So what happens when someone waves a sign around that I dont agree with, and I claim he is distrupting my freedom to not see the sign. Suppose someone waves a sign around with a picture of a baby fetus and says that abortion is murder. If I find the sign offensive do I have the right to not have to see it?
Do these things stop meerely at a visual level? Am I also allowed to yell things aloud? What too if that is disturbing someone in some way?
My theory: there is a negative correlation with sexual tension and good study habits. Asian men are typically much more sexually benign then black men. Sex and school simply do not mix.
I am going to get flamed for this, but coming from a school where most of the population is asian and black (affimative action-like policies anyone), I can certainly tell you that I am much more likely to catch a black guy staring a woman up and down versus an asian guy. I don't know how many asian men I have known that have had downright gorgeous female friends yet display absolutely no sexual desire for them.
Sex makes the world go round, so it should be examined first as a factor.
Assuming that there exist intelligent life out there, and assuming their are more than just us and them, and assuming they have the power to cross the entire universe. Isn't it safe to assume that they already know that life exists in the universe, and that they are not exactly looking for us? There is probably like a community of aliens across our galaxy who have already mastered space and time, and have created an ordered and peaceful civilization (how else will they have survived nuclear weapons, planet destroying super rays, ect....). If I were part of this super race, I certainly wouldn't want to come into contact with humans.
If for all we know we live in an infinitely large space, then we must have an infite amount of possible outcomes. I do not find it hard to believe that another race more intelligent than humans, exists or has existed at some point in time somewhere in this space. I would thing it would be arrogant to think otherwise.
I will never understand how Christians can be scientists, ever. I feel like I am living on some crazy world where up is down, and down is up.
"Religion survives scientific discovery, because ultimately it's not based on what is possible to know, but what is possible to feel - something science cannot touch."
I feel that religion is bullshit. No wait, I know that religion is bullshit. I also know that its possible to squeeze any interpretation from the Bible. I also think its safe to assume that no two people have the exact same interpretation. So unless all these interpretations are right, all but one or none of you have it right. The Bible is the worst possible manual for life because of its subjective nature. Not to mention all the details that have been lost in translation.
I am not saying that Science is perfect, because it certainly isn't. A good Scientist is a scrutinizing scientist. I cannot see how you can easily "believe" in something and be a careful scrutinizer of something that is far more probable and likely to be true.
BTW, I am not saying that a God or gods do not exist, and I do not guide my life based upon their existence. If anyone feels compelled to reply, I would love to hear your reasons for why you feel the Bible is true.
Don't making doing it illegal, just step up the punishments for fucking up. I think charging the guy with murder may be a bit harsh, but manslaughter certainly isnt enough. Stupidity is no excuse, and this especially holds when you are the victim.
I really wonder what the problem is. I have never felt that stripping away freedoms in response to social problems is a good way to foster a responsible, intelligent society. Typically it is much harder to find the true cause of the problem, rather then just illegalizing everything, but in the end it is a far better approach. These sort of preventative laws tend to only affect the more-or-less responsible demographics.
I will never understand how people recieve gratification from cheating. Playing games are predominantely about competition, about the visceral thrill of victory after putting lots of effort into it. The only problem today is that gaming has become far too mainstream. People view videogames like they view movies, they just want to sit back and beat it in 2 hours. Frankly, videogames make horrible movies . If your a true gamer, then I would expect you to embrace the challenge and put up with the fusteration of loss. You mention the game Gran Turismo I believe. You know, one of my most rewarding game moments was winning a 200-lap race. The feeling of just knowing that at any momement an hours worth of time could be lost in matter of seconds from a slip of the hand is what makes winning games all-the-more rewarding. Ideally, its nicer to have time friendly challenging games, but in all respects, cheating completely illigitimizes the entire reason for playing the game in the first place: the challenge.
What's your better more plausible theory out of curiousity? Faith... If so, then the original poster is absolutely correct and should be modded as funny/insightful and not flaimbait.
