Buy and consume your peanuts elsewhere you selfish fuck. Right back at ya, kid. Fly on your fucken planes and don't tell us what to do on ours. They are not you daddy's planes. You don't get to tell us how to fly... you selfish fuck.
It really sounds like the school was using this for budget cuts. Something it wouldn't be able to do if it stuck to its main mission -- education. As soon as it was allowed to prioritize egalitarianism over education, it was allowed to resort to hypocrisy. I believe you are now arguing my point for me.
You pay taxes proportionate to your income not your use of state roads, hospitals, schools and other facilities. As a side note, you do pay taxes proportionate to your use of the roads. Roads are maintained with the excise tax on gasoline -- not with income taxes (as is commonly misinterpreted). Since the gasoline usage is roughly proportional with the wear and tear your vehicle puts on the road, you pay for the road maintainance (proportionately to the usage) every time you fill up.
People think they have the right to be completely selfish at the expense of others. It doesn't work like that. The concept that is otherwise known as "freedom is slavery".
If it's zoned commercial you have obligations to those who use your facility. You have to provide toilets (even for those who can hold it in!). As a frequent visitor to NY City, I'll go ahead and laugh at you now.
You have to make sure the place is safe for children even if your target audience is adults. And that's the reason I decided that pursuing my second life goal -- becoming a lawyer was much too unethical to follow through with.
and I've already said repeatedly I don't agree with this case - child anonimity and a latex allergy destroying the ability for classes to function. You can agree or disagree with it all you want. The anonymity was allowed and not discouraged because of the philosophy you purport. Its abusive (in this case) effect will continue. And the reason for it is that people like you think that voicing an opinion or a judgment on something as being wrong is enough to make it impossible and not worth considering. When the fact remains the impossibilities were created by non-negotiable nature of egalitarianism. The boogie man is in the mirror -- not in the sly opportunists who take advantage of the hypocrisy that you and yours create.
Again your insistence of lumping these two together smacks of both a selfish desire to retain a tasty treat for all at the expense of a child's education, and a deliberate lack of comprehension. It is you who is doing all the lumping. I made a clear distinction between peanuts on the plane and latex in school as two different cases (albeit, bound by the common wrong-headed philosophy). I suspect it motivated by your need to continue with the hypocrisy (ok, I am flaming, but I don't feel like keeping the gloves on after the "fuck you").
Destroying a school's education is not. But you and yours have done just that by insisting on egalitarianism.
Good luck with that - the harsh world you insist on living on will come back and bite you in the arse. Decline in the quality of education in all of the industrialized world, rapid decline in the quality of service received in America, unsustainability of the technological progress in the Western World.... sounds to me it is the values your embraced that are coming to bite us in the ass. Once again, you stupid twit, the boogie main is in the mirror.
The inconvenience of getting the school's population not to bring peanut products to school is trivial to absorb. The case in question discussed the "inconvenience" of not being able to proceed with the normal class work in school. How convenient it must be to substitute a seemingly harmless example into your analogy.
Sometimes in a civilized society I think you mean "civil" rather than civilized. The society you describe doesn't fit either criterion. It's necessarily hypocritical and always raises form over function.
By that logic we should never go out of our way for a person with a disability. Nope. That doesn't follow. Egalitarianism is appropriate in certain settings. It is wildly inappropriate in others. The examples of peanuts on airplanes and latex in schools are precisely the times when it would be inappropriate.
Disabled parking shouldn't exist. I am not sure about whether it should exist on private property. Certainly forcing stores to have handicapped access smacks of taking away property rights.
