The environmental impact is the genetic contamination that results from inadvertent dispersal. The lawsuit-happiness of agribusinesses is only an additional threat, not the main one (which is that it becomes harder to find or grow unadulterated sugar beets, should the need arise).
the only people that I know who have bad things to say about ebook readers are those who don't actually read.
Then allow me to shake your world. I'm a reader. I've read around twenty-five books so far this year (and some of them should probably count double, since they were Robert Jordan (embarrassed cough)). I am not a fan of ebooks, principally because paper is such a wonderful interface. You can make notes on it. You can skim through it easily. It has a great feeling of weight in the hand. You can put stickies on it. You can find an interesting passage by remembering where on the page it was located, what the surrounding text looked like. You can reread a book and find little food stains or stray marks and remember the exact circumstances under which you were reading it the first time through (rereading books is actually a pretty profound way to recall your real life). Plus, no one will ever be able to surreptitiously delete your paper copy of 1984.
I know these don't seem like terribly compelling arguments -- they're about emotional quality and reading experience, not rationality. And I know that there's some real pluses for e-readers too, mostly in the area of portability and storage, and if I had an e-reader and had an accompanying e-book for every real book I have, I'd probably take the e-copies with me if I went on a trip... etc. But I just like real books, and I don't think an e-reader will replace them for me any time soon.
Add to which that ebooks are typically sold at hardcover prices. Screw that. If I'm paying hardcover money, I want a nice-quality book I can keep forever. Ebooks need to be sold at mass-market prices to be worthwhile; but they won't be, because most of the cost in putting out a book come from editing and marketing (which, naysayers aside, is actually really important). So, frankly, I don't see ebooks going anywhere for a while (short of as a lower-barrier-to-entry form of samizdat, which would be a good thing).
Now I'm not all that fussy about not eating bio-engineered food. But I think that biodiversity is a Good Thing, and that it's probably a good idea to preserve some uncontaminated stock (the old adage of "work on a backup" applies doubly when you're dealing with your food supply). Add to that the way a lot of the bioengineering agritech firms love to assert copyright over their "intellectual property" (plant genetic material), whether or not the farmer actually wanted it or if it was undesirable cross-pollination, and I say good for Judge White.
There's tyranny and then there's "extrajudicial killings of entire families are carried out by the government." Things are in a bad way -- but think about what you're basically proposing; you're saying that the best way to fight endemic government corruption which reaches up into the highest echelons of power is to... give the government more authority to kill people, and cross your fingers that this time it uses it responsibly?
Look, I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I think there are implications of what you're saying that could seriously backfire. Even the People's Anti-Corruption Justice Circle has some implementation issues. Putting together institutions that are more trustworthy than their worst members, that empower good people to mete out justice while hampering evil people from wreaking oppression--that stuff is hard, man. Like NP-Complete hard.
Shorter me: I like your ideas, but while I trust me to have my finger on the trigger, I don't know you so well.
Yeah, but this is the government. They're real sticklers for that sort of thing because they try to be all meritocratic, and presence of a degree is nice and objective (and if the value of whatever degree is present is not necessarily so objective, well... that's the problem with over-fixating on objectivity).
I have zero problem with executing corporations, since they aren't actually people anyway. And I think that someone who engages in this kind of government corruption (er, if the other posters saying she was duped are incorrect) being sentenced to hard labor, say... but I'd prefer the state didn't go around killing people, most especially on trumped-up charges of treason. That's too easily abused; seems like a slippery slope to tyranny.
Why do the citizens of your country continue to allow the government to take 30-40% of it away?
Because it's income, and income is taxable. The bigger question is why we continue to tolerate unearned income (e.g. investments, dividends) being taxed at a lower rate than work.
Meanwhile, if you ever win the lottery and are upset about getting only 60% of the payout, I will be happy to take the ticket off your hands for the dollar you paid for it.
Enough to get herself a responsible management position at an important technology office. I understand your meaning, but to be qualified for this job she absolutely had a college education, possibly master's degree, and at least five years of tech-related work experience, so she's at least come to money even if she hasn't come from it.
I'm not understanding something. If BSD lacks both the "desktop friendly stuff" and the "server-specific stuff"... then what exactly are BSD-based systems doing so stably, securely, and speedily?
...is just how laughably cheap people can be bought for. Two grand and some gift cards? SERIOUSLY? You'd go to jail for that? When you're a project manager at a government job with great benefits, probably making more than that every WEEK?
It's like the Abramoff scandal. People will sell out their country for Capitals tickets. It's not even the Bulls or something!!
