And people wonder why there's an obesity epidemic - we train our children to keep eating so they can have nice tasting things. Why not just give them smaller portions if they feel they've had enough already?
"Alright. You've not finished your vegetables. Here's your dessert, but you won't be getting as much vegetables or dessert next time."
Once upon a time, such people were shunned by the tribe and starved to death. Today, we have built infrastructures that enable these people to survive and thrive. In return, they ruin us.
What the TSA should be doing is doing is handing out pamphlets as you board the plane:
"Your responsibilities in the case of terrorist attack:
Given the recent tactics employed by hijackers, travellers should be aware that, in the unlikely event that assailtants gain control of the aircraft, survival of crew and passengers is unlikley.
Should beligerent persons attempt to gain control of the aircraft, it is the duty and obligation of every able-bodied passenger to resist with deadly force and the expectation that failure means certain death.
To assist you in this contingency, combat knives and rope have been placed under every seat in the aircraft. If unsure whether the aircraft is in the process of being hijacked, please ask a member of the crew for clarification."
That's not how peer reveiw works. To get ones research published in a journal, you submit the work and they send it to experts in the field to be checked and vetted. Once the reviews come back ok and any corrections or clarrifications made, the article is published and the publisher sells the compiled volume to other researchers interested in work going on in the field. Believe it or not, researchers don't acutally get paid for having their work published. Most would just as well give and get their articles disseminated without charge. Unfortunately the peer review process needs someone to organise it, and that someone needs to be paid. Short of government subsidised publishing or pro-bono editorial by professional societies, without charging for volumes, journals can't be produced while maintaining rigorous technical standards. And yes, I've been on both sides of the review/submission end of journal publication.
I find your comments about tearing down social constructs without constructing replacements as a little odd. Each individual lives life only once. It is meaningless to say that we have not constructed replacements for religious community, when any other community that the person experiences is just as legitimate for them as the one their parents enjoyed. Likewise with the family; if a child grows up with two male parents, for that child it is just as normal as a nuclear family. Why does any replacement need to be an institution that is 'lasting' beyond the lives of the people it exists to serve? If you have been living under a rock recently, there's been a lot of progress going on in microculture development both online and off. Exciting things are a foot for those who take the time to find and involve themselves in them.
If you are going to establish a dictatorship with nearly unlimited power (like the Chinese system) shouldn't it be that government that provides from its citizens?
+1 idealism, -5 naivety.
Do you really think the party hacks give a damn about mud farmers in the distant provinces? All they care about is adding another 0 on the end of their bank balance.
This is exactly the crux of the problem. Crucially, it is much much easier to locate those 999 people than it is to find the one who actually produced it. Consequently, law enforcement agencies target the easier criminals: less effort and more impressive on your resume. The problem is the metric we use to assess the performance of law enforcement which leads to suboptimal distribution of limited resources.
I remember when they said TV would kill newspapers. But we knew then that you can't wrap fish and chips in a TV. Sadly, TV has no such redeeming prosaic use.
Oh for a pound of mod points. I quite agree with you. Democratisation of media is viewed as a Very Bad Thing by those who make their livelihoods as a funnel for creative output. The same mind-set is what drives the persecution of religions in China - a popular voice you don't control is very intimidating to those in power. I think what we'll see is the rise of media corporations acting as labels and agents for 'indie' blogs, whereby certain protections are afforded bloggers and online content producers in exchange for a cut of the profits and mindshare.
This story has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. Unscrupulous business owners commit impossible to verify moral misconduct, selling a fattening product to unsuspecting consumers (who therefore cannot be held blameless).
This worries me - if being 'sexually dangerous' is reason to hold people who have served their term in indefinite detention, is being 'violently dangerous' likewise cause? I'd like to know if there's a precedent.
Actually, this was in my thoughts as I posted that comment. I think it would be a worthwhile tool to put online.
Do you have a lump?
Yes Is it a big lump?
No. Is it dark?
No. Is it somewhere embarrassing?
Yes. Does it hurt?
No. Does it leak something?
Yes. Diagnosis: LeakyLumpyitis
Recommendation: You'll survive.
or alternatively,
Do you have a lump?
Yes Is it a big lump?
No. Is it dark?
Yes. You are eaten by a grue.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but how is this offtopic? This is a meaningful reply to the parent. Alas, I have no mod points to make a correction.
And people wonder why there's an obesity epidemic - we train our children to keep eating so they can have nice tasting things. Why not just give them smaller portions if they feel they've had enough already?
"Alright. You've not finished your vegetables. Here's your dessert, but you won't be getting as much vegetables or dessert next time."
Once upon a time, such people were shunned by the tribe and starved to death. Today, we have built infrastructures that enable these people to survive and thrive. In return, they ruin us.