The school had to compromise its primary mission. All the arguments about what the parents or the children could have done are particulars that no longer matter. The point of that post was that it was the philosophy that lead to this failure What nonsense is this? One approach fails, therefore it's a philosophical issue and so would all approaches? I haven't ever seen such defeatism. If at first you don't succeed you're destined to fail no matter how you try? What rubbish! There are plenty of schools successfully dealing with students that have life threatening allergies. In this case, there was no approach that could allow school to fulfill it's educational mission and act egalitarian. It had to pick one or the other. But choosing to go against its primary mission it (by definition) chose to by hypocritical. You keep wanting to put blame on the child who remained anonymous rather than the school. But it doesn't work. There was a sort of stand off there. The child (and presumably parents) insisted on anonymity. The school had to chose what to do. It chose not to have the right class. That's how it "dealt" with the child's allergy. The schools mandate of educating all children failed. The reason for it was egalitarianism. The fact that other schools "deal" with it, doesn't mean it's possible to deal with it in such a way that the primary mission of the school is prioritized over all others. If any other missions are considered as non-negotiable (such as egalitarianism), then when the two come in conflict, it will always be the non-negotiable priority that wins. And since being a little bit non-egalitarian is the same as being a little bit pregnant, it is a wrong philosophy for this setting.
The problem with what you said is one word: "people". Children don't act like adults. They are very often driven by their emotions and act completely impulsively. This causes them to often act out in a violent manner. If you happen to have seen the "Freaks and Geeks" series, the episode where one child poisons another with peanuts (the second child has a peanut allergy) is quite realistic. No, I am not saying that children run around thinking of nothing but hurting each other all day. But they will, on occasion, do things which are harmful and without having any realization of the severity of the consequences of what they do. The problem with ardent conservatives is that they believe people are basically reasonable and the problem with ardent liberals is that they believe people are basically kind. Both only capture part of the human experience. Regardless of where you stand (although it appears that liberal is closer to your heart), the child did remain anonymous in that situation and the rules, as they were set up, did inhibit the schools primary mandate -- education. Egalitarianism in that situation plainly failed. The school had to compromise its primary mission. All the arguments about what the parents or the children could have done are particulars that no longer matter. The point of that post was that it was the philosophy that lead to this failure. And that point was correct. Had the school not tried to be egalitarian and insisted that the class proceed as usual, the child with latex allergy would be forced to do the reasonable thing (or risk harm) just by the nature of what was going on. But because the school decided to be egalitarian, everyone was disadvantaged.
Latex isn't aromatic. It should be possible to keep the child away from the Latex without removing it from the school. Given that the gp said that the child was anonymous, the fact taht latex is not aromatic does not matter.
Why should I be denied the thrill of Counter-Strike in real life because somebody else doesn't want a bullet in their body? Same thing, no? I get some personal pleasure, and who gives a flying fuck if a few weaklings have to die for it, right? Nope. Your right to throw a fist stops at my nose. Eating peanuts is something you do to yourself. It's not your fault that someone else can't take it.
That Zonk would put another social-engineering-is-good assertion with a rhetorical question mark after it. Fine. I'll do the obvious and answer a question with a question. Since the question was do the blind deserve preferenctial treatment, what does "deserve" mean?
What you're talking about a world full of 100% engineers and I don't think that is going to help progress. given that you have such murky distinctions now that you have "applied physics" (as opposed to theoretical and experimental physics of 20 years ago), 100% engineering is too absolute a statement to reflect reality. What these people do is often bona fide research.
The best of artists and scientists do what they do because they love doing it. That doesn't mean they agree to be public servants while they do it. Doing what you love and getting paid a shit load of money for it makes it only more fun.
The real producers of ideas will never be the masters of their works. Oh? Google is not owned by the people who wrote the page rank paper? Perhaps Ford never made it as a car manufacturer. No, you are right. Steve Jobs could never make profit on his and Woz's designs... too much of a techie... not pratical enough. Not all geeks can become successful businessman. But it takes legal structure to capitalize on an idea to make it possible for a geek to become a success. Not everyone can negotiate a good deal for what they have to offer. But everyone deserves that chance. And by making it impossible to own ideas for even a little bit, you force all the smart people away from being idea man and into being lawyers and doctors.... ie, the gatekeepers to accessing the "system" that you've set up. If you ever wonder why the pace of innovation has slown down, this is why.
Except they do own the seeds. If they did not own the seeds then they can't prevent the owner from saving seeds, which farmers have done since agriculture has started, and plant those seeds the next planting season. They can prevent farmers from violating a contract. Ok. So? A contract is an agreement. They can prevent farmers from doing what farmers agreed not to do. Where is the problem? The seeds that farmers planted since "agriculture started" were found in the nature. Even when they were cultivated, they were simply picked from the seeds occuring naturally. These seeds were designed by these people. In no shape did they occur as they are sold in nature. Are you suggesting that the designed products (GE seeds) must have the same amount of protection as the materials from which they were designed (naturally-occuring seeds)?