You're confusing "being a threat" with "feeling safe." Your feelings are not a suitable yardstick for describing the nature of your environment. A threat is something that can cause harm. Whether or not you trust the person who's holding it right now is entirely irrelevant to whether it's a threat (although it can substantially alter your response).
actually, i feel safer when among people openly carrying weapons. the crime statistics for legal gun owners are lower than for the general population. so, one of those gun owners might just save my ass.
This actually proves my point. The gun, if it stops crime (which I've not seen convincing evidence for*), does so because it's a threat to the bad guy. Or are you telling me that non-threatening guns magically stop people from doing bad things?
why does a blue uniform change your judgement so that you feel safe with that person carrying a gun?
Why do you assume it does?
*(I forget the link I was shown most recently, but I stopped reading when I realized the comparison being made was between number of crimes committed in which a gun is fired, and crimes prevented by the presence of a gun, including as a deterrent. Because how many crimes are committed where the bad guy has a gun that he doesn't fire, but uses only as a deterrent? Oh right, lots.)
Actually, by that logic, you shouldn't go to a town hall and challenge your congressman to a cage fight. Yes, real martial arts training is focused on how to fight effectively (any discipline that isn't, is a combination of meditation and dance--and yes, I've studied all three). But why ban that? For that matter, where did I say we should ban guns? I just don't think they're appropriate in all social contexts, particularly when the abundant police presence ensures you have no need to worry about personal safety.
Why yes. Yes, mammals can smell death. Decomposing flesh releases specific chemical compounds that (in different concentrations and with different chemical contexts) also make that "stinky-feet smell," I believe my HS chem teacher told me it was butyric acid but I can't be bothered to look it up.
This one, you can smell too (if it's there). Or if you want to try it, just leave some liver lying around for a week uncovered. You'll smell it. Trust me.
You're missing the point. Of course the investigations of terrorism should proceed apace. Yes, enforcement agencies should keep an eye out to know when something seems to be about to go down; that's their job. None of this points to any need to inform the public of "increased suspicion of terrorist attack" or any such thing. The public is already too worried about terrorism, phoning in all kinds of false leads that do nothing but waste enforcement time and harass innocent people; telling them to be even more vigilant will just add noise to the signal (and, if the threat level is measured accurately, it will do so at the worst possible time)*. There is basically nothing that any average civilian can do that can increase the effectiveness of anti-terrorist law enforcement or increase that individual civilian's likelihood of surviving a terrorist attack (short of general disaster preparedness training, which ought to include a lot of things other than terrorism). And as you point out, if a terrorist attack goes off, people will be angry regardless of whether there was a color-coded safety level indicator published on the evening news, so why do it? Having a sense within enforcement agencies of when terrorist attacks are imminent is useful; telling the public about it is cynical manipulation. It needn't be; it could be a sincere, if misguided, desire to offer public warning. But when you have an entire party within American politics running on a platform of offering security against a fear that its own public relations stoke, then yes, that is cynical manipulation.
*(I'd also contend that the instances where civilian vigilance matters--"oh, hey, that guy in the exit row is trying to set his shoe on fire"--you don't need signage and threat level indicators to know you ought to tell someone.)
Keep in mind also that judges are people too, and they're people with well-known and publicly recorded decision histories, prejudices, and the like. That can have as much effect as anything.
More to the point, your parents cautioned you against talking to strangers. They didn't wake you up in the morning and say, "Be especially vigilant today, little Timmy, it's a RED ALERT kidnappers day!"
Awareness and sane response to threats is the path of a mature, informed citizen. Spreading some kind of terrorist tea-leaf weather report is fear-mongering, plain and simple. (And just what are American citizens supposed to do in response to "threat levels," anyway?)
A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.
A holstered/slung firearm that represents no threat to anyone is a piece of jewelry. The only way a weapon (of any kind) represents no threat is if there is a certainty that it will never be used. There's no reason to carry a weapon that won't be used, but if it might be used, then its very purpose is to be a threat that others take seriously. Possibly a legitimate threat (a deterrent against attacks to your person, perhaps), but a threat nonetheless. (Even if you guarantee you will never use your weapon, it represents a threat to yourself, because it encourages everyone around you to treat you as more dangerous than you are and respond to you more aggressively than otherwise).
Slashdot Mirror
The environmental impact is the genetic contamination that results from inadvertent dispersal. The lawsuit-happiness of agribusinesses is only an additional threat, not the main one (which is that it becomes harder to find or grow unadulterated sugar beets, should the need arise).
the only people that I know who have bad things to say about ebook readers are those who don't actually read.