And there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
...
Right?
What the TSA should be doing is doing is handing out pamphlets as you board the plane:
"Your responsibilities in the case of terrorist attack:
Given the recent tactics employed by hijackers, travellers should be aware that, in the unlikely event that assailtants gain control of the aircraft, survival of crew and passengers is unlikley.
Should beligerent persons attempt to gain control of the aircraft, it is the duty and obligation of every able-bodied passenger to resist with deadly force and the expectation that failure means certain death.
To assist you in this contingency, combat knives and rope have been placed under every seat in the aircraft. If unsure whether the aircraft is in the process of being hijacked, please ask a member of the crew for clarification."
That's not how peer reveiw works. To get ones research published in a journal, you submit the work and they send it to experts in the field to be checked and vetted. Once the reviews come back ok and any corrections or clarrifications made, the article is published and the publisher sells the compiled volume to other researchers interested in work going on in the field. Believe it or not, researchers don't acutally get paid for having their work published. Most would just as well give and get their articles disseminated without charge. Unfortunately the peer review process needs someone to organise it, and that someone needs to be paid. Short of government subsidised publishing or pro-bono editorial by professional societies, without charging for volumes, journals can't be produced while maintaining rigorous technical standards. And yes, I've been on both sides of the review/submission end of journal publication.
I'm pretty sure that if -that- were also true, NASA would have long ago cut costs by building them again each time.
Simply not true. Follow the link - it includes a great picture of the jettisoned SRB floating in the ocean just prior to recovery.
Which is still better than what you get on Fox.
And thus our passive-aggressive society continues its long slide into authoritarian tyranny, because it's easier to blog than act.
'Nicotine' does kinda sound like a French girl's name. So does Caffeine, for that matter.
Only caffeine truly loves me.
I find your comments about tearing down social constructs without constructing replacements as a little odd. Each individual lives life only once. It is meaningless to say that we have not constructed replacements for religious community, when any other community that the person experiences is just as legitimate for them as the one their parents enjoyed. Likewise with the family; if a child grows up with two male parents, for that child it is just as normal as a nuclear family. Why does any replacement need to be an institution that is 'lasting' beyond the lives of the people it exists to serve? If you have been living under a rock recently, there's been a lot of progress going on in microculture development both online and off. Exciting things are a foot for those who take the time to find and involve themselves in them.
If you are going to establish a dictatorship with nearly unlimited power (like the Chinese system) shouldn't it be that government that provides from its citizens?
+1 idealism, -5 naivety.
Do you really think the party hacks give a damn about mud farmers in the distant provinces? All they care about is adding another 0 on the end of their bank balance.
This is exactly the crux of the problem. Crucially, it is much much easier to locate those 999 people than it is to find the one who actually produced it. Consequently, law enforcement agencies target the easier criminals: less effort and more impressive on your resume. The problem is the metric we use to assess the performance of law enforcement which leads to suboptimal distribution of limited resources.
We can only hope.
Ah, I see now you are correct. I shall cease being faggy immediately.
I remember when they said TV would kill newspapers. But we knew then that you can't wrap fish and chips in a TV. Sadly, TV has no such redeeming prosaic use.
In what way is my 'equivalence' false?
Oh for a pound of mod points. I quite agree with you. Democratisation of media is viewed as a Very Bad Thing by those who make their livelihoods as a funnel for creative output. The same mind-set is what drives the persecution of religions in China - a popular voice you don't control is very intimidating to those in power. I think what we'll see is the rise of media corporations acting as labels and agents for 'indie' blogs, whereby certain protections are afforded bloggers and online content producers in exchange for a cut of the profits and mindshare.
This is a self-limiting problem. Once they block enough of the internet, people who have become habituated on it will push for change.
This story has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. Unscrupulous business owners commit impossible to verify moral misconduct, selling a fattening product to unsuspecting consumers (who therefore cannot be held blameless).
Surely you mean dolphins with frick'n lasers?
This worries me - if being 'sexually dangerous' is reason to hold people who have served their term in indefinite detention, is being 'violently dangerous' likewise cause? I'd like to know if there's a precedent.
Actually, this was in my thoughts as I posted that comment. I think it would be a worthwhile tool to put online.
Do you have a lump?
Yes
Is it a big lump?
No.
Is it dark?
No.
Is it somewhere embarrassing?
Yes.
Does it hurt?
No.
Does it leak something?
Yes.
Diagnosis: LeakyLumpyitis
Recommendation: You'll survive.
or alternatively,
Do you have a lump?
Yes
Is it a big lump?
No.
Is it dark?
Yes.
You are eaten by a grue.