Is it UCR perhaps? If so, my thoughts are that UCR has taken a blame-the-user approach to solving its problems. I contracted a little virus (did not realize the firewall was not on), and they disconnected me entirely for a good 3-4 days. There was no warning, no message telling me I had something, did not even give me a chance to disinfect it myself. So here I am paying 40$ a month for a line having to wait 4 days without notice to get put back on during midterms. The people running the UCR networks are terrible policy makers.
Here are some gripes:
1.) They use Packetshaper and have all traffic but HTTP set to low priority. This makes virtually all latency-critical applications behave like shit.
2.) 5-gig down and 2-gig up limit. Wtf, for a 40$ line that cap should be a lot higher.
I am sorry. The students are paying their fair share for their bandwidth. They are not to decide how we spend our leisure moments. Yes, we go to school... Yes, we work hard... And no, we don't need somebody to tell us how we are supposed to allot our time. I study, I play online videogames all the time, and I have a 3.8 GPA here. There is absolutely no reason they should be telling us how we are to use our bandwidth assuming what we are doing is illegal.
When I got busted for piracy here, one thing the lawyer here I spoke with told me was that UCR has been under a lot of pressure from the BSA, RIAA, ect... A year after he told me that the following year all these policies came into effect.
They should only have bandwidth limits or caps. But they seriously need to get fucking rid of Packetshaper. I have one application that works right on here: firefox! All of my other data has to be tunneled. What can I say, the people making the network policies at UCR are absolute idiots.
Well, a word is just a word. If we are going to be arguing ethics we should probably stay clear of definitions. Definitions are absolute.
The real question:
Is it ethical to duplicate another persons work? Under what circumstances? Should it be an absolute rule?
Say I am a poor kid, is it ok if I duplicate software that is too expensive for me to afford? Lets say I am fourteen and my parents make 40k a year and I want to use Photoshop. Should wealthier kids have to work less to get the same product just because they are born that way? Should I be be excluded from certain activities because of my wealth? If I could not afford it and have other priorities, should I be considered a criminal?
If life isn't fair, should I care whether or not I hurt the wealthier people? Odds are they are deprieving me more than I am deprieving them.
Now, take for instance another scenario. I have the money to purchase an electronic copy of the good. The benefit of this product to me definitely outweighs the cost of purchase. Then, is it unethical for me to download it? I would say yes. Using somebodies work and not contributing as much as you have benefited from it is wrong.
Whether or not something is the law is irrelevant in my opinion. Laws are made by the rich and for the rich. I will always ask myself, is this law in place for my own good? Who does this law benefit?
We are always told not to steal, but frankly, what is stealing is very subjective. To me, owning lots of capital in the end deprieves the community and makes life much more difficult for the less fortunate (stealing from the community). We were not meant to live in a world where every day we work from 9-5 in a mundane job to survive. The protestant beliefs are rediculous and utter bullshit. 10$ in the hands of a poor man goes a much longer way than in the hands of a rich.
You can go ahead and ccept the bootraps mentality; work your ass off in a 9-5 job and feel like shit every day just to have the lifestyle of some rich douchebag child. If the bootsraps mentality was applicable to everyone, we wouldn't have Bush in office. These are all just lies we are told so we can serve our rich overlords.
In the end, the only person who gives a rats ass about my interests is me. To that extent, what benefits the community and makes the world a better place is what is ethical IMHO. Just because "stealing" is associated with bad does not mean it is. It's subjective and has to be placed within a context.
Much better to sell hugely popular games featuring rape, incest, and the general oppression of women, yes?
Yea, those themes seem to prevalent in Nintendo games.
Isn't it common sense that by throwing something into a delicate system maintained by cause and effect might have consequences (e.g. wise spread anti-biotic use selectively breeding resistant strains of bacteria)? Nature tends to adjust over time to new problems by the typically slow process of evolution (with the exception to simple organism like bacteria). What happens when you change things so quickly that nature just cannot adjust? Isn't it rather unethical to push something like G.M. foods onto the market before it is understood well enough?