Then allow me to shake your world.
I'm a reader. I've read around twenty-five books so far this year (and some of them should probably count double, since they were Robert Jordan (embarrassed cough)).
I am not a fan of ebooks, principally because paper is such a wonderful interface. You can make notes on it. You can skim through it easily. It has a great feeling of weight in the hand. You can put stickies on it. You can find an interesting passage by remembering where on the page it was located, what the surrounding text looked like. You can reread a book and find little food stains or stray marks and remember the exact circumstances under which you were reading it the first time through (rereading books is actually a pretty profound way to recall your real life).
Plus, no one will ever be able to surreptitiously delete your paper copy of 1984.
I know these don't seem like terribly compelling arguments -- they're about emotional quality and reading experience, not rationality. And I know that there's some real pluses for e-readers too, mostly in the area of portability and storage, and if I had an e-reader and had an accompanying e-book for every real book I have, I'd probably take the e-copies with me if I went on a trip... etc. But I just like real books, and I don't think an e-reader will replace them for me any time soon.
Add to which that ebooks are typically sold at hardcover prices. Screw that. If I'm paying hardcover money, I want a nice-quality book I can keep forever. Ebooks need to be sold at mass-market prices to be worthwhile; but they won't be, because most of the cost in putting out a book come from editing and marketing (which, naysayers aside, is actually really important). So, frankly, I don't see ebooks going anywhere for a while (short of as a lower-barrier-to-entry form of samizdat, which would be a good thing).
Now I'm not all that fussy about not eating bio-engineered food. But I think that biodiversity is a Good Thing, and that it's probably a good idea to preserve some uncontaminated stock (the old adage of "work on a backup" applies doubly when you're dealing with your food supply).
Add to that the way a lot of the bioengineering agritech firms love to assert copyright over their "intellectual property" (plant genetic material), whether or not the farmer actually wanted it or if it was undesirable cross-pollination, and I say good for Judge White.
There's tyranny and then there's "extrajudicial killings of entire families are carried out by the government." Things are in a bad way -- but think about what you're basically proposing; you're saying that the best way to fight endemic government corruption which reaches up into the highest echelons of power is to... give the government more authority to kill people, and cross your fingers that this time it uses it responsibly?
Look, I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I think there are implications of what you're saying that could seriously backfire. Even the People's Anti-Corruption Justice Circle has some implementation issues. Putting together institutions that are more trustworthy than their worst members, that empower good people to mete out justice while hampering evil people from wreaking oppression--that stuff is hard, man. Like NP-Complete hard.
Shorter me: I like your ideas, but while I trust me to have my finger on the trigger, I don't know you so well.
Yeah, but this is the government. They're real sticklers for that sort of thing because they try to be all meritocratic, and presence of a degree is nice and objective (and if the value of whatever degree is present is not necessarily so objective, well... that's the problem with over-fixating on objectivity).
I have zero problem with executing corporations, since they aren't actually people anyway. And I think that someone who engages in this kind of government corruption (er, if the other posters saying she was duped are incorrect) being sentenced to hard labor, say... but I'd prefer the state didn't go around killing people, most especially on trumped-up charges of treason. That's too easily abused; seems like a slippery slope to tyranny.
Execute all three.
Yeah, China called, they want their judiciary system back.
Why do the citizens of your country continue to allow the government to take 30-40% of it away?
Because it's income, and income is taxable. The bigger question is why we continue to tolerate unearned income (e.g. investments, dividends) being taxed at a lower rate than work.
Meanwhile, if you ever win the lottery and are upset about getting only 60% of the payout, I will be happy to take the ticket off your hands for the dollar you paid for it.
George W. Bush.
Next question please?
Enough to get herself a responsible management position at an important technology office. I understand your meaning, but to be qualified for this job she absolutely had a college education, possibly master's degree, and at least five years of tech-related work experience, so she's at least come to money even if she hasn't come from it.
I'm not understanding something. If BSD lacks both the "desktop friendly stuff" and the "server-specific stuff"... then what exactly are BSD-based systems doing so stably, securely, and speedily?
In a proprietary project if your boss says "do this" you either do it or find another job.
Or you make excuses, pass the buck, and sponge off your colleagues until the next reorg.
...is just how laughably cheap people can be bought for. Two grand and some gift cards? SERIOUSLY? You'd go to jail for that? When you're a project manager at a government job with great benefits, probably making more than that every WEEK?
It's like the Abramoff scandal. People will sell out their country for Capitals tickets. It's not even the Bulls or something!!
