NET framework capabilities are increasing substantially, not decreasing. This speaks positively for its future.
That's true if the desktop stays dominant. With C++, you can write desktop, iPhone, and Android apps (well, you need to learn enough Java/Objective C to do the interfaces)... so I guess if non-windows platforms take off, you might still see .NET wain.
You have a funny definition of "mainstream". Apache? Java? Firefox? Android? Linux? GCC? Hell, even the "closed" iPhone has free software at it's roots.
Apple was able take a pre-written free kernel and FreeBSD and pop some proprietary shine on it and rival the largest software company in the world on the desktop, and hand them their ass in mobile.
just enjoy repeating that point over and over again because it always winds up the fanbois and one always bites
Why would anyone care who invested in Apple over the years? Does that diminish the iPhone in some way?
There are still a lot of people who rely on VB6.
VB6 is the reason I get to laugh when someone suggests that we shouldn't depend on smaller vendors.
I like Coopers, but they don't have good ads.
Have you noticed Silverlight hasn't even had the same security concerns and exploits as Flash?
You might as well say that Stalin was better than Hitler.
Oh, yeah... Godwinned that shit!
Naw, they'd still be dicks. The people in IT don't get extra money - just extra work.
By the way, my experience with IT is generally positive. But I'm a dork myself and stay very friendly with the IT guys. But I see the snark and sarcasm that they use to respond to non-technical people and it makes me cringe. IT people need to be more diplomatic, and they need to learn a bit from the sales guys.
He probably just found out about it.
You missed his point. Most users of Netflix are not on PCs. Hell, 30% are on Playstation alone.
Anybody who thinks health care will cost less after the federal government gets a hold on it hasn't looked much at everything else the federal government already has a hold of.
The 47% of Americans who currently pay no income tax don't care how much it costs. They still won't pay any income tax.
The rest of us might not suffer as much as you think, as our health bills won't have to subsidize the non-payers anymore.