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/community/#backg round
In defense of the religious people (a side I do not normally take), even Science is based on some axiomatic principles that are believed to be true. The axiom for a religious person is that everything revolves around some higher being: They percieve a "higher" truth. The problem is more along the lines of where their belief is derived from-- something that, in all probability, is not likely: The Bible.
But, suppose we are just beings in some dimension with limited scope and that there is a higher dimension of reality where every axiom we know is false and all of Science falls apart? Anything is possible and everything we do in life is an assumption.
"Awww man, I am soooo high right now... I have no idea what's going on" --Towlie
It's never been true since the Declaration of the Independence. Women, gays, African and Native Americans know what I am talking about. The amount of sheer brainwashing that churches and schools do is unbelievable.
A pun here and there is no harm. Some things you just can't help but laugh at... This is one of them. Now I am all for having a productive imagination, but this guys alter ego and physique are just polar opposites. This guy is sorta like the Star Wars kid at age 45. The least he could do is either design something that works with his physique, hire a model to display it, or lose some weight.
We are all nerds here... The difference is some of us know it.
It Could Never Work...
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 0
I believe All Advantage tried something similar. What ended up happening was a bunch of people who used hacks to simulate client behavior. Because of All Advantage I was making 1000$ a month doing nothing until the company eventually crumbled.
Now for the real question of ethics: "It is ok to cheat a spammer?"
Is this just bullshit? Do they actually intend to pay out the money?
How can a third world country develop when all the industries and policies are controlled by the US? Naturally the industries will produce in the cheapest areas possible, where there are no worker rights. How can one move up and improve their life when they are essentially slaves? No offense, but I don't see how having Nike in Taiwan does anything for the people. Industrialization is not exactly something that has to be done for a country to have a decent standard of living. It's all exploitation in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens when someone waves a sign around that I dont agree with, and I claim he is distrupting my freedom to not see the sign. Suppose someone waves a sign around with a picture of a baby fetus and says that abortion is murder. If I find the sign offensive do I have the right to not have to see it? Do these things stop meerely at a visual level? Am I also allowed to yell things aloud? What too if that is disturbing someone in some way?
I believe you mean an oversized labia.
My theory: there is a negative correlation with sexual tension and good study habits. Asian men are typically much more sexually benign then black men. Sex and school simply do not mix.
I am going to get flamed for this, but coming from a school where most of the population is asian and black (affimative action-like policies anyone), I can certainly tell you that I am much more likely to catch a black guy staring a woman up and down versus an asian guy. I don't know how many asian men I have known that have had downright gorgeous female friends yet display absolutely no sexual desire for them.
Sex makes the world go round, so it should be examined first as a factor.
Assuming that there exist intelligent life out there, and assuming their are more than just us and them, and assuming they have the power to cross the entire universe. Isn't it safe to assume that they already know that life exists in the universe, and that they are not exactly looking for us? There is probably like a community of aliens across our galaxy who have already mastered space and time, and have created an ordered and peaceful civilization (how else will they have survived nuclear weapons, planet destroying super rays, ect....). If I were part of this super race, I certainly wouldn't want to come into contact with humans.
If for all we know we live in an infinitely large space, then we must have an infite amount of possible outcomes. I do not find it hard to believe that another race more intelligent than humans, exists or has existed at some point in time somewhere in this space. I would thing it would be arrogant to think otherwise.
I will never understand how Christians can be scientists, ever. I feel like I am living on some crazy world where up is down, and down is up.
"Religion survives scientific discovery, because ultimately it's not based on what is possible to know, but what is possible to feel - something science cannot touch."
I feel that religion is bullshit. No wait, I know that religion is bullshit. I also know that its possible to squeeze any interpretation from the Bible. I also think its safe to assume that no two people have the exact same interpretation. So unless all these interpretations are right, all but one or none of you have it right. The Bible is the worst possible manual for life because of its subjective nature. Not to mention all the details that have been lost in translation.
