Simple concepts first, when they are young. More complex concepts later, when they are older.
But definitely, teach them simple concepts.
You don't start sex-ed by teaching them about the Stork bringing children. You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...
A quote that's often led to the comparison that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch.
The more accurate comparison would be two poor men and a rich man, deciding who foots the bill.
The 51% of Jefferson's quote, or the majority in its trite examples, are not the wolves. They are the sheep. In a country like America, it is the poor, (the not-wealthy) who will always be in the majority. That's the nature of capitalism.
So it's not about 51% taking away the rights of 49%. It's about the 75% say, making sure that the 25% don't get mega rich at the expense of others. Or even that the 5% of the people can't own 50% of the wealth. That sort of thing.
There's a reason that James Madison objected to democracy on the grounds that it would "undermine the responsibility of government to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Democracy is your friend, America. You just don't know it.
Quite well. It's a great motivator to get things done, when you realise that this life is the only one you have, and there's no pie-in-the-sky after life in which you can do things at your leisure.
Trying to say that Power does not corrupt by appealing to Gods power and non-corruption, is as foolish as believing in the existence of God in the first place.
Perhaps it is precisely because they are ineffective: those who support the status quo are seizing the high ground by declaring that in order to object "ethically", one must also object ineffectively.
I agree. I often thought that the meme "One man can make a difference" was promoted to encourage those who wanted to change the status quo, to self-identify and make it easier for them to be targeted, corrupted, discredited, removed, whatever.
Barely out of R&D? On the contrary, the F-35 has been under development since 2001, and it's had multiple test flights since 2006. It's expected to be rolled out in 2 years.
As for it's not delivering, I seem to remember hearing of a study by RAND which raised concerns over its effectiveness in fighting multiple Russian craft.
Their failures have been many, and well documented. The problems involved have been analysed to death. It's not difficult to find out what a failure it's been so far, and if they had had any success to speak of, they'd have used it to silence their many detractors. But they haven't.
If I'd spent 300 billion on a project that didn't deliver the goods, I might be tempted to stage an internet break in which would force the projects cancellation, saving face for all concerned.
Speaking of, how much money has been wasted on the missile defence shield? 4 years ago, they were saying 50 billion. Today I think it's up to 115 billion. And of course, it still doesn't work. (And most likely never will.)
Will we see a "break in" on that research any time soon?
These harsh restrictive laws are coming for all of us. It's just a matter of time.
What we need right now, is to plan the ways of defeating this sort of rubbish, and circulating that information while the net is still relatively free.
No one says you have to. But the reason I (and possibly others) do, is because we don't see that they are doing anything wrong.
Piratebay is linking to torrent files. Google does this. They are not hosting any copyright files. They are not providing any copy right files. Only links to torrents.
Why is making it easy for people to steal ethical? Well, again, it's not stealing. The people who seem to be so actively against copyright infringement, also seem dead set on using the term stealing.
This hurts their argument. Because it's clearly NOT stealing. And wasting your time debating semantics, and being corrected ad nauseum, means you hardly ever get to the heart of the matter.
So the question should be, why is making it easy for people to find torrent files, ethical? (And note, your asking ethical, not even legal...)
Answer : Torrent files are legal. They can be used illegally, but they are not illegal. Linking to torrent files, even the ones that are used illegally, should not be a problem. IF it was, then all search engines, including google, would be liable.
Are you the sort of person who would rather drag the whole world back to the days before search engines existed, in order to ensure your copyright is not violated? If you are, I've no time for you.
Indeed. The same sort of people gave us the "USA PATRIOT" acronym, the "Internet SAFETY" acronym, and some day soon, no doubt, the "PIRATES ARE EVIL" acronym.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, evolution should be taught like evolution.
Simple concepts first, when they are young.
More complex concepts later, when they are older.
But definitely, teach them simple concepts.
You don't start sex-ed by teaching them about the Stork bringing children. You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...
You know when he takes his glasses off, and looks to the side? He's reading cue cards. Watch for it.
It's obvious once you're aware of it.
A quote that's often led to the comparison that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch.
The more accurate comparison would be two poor men and a rich man, deciding who foots the bill.
The 51% of Jefferson's quote, or the majority in its trite examples, are not the wolves. They are the sheep. In a country like America, it is the poor, (the not-wealthy) who will always be in the majority. That's the nature of capitalism.
So it's not about 51% taking away the rights of 49%. It's about the 75% say, making sure that the 25% don't get mega rich at the expense of others. Or even that the 5% of the people can't own 50% of the wealth. That sort of thing.
There's a reason that James Madison objected to democracy on the grounds that it would "undermine the responsibility of government to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Democracy is your friend, America. You just don't know it.