In other words Monsanto gets to own the world. no
Fact is Monsanto publicly stated their GE seed can't cross pollinate when in fact it does. That's quite interesting. If they stated this as part of their "sales pitch", then it would probably be a valid defense during a suit. If some of their less-reputable (or less-informed) managers said so while talking to someone who is not directly in charge of making a purchasing decisions, then they were just yapping. Of course, if the contract into which they entered says so, then all the claims that they sue for cross pollination are nonsense. It's also possible that they were talking about one specific seed while the cross-pollination involved another. I mean, you are trying to hang all kinds of responsibilites on their shoulders that they never agreed to accept and when they don't accept it you say that they are trying to "own the world".
It's your land. You have the responisibility to make sure that patents are not broken on it (assuming that breaking a patent is illegal). If you leave keys in your car and it gets stolen and used to rob a bank. The bank can sue you because your property was used to assist a robbery. Basicly, your property is your responsibility.
oh, how i am tired of pointing out to everyone who says what you say what they are really saying. grants=tips. wages are things you can negotiate. mathematicians used to work for tips. of them don't anymore. 90% of mathematicians that get ph.d's don't stay in academia. most of the work they do is covered by NDAs. they already figured out that working for you is a losing proposition. congrats on living in your world of "free" information. as for the "world hasn't fallen appart yet" comment, the progress which could have been made and hasn't been is kindda hard to measure. but people who work for tips are not likely to be the same people as the ones who carefully think through what is the most useful way to present information to you so that you could do your job in the most useful manner -- they aren't paid to do so. patent doesn't give you ownership as in ownership of a land. it's a limited-time ownership -- in recognition of the fact that ideas can be replicated for free unlike real-world materials. grants are really the ultimate slap in the face though. they make a statement that the best of people must gravel for money and not be able to sell the products of their live's work whereas the lepricons who use their work get to get wealth off of it.
My business dictionary says that the name would actually be "breakeven". Also that this condition is sustainable, all other things being equal You know full well that a true equilibrium is unsustainable. And it doesn't allow for any growth. Seeing as "hope" is the idea that tomorrow will be better than today, this means that the industry stuck in neutral will be hopeless.
Fuck em'. hehe... now you invited it. I say fuck the programmers. Outsource their jobs into oblivion until they are forced to sell blood to sponsor their programming hobby... or beg a local college for a "job"... forget mortgages. You don't "work" for a living. You just press buttons. Oh, and proletariats of the world unite! yep, I think you've proved who you really are now. But, hey, I am sure someone will come by and call me paranoid because I call you on what you really are.
Someone else will pick up the slack and find ways to improve crop yields without holding producers hostage. You mean some other fool will come by from whom the "workers" can steal their ideas?
Now that's quite a different argument. You might have a point. Although selling to general public is guided by the UCC while entering into a contract that involves an exchange of goods and money is not selling per se. Certain responsibilites can be "signed away". Since the damage is still done by the neighbor (the owner of the seeds), it is very likely that only the neighbor can be sued... because his contract with the company absolves the company of any responsibility for such an event. In the toaster analogy, the responsibility is on the manufacturer because he has a responsibility to the purchaser. Once that is gone, you might as well be suing sellers of knives (which are too sharp) every time you cut yourself.
This in and of itself isn't a bad thing in a truly free and competitive market. Actually, quite the opposite. This is the "constructive/destructive" of capitalism. "Freedom" in the market doesn't mean being free to do whatever you want to do. It means being free to negotiate the price for your as you wish. In the conditions of improved efficiency some people are supposed go out of business. Think about it. More food can be produced with the same amount of labor. The amount of food necessary increases only marginally. So the total amount of labor that must go into food production must decrease. So some of the people trying to stay in the farming business get squeezed out. That's why less than 5% of us are farmers today. Compare that to 90% 150 years ago (before fertilizers).