I am not saying that Science is perfect, because it certainly isn't. A good Scientist is a scrutinizing scientist. I cannot see how you can easily "believe" in something and be a careful scrutinizer of something that is far more probable and likely to be true.
BTW, I am not saying that a God or gods do not exist, and I do not guide my life based upon their existence. If anyone feels compelled to reply, I would love to hear your reasons for why you feel the Bible is true.
Don't making doing it illegal, just step up the punishments for fucking up. I think charging the guy with murder may be a bit harsh, but manslaughter certainly isnt enough. Stupidity is no excuse, and this especially holds when you are the victim.
I really wonder what the problem is. I have never felt that stripping away freedoms in response to social problems is a good way to foster a responsible, intelligent society. Typically it is much harder to find the true cause of the problem, rather then just illegalizing everything, but in the end it is a far better approach. These sort of preventative laws tend to only affect the more-or-less responsible demographics.
Yea, I am totally with you. I drive drunk, above the speed limit, while having sex with my gf and I've never got into an accident.
I will never understand how people recieve gratification from cheating. Playing games are predominantely about competition, about the visceral thrill of victory after putting lots of effort into it. The only problem today is that gaming has become far too mainstream. People view videogames like they view movies, they just want to sit back and beat it in 2 hours. Frankly, videogames make horrible movies . If your a true gamer, then I would expect you to embrace the challenge and put up with the fusteration of loss. You mention the game Gran Turismo I believe. You know, one of my most rewarding game moments was winning a 200-lap race. The feeling of just knowing that at any momement an hours worth of time could be lost in matter of seconds from a slip of the hand is what makes winning games all-the-more rewarding. Ideally, its nicer to have time friendly challenging games, but in all respects, cheating completely illigitimizes the entire reason for playing the game in the first place: the challenge.
What's your better more plausible theory out of curiousity? Faith... If so, then the original poster is absolutely correct and should be modded as funny/insightful and not flaimbait.
Is it UCR perhaps? If so, my thoughts are that UCR has taken a blame-the-user approach to solving its problems. I contracted a little virus (did not realize the firewall was not on), and they disconnected me entirely for a good 3-4 days. There was no warning, no message telling me I had something, did not even give me a chance to disinfect it myself. So here I am paying 40$ a month for a line having to wait 4 days without notice to get put back on during midterms. The people running the UCR networks are terrible policy makers. Here are some gripes: 1.) They use Packetshaper and have all traffic but HTTP set to low priority. This makes virtually all latency-critical applications behave like shit. 2.) 5-gig down and 2-gig up limit. Wtf, for a 40$ line that cap should be a lot higher. I am sorry. The students are paying their fair share for their bandwidth. They are not to decide how we spend our leisure moments. Yes, we go to school... Yes, we work hard... And no, we don't need somebody to tell us how we are supposed to allot our time. I study, I play online videogames all the time, and I have a 3.8 GPA here. There is absolutely no reason they should be telling us how we are to use our bandwidth assuming what we are doing is illegal. When I got busted for piracy here, one thing the lawyer here I spoke with told me was that UCR has been under a lot of pressure from the BSA, RIAA, ect... A year after he told me that the following year all these policies came into effect. They should only have bandwidth limits or caps. But they seriously need to get fucking rid of Packetshaper. I have one application that works right on here: firefox! All of my other data has to be tunneled. What can I say, the people making the network policies at UCR are absolute idiots.