Oh please. If there's a way to twist a quote so that it appears to mean the exact opposite of what the speaker intends, Gleen Greenwald will find it.
Quite well. It's a great motivator to get things done, when you realise that this life is the only one you have, and there's no pie-in-the-sky after life in which you can do things at your leisure.
Power brings immunity.
Trying to say that Power does not corrupt by appealing to Gods power and non-corruption, is as foolish as believing in the existence of God in the first place.
Perhaps it is precisely because they are ineffective: those who support the status quo are seizing the high ground by declaring that in order to object "ethically", one must also object ineffectively.
I agree. I often thought that the meme "One man can make a difference" was promoted to encourage those who wanted to change the status quo, to self-identify and make it easier for them to be targeted, corrupted, discredited, removed, whatever.
I believe with marketing, and the fact that FOX wanted their pound of flesh, it was closer to 200 million.
Yes, but don't say it 5 times in front of an old CRT monitor...
I believe the rights to use the term Fuhrer are currently owned by Fox corp, but it's for internal use only.
Barely out of R&D? On the contrary, the F-35 has been under development since 2001, and it's had multiple test flights since 2006.
It's expected to be rolled out in 2 years.
As for it's not delivering, I seem to remember hearing of a study by RAND which raised concerns over its effectiveness in fighting multiple Russian craft.
You can read about it here :
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9283/jsfnews3pu5.jpg
Their failures have been many, and well documented. The problems involved have been analysed to death.
It's not difficult to find out what a failure it's been so far, and if they had had any success to speak of, they'd have used it to silence their many detractors. But they haven't.
There Are So many randomly capped wordS in tHAT post, I thought you were posting in code.
If I'd spent 300 billion on a project that didn't deliver the goods, I might be tempted to stage an internet break in which would force the projects cancellation, saving face for all concerned.
Speaking of, how much money has been wasted on the missile defence shield? 4 years ago, they were saying 50 billion. Today I think it's up to 115 billion. And of course, it still doesn't work. (And most likely never will.)
Will we see a "break in" on that research any time soon?
These harsh restrictive laws are coming for all of us. It's just a matter of time.
What we need right now, is to plan the ways of defeating this sort of rubbish, and circulating that information while the net is still relatively free.
The law in question states that knowingly assisting copyright breach is criminally punishable.
Citation needed.
So much to counter..
why would I approve of what TPB are doing?
No one says you have to. But the reason I (and possibly others) do, is because we don't see that they are doing anything wrong.
Piratebay is linking to torrent files. Google does this. They are not hosting any copyright files. They are not providing any copy right files. Only links to torrents.
Why is making it easy for people to steal ethical?
Well, again, it's not stealing. The people who seem to be so actively against copyright infringement, also seem dead set on using the term stealing.
This hurts their argument. Because it's clearly NOT stealing. And wasting your time debating semantics, and being corrected ad nauseum, means you hardly ever get to the heart of the matter.
So the question should be, why is making it easy for people to find torrent files, ethical?
(And note, your asking ethical, not even legal...)
Answer : Torrent files are legal. They can be used illegally, but they are not illegal. Linking to torrent files, even the ones that are used illegally, should not be a problem. IF it was, then all search engines, including google, would be liable.
Are you the sort of person who would rather drag the whole world back to the days before search engines existed, in order to ensure your copyright is not violated? If you are, I've no time for you.
If all 20 million users on the pirate bay coughed up 50 cents, we'd deal with the fine.
Search in google "filetype:torrent Wolverine" and see what it gets you.
From the article, the guys don't seem worried. Appeals are forthcoming.
Indeed. The same sort of people gave us the "USA PATRIOT" acronym, the "Internet SAFETY" acronym, and some day soon, no doubt, the "PIRATES ARE EVIL" acronym.
Don't fuck with me. You don't know what I have seen in my life! I can rip your whole reality apart in seconds.
Glenn Beck? I didn't know you were on Slashdot.
Love the crazy eyes, man. Keep it up.
As for (b), we saw a study just this month that found that homophobic males are most likely to be turned on by gay porn.
Maybe you saw it last month, but that finding is over 10 years old.
Adams, H.E., Lester, Wright, L.W., and Lohr, B.A. (1996) Is homophobia associated with sexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 105(3) 440-445. (Download at http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf )
Just like during the Great Depression, this will be a time of resurgent con-men as the majority will (in desperation) try anything to get cash.
False dichotomy. In this case, greed adequately explains the conspiracy side.
ALMOST believe the conspiracy?
Geez, what the hell more do you need? A video tape of Diebold executives laughing evilly while cashing cheques?