You're confusing "being a threat" with "feeling safe." Your feelings are not a suitable yardstick for describing the nature of your environment. A threat is something that can cause harm. Whether or not you trust the person who's holding it right now is entirely irrelevant to whether it's a threat (although it can substantially alter your response).
actually, i feel safer when among people openly carrying weapons. the crime statistics for legal gun owners are lower than for the general population. so, one of those gun owners might just save my ass.
This actually proves my point. The gun, if it stops crime (which I've not seen convincing evidence for*), does so because it's a threat to the bad guy. Or are you telling me that non-threatening guns magically stop people from doing bad things?
why does a blue uniform change your judgement so that you feel safe with that person carrying a gun?
Why do you assume it does?
*(I forget the link I was shown most recently, but I stopped reading when I realized the comparison being made was between number of crimes committed in which a gun is fired, and crimes prevented by the presence of a gun, including as a deterrent. Because how many crimes are committed where the bad guy has a gun that he doesn't fire, but uses only as a deterrent? Oh right, lots.)
...need more rage?
...yes. The hard part of a Massively Multiplayer Online Game does in fact come from the Massively part.
Actually, by that logic, you shouldn't go to a town hall and challenge your congressman to a cage fight.
Yes, real martial arts training is focused on how to fight effectively (any discipline that isn't, is a combination of meditation and dance--and yes, I've studied all three). But why ban that? For that matter, where did I say we should ban guns? I just don't think they're appropriate in all social contexts, particularly when the abundant police presence ensures you have no need to worry about personal safety.
Why yes. Yes, mammals can smell death. Decomposing flesh releases specific chemical compounds that (in different concentrations and with different chemical contexts) also make that "stinky-feet smell," I believe my HS chem teacher told me it was butyric acid but I can't be bothered to look it up.
This one, you can smell too (if it's there). Or if you want to try it, just leave some liver lying around for a week uncovered. You'll smell it. Trust me.
It may take longer than half an hour for the decomposition process to release these fatty acids.
You're missing the point.
Of course the investigations of terrorism should proceed apace. Yes, enforcement agencies should keep an eye out to know when something seems to be about to go down; that's their job. None of this points to any need to inform the public of "increased suspicion of terrorist attack" or any such thing. The public is already too worried about terrorism, phoning in all kinds of false leads that do nothing but waste enforcement time and harass innocent people; telling them to be even more vigilant will just add noise to the signal (and, if the threat level is measured accurately, it will do so at the worst possible time)*. There is basically nothing that any average civilian can do that can increase the effectiveness of anti-terrorist law enforcement or increase that individual civilian's likelihood of surviving a terrorist attack (short of general disaster preparedness training, which ought to include a lot of things other than terrorism). And as you point out, if a terrorist attack goes off, people will be angry regardless of whether there was a color-coded safety level indicator published on the evening news, so why do it? Having a sense within enforcement agencies of when terrorist attacks are imminent is useful; telling the public about it is cynical manipulation. It needn't be; it could be a sincere, if misguided, desire to offer public warning. But when you have an entire party within American politics running on a platform of offering security against a fear that its own public relations stoke, then yes, that is cynical manipulation.
*(I'd also contend that the instances where civilian vigilance matters--"oh, hey, that guy in the exit row is trying to set his shoe on fire"--you don't need signage and threat level indicators to know you ought to tell someone.)
A room full of beer, on the other hand... just think of the possibilities!
Treaties.
I can't be bothered to google it some more, but yes, Virginia, countries generally respect each others' patents.
Keep in mind also that judges are people too, and they're people with well-known and publicly recorded decision histories, prejudices, and the like. That can have as much effect as anything.
More to the point, your parents cautioned you against talking to strangers. They didn't wake you up in the morning and say, "Be especially vigilant today, little Timmy, it's a RED ALERT kidnappers day!"
Awareness and sane response to threats is the path of a mature, informed citizen. Spreading some kind of terrorist tea-leaf weather report is fear-mongering, plain and simple. (And just what are American citizens supposed to do in response to "threat levels," anyway?)
A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.
A holstered/slung firearm that represents no threat to anyone is a piece of jewelry.
The only way a weapon (of any kind) represents no threat is if there is a certainty that it will never be used. There's no reason to carry a weapon that won't be used, but if it might be used, then its very purpose is to be a threat that others take seriously. Possibly a legitimate threat (a deterrent against attacks to your person, perhaps), but a threat nonetheless.
(Even if you guarantee you will never use your weapon, it represents a threat to yourself, because it encourages everyone around you to treat you as more dangerous than you are and respond to you more aggressively than otherwise).