Well, a word is just a word. If we are going to be arguing ethics we should probably stay clear of definitions. Definitions are absolute. The real question: Is it ethical to duplicate another persons work? Under what circumstances? Should it be an absolute rule? Say I am a poor kid, is it ok if I duplicate software that is too expensive for me to afford? Lets say I am fourteen and my parents make 40k a year and I want to use Photoshop. Should wealthier kids have to work less to get the same product just because they are born that way? Should I be be excluded from certain activities because of my wealth? If I could not afford it and have other priorities, should I be considered a criminal? If life isn't fair, should I care whether or not I hurt the wealthier people? Odds are they are deprieving me more than I am deprieving them. Now, take for instance another scenario. I have the money to purchase an electronic copy of the good. The benefit of this product to me definitely outweighs the cost of purchase. Then, is it unethical for me to download it? I would say yes. Using somebodies work and not contributing as much as you have benefited from it is wrong. Whether or not something is the law is irrelevant in my opinion. Laws are made by the rich and for the rich. I will always ask myself, is this law in place for my own good? Who does this law benefit? We are always told not to steal, but frankly, what is stealing is very subjective. To me, owning lots of capital in the end deprieves the community and makes life much more difficult for the less fortunate (stealing from the community). We were not meant to live in a world where every day we work from 9-5 in a mundane job to survive. The protestant beliefs are rediculous and utter bullshit. 10$ in the hands of a poor man goes a much longer way than in the hands of a rich. You can go ahead and ccept the bootraps mentality; work your ass off in a 9-5 job and feel like shit every day just to have the lifestyle of some rich douchebag child. If the bootsraps mentality was applicable to everyone, we wouldn't have Bush in office. These are all just lies we are told so we can serve our rich overlords. In the end, the only person who gives a rats ass about my interests is me. To that extent, what benefits the community and makes the world a better place is what is ethical IMHO. Just because "stealing" is associated with bad does not mean it is. It's subjective and has to be placed within a context.
This is also a good reason why not to question the status quo. Sit down, shut up, and do as your told.
Much better to sell hugely popular games featuring rape, incest, and the general oppression of women, yes? Yea, those themes seem to prevalent in Nintendo games.
Isn't it common sense that by throwing something into a delicate system maintained by cause and effect might have consequences (e.g. wise spread anti-biotic use selectively breeding resistant strains of bacteria)? Nature tends to adjust over time to new problems by the typically slow process of evolution (with the exception to simple organism like bacteria). What happens when you change things so quickly that nature just cannot adjust? Isn't it rather unethical to push something like G.M. foods onto the market before it is understood well enough? http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/community/#backg round
Not as long as he remains the alpha nerd.
In defense of the religious people (a side I do not normally take), even Science is based on some axiomatic principles that are believed to be true. The axiom for a religious person is that everything revolves around some higher being: They percieve a "higher" truth. The problem is more along the lines of where their belief is derived from-- something that, in all probability, is not likely: The Bible. But, suppose we are just beings in some dimension with limited scope and that there is a higher dimension of reality where every axiom we know is false and all of Science falls apart? Anything is possible and everything we do in life is an assumption. "Awww man, I am soooo high right now... I have no idea what's going on" --Towlie
It's never been true since the Declaration of the Independence. Women, gays, African and Native Americans know what I am talking about. The amount of sheer brainwashing that churches and schools do is unbelievable.
The death toll seems to indicate the they Iraqis were better off under Saddam.
I have a more probable answer... It never happened!
"Let's see if mom will like me now!"
Godspeed young one, godspeed.....
I can only imagine the audience cheering after George falls into the pit and gets horribly deformed.
A pun here and there is no harm. Some things you just can't help but laugh at... This is one of them. Now I am all for having a productive imagination, but this guys alter ego and physique are just polar opposites. This guy is sorta like the Star Wars kid at age 45. The least he could do is either design something that works with his physique, hire a model to display it, or lose some weight. We are all nerds here... The difference is some of us know it.
I believe All Advantage tried something similar. What ended up happening was a bunch of people who used hacks to simulate client behavior. Because of All Advantage I was making 1000$ a month doing nothing until the company eventually crumbled. Now for the real question of ethics: "It is ok to cheat a spammer?" Is this just bullshit? Do they actually intend to pay out the money?
How can a third world country develop when all the industries and policies are controlled by the US? Naturally the industries will produce in the cheapest areas possible, where there are no worker rights. How can one move up and improve their life when they are essentially slaves? No offense, but I don't see how having Nike in Taiwan does anything for the people. Industrialization is not exactly something that has to be done for a country to have a decent standard of living. It's all exploitation in my book.