aaaaaaaaaaargh. i can't edit. the last quote was meant to be:
Same thing. Your seeds blow in and contaminate my crops, I will make sure it is YOU that pays to clean it up. So the whole post was supposed to be:
Wrong. If the tree growing in your yard drops a branch in mine, destroying my pool, you will be the one to replace the pool. Your statement is correct. Your qualification of my statement as "wrong" isn't. Because
Same thing. Your seeds blow in and contaminate my crops, I will make sure it is YOU that pays to clean it up. is incorrect. It's not the same thing. I own the tree. So it involves my property. They sold the seeds to your neighbor. So they don't own the seeds. They are not their property. So the property that did damage to your crops was your neighbor's -- not mine. Rather than the seeds, they own the exclusive right to replicate the seeds.
Wrong. If the tree growing in your yard drops a branch in mine, destroying my pool, you will be the one to replace the pool. Your statement is correct. Your qualification of my statement as "wrong" isn't. Because
Same thing. Your seeds blow in and contaminate my crops, I will make sure it is YOU that pays to clean it up.
is incorrect. It's not the same thing. I own the tree. So it involves my property. They sold the seeds to your neighbor. So I don't own them. They are not my property. So the property that did damage to your crops was your neighbor's -- not mine.
Okay - you won't touch poison. Go buy a bottle of Round Up and read the label. Does it offer any suggestion if humans should ingest it - like say calling the poison control center? Well, since you are so intent on putting half-truths to get the ratings (yes, I am accusing you of being a karma whore), I'll debunk it. Splicing in genes that produce pesticides in the stems of plants is not at all the same thing as putting poison in food. And while you didn't say that they put poison in food, the most straight-forward reading of your post did imply it. This type vagery is too commonly used by naturalists (while shilling against technologists) to be anything but trolling. If you care to post out of hate, the boogy man will always be you. Even if you happen to get some facts correctly, you'll get enough of them wrong that your statement will end up being a misrepresentation.
The people who designed the crops? I'm sorry - nature did that... All monsanta did is splice poison into plant DNA. All it did? I think we have a different understanding of what's "design". All egineering effort involves tranforming something that occurs naturally into something that doesn't. And "poison"? Ha? Not even touching that one.
argh... wrong quote. the quote in which you called for "abolishing" is here:
but if corporations begin to think that the pursuit of the almighty buck eclipses all else, such as with the idiocy ip law has become, it deserves to be broken. It appears in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=521226&cid=23061776
Given (that you said)
I've never understood why that situation means that Monsanto gets to sue the farmer instead of the other way around. Usually, if you do something in your yard, and that something comes over my fence and destroys my property, you are liable for paying to fix the problem. Yes, Monsanto seems to have lots of lawyers, but they must have deep pockets too. the assertion that (you made)
what i am saying has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing, nor did it ever. is a lie.
creatively extrapolate off of deeply rooted fears, then respond. k thx aha. it's my paranoia that causes me to interpret what you wrote to mean what you said.
oh, ps: you're a hysterical twit Since every point has pros & cons, this one might, too. Since you are so intent on proving that I am hysterical, you probably think that your position is rational. Kindly point out its cons (it's pretty clear what you think its pros are). If you can't think of the cons of your own position, then look for the hysteric in the mirror.
I've never understood why that situation means that Monsanto gets to sue the farmer instead of the other way around. Usually, if you do something in your yard, and that something comes over my fence and destroys my property, you are liable for paying to fix the problem. Yes, Monsanto seems to have lots of lawyers, but they must have deep pockets too. The key word is "do". They didn't do anything to make the seeds blow to your yard. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure you can't sue someone for something they didn't do and which didn't involve their property (the seeds at that point are no longer Monsato's). Growing the seeds (even if inadvertantly) is tentamount (at least in theory) to allowing theft to happen on your property.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Nobody said anything about living like Amish. (Poor debating tactic.) Considering that the ggp said
The Amish-American farmers that I live next door to don't seem to be having any problems. (Probably because they choose to use "open source" corn seeds, rather than patented Microsoft....er, Monsanto seeds.) "Nobody said anything about living like Amish" is just a blatant lie. I'll spare you the obvious references to avoid taking this the path of Godwin's law.
It's a choice, and each has pros & cons. Welcome to the "real world". I am well-aware of the fact that each choice has pros & cons. I was simply pointing out the inevitable cons of your position -- technologically (eventually) regressive society.
If you want to live like the Amish, you can. We chose not to. How about a deal: we let you (the amish) do you thing. And you let us do ours. We'll respect your rights to your land. And you respect ours rights to our land and our ideas. If you want to share your ideas with each other for free. Go ahed. If you want to use ours, kindly pay up.
For example, society determined it should be illegal for people to "negotiate" additional profit into the price of ice when the power goes out for an extended period of time. Here's something else that your precious "society" has determined: it's ok to kill people who won't give up their food in the time of famine (due to mismanagement by the above society):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with what you said is one word: "people". Children don't act like adults. They are very often driven by their emotions and act completely impulsively. This causes them to often act out in a violent manner. If you happen to have seen the "Freaks and Geeks" series, the episode where one child poisons another with peanuts (the second child has a peanut allergy) is quite realistic. No, I am not saying that children run around thinking of nothing but hurting each other all day. But they will, on occasion, do things which are harmful and without having any realization of the severity of the consequences of what they do. The problem with ardent conservatives is that they believe people are basically reasonable and the problem with ardent liberals is that they believe people are basically kind. Both only capture part of the human experience. Regardless of where you stand (although it appears that liberal is closer to your heart), the child did remain anonymous in that situation and the rules, as they were set up, did inhibit the schools primary mandate -- education. Egalitarianism in that situation plainly failed. The school had to compromise its primary mission. All the arguments about what the parents or the children could have done are particulars that no longer matter. The point of that post was that it was the philosophy that lead to this failure. And that point was correct. Had the school not tried to be egalitarian and insisted that the class proceed as usual, the child with latex allergy would be forced to do the reasonable thing (or risk harm) just by the nature of what was going on. But because the school decided to be egalitarian, everyone was disadvantaged.
That Zonk would put another social-engineering-is-good assertion with a rhetorical question mark after it. Fine. I'll do the obvious and answer a question with a question. Since the question was do the blind deserve preferenctial treatment, what does "deserve" mean?
It's your land. You have the responisibility to make sure that patents are not broken on it (assuming that breaking a patent is illegal). If you leave keys in your car and it gets stolen and used to rob a bank. The bank can sue you because your property was used to assist a robbery. Basicly, your property is your responsibility.
oh, how i am tired of pointing out to everyone who says what you say what they are really saying. grants=tips. wages are things you can negotiate. mathematicians used to work for tips. of them don't anymore. 90% of mathematicians that get ph.d's don't stay in academia. most of the work they do is covered by NDAs. they already figured out that working for you is a losing proposition. congrats on living in your world of "free" information. as for the "world hasn't fallen appart yet" comment, the progress which could have been made and hasn't been is kindda hard to measure. but people who work for tips are not likely to be the same people as the ones who carefully think through what is the most useful way to present information to you so that you could do your job in the most useful manner -- they aren't paid to do so. patent doesn't give you ownership as in ownership of a land. it's a limited-time ownership -- in recognition of the fact that ideas can be replicated for free unlike real-world materials. grants are really the ultimate slap in the face though. they make a statement that the best of people must gravel for money and not be able to sell the products of their live's work whereas the lepricons who use their work get to get wealth off of it.
Now that's quite a different argument. You might have a point. Although selling to general public is guided by the UCC while entering into a contract that involves an exchange of goods and money is not selling per se. Certain responsibilites can be "signed away". Since the damage is still done by the neighbor (the owner of the seeds), it is very likely that only the neighbor can be sued... because his contract with the company absolves the company of any responsibility for such an event. In the toaster analogy, the responsibility is on the manufacturer because he has a responsibility to the purchaser. Once that is gone, you might as well be suing sellers of knives (which are too sharp) every time you cut yourself.
If you want to live like the Amish, you can. We chose not to. How about a deal: we let you (the amish) do you thing. And you let us do ours. We'll respect your rights to your land. And you respect ours rights to our land and our ideas. If you want to share your ideas with each other for free. Go ahed. If you want to use ours, kindly pay up.