The very notion that eliminating humanity will preserve the planet undefiled is a tautology in of itself. Humans are part of nature - tool-using omnivores. Anybody who's telling you it was ever different has either drunk too much koolaid, or else not enough.
I've got plenty of tolerance for extreme greens, extreme vegans and extreme whatevers, so long as they don't bother me with it.
It seems, though, the problem is the extremism, not the underlying stance. Afterall, who cares if they believe the desert snail is more important than humanity, so long as they aren't trying to violently enforce that agenda? People don't hate the ELF because want to save the planet - they hate them because they're violent dipshits.
Well... actually, it's not a stupid political position of itself. I happen to agree that the planet as a whole is way more important than human endeavour, simply because if we happen to fuck it up we as a species are completely screwed. On that basis, I think it's worth sacrificing one, ten, a million people, if it saves the ecosystem from irreversible destruction (thus saving the rest of us with it).
The problem is that many people who agree that humanity is less important than the environment misinterpret that as "Humanity is not important at all" and then feel free to act wantonly. It's a logical failing of stupid people, but it's not the overarching philosophy itself that is stupid.
What is required is a fair dose of pragmatism. It's much easier and more effective to get one person, ten people, a million people, to change their ways or work with you than it is to destroy them. Likewise, you must pick your battles. Saving one whale at all costs will not dramatically help the world - use some of that effort to raise awareness so that the community demands the saving of all whales.
I disagree. Nothing about monopoles breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Even if they existed, there would still be constraints imposed by the rest of physics (eg. friction). Magnetic monopoles do not make that magically disappear.
Not quite true - I've seen a fair few BMWs in Canberra. My brother even owned one for a while (until his girlfriend). I said he should have dropped her in return. Alas, he married her instead, sold his bikes and now works a job he hates to pay for her.
I think that's because some much sci fi (as distinct from space opera) invariably invokes our fears and anxiety to make compelling stories, rather than developing sophisticated drama. If it's just a story about something sciency, then something must go wrong somewhere in order for there to be conflict; it writes itself. Contrast that to Star Wars and Star Trek, where the science involved is a tool - starships and lasers and space stations - but the conflict comes from personal, character driven scenarios which require forethought and pathos.
I don't think that catastrophe sci fi is anti-science, I just think it's easier - it's the 'disaster movie' equivalent.
And what exactly do they intend to use it for? Does this have any practical applications where it would be superior to an inorganic robot that isn't at risk of being eaten by the first moderately complex organism that thinks mold looks tasty?
There are three things that turn otherwise sensible people into assholes: money, cars and sex. So long as somebody thinks there's money to be made with them, they'll be around.
What's really interesting is that much Russian space technology hasn't changed from the 70s as a result of limited funding. As a result, they've pretty much got all the bugs out of their craft and it's very reliable. I think it's impressive that the American space hardware is just as reliable considering equally strenuous time constraints and stupid management in the US. Just imagine what could be accomplished if these space agencies were globally integrated, well-funded and properly managed. Spaceflight continues to be the crowning achievement of humanity; something we can all be proud of, no matter where we're from.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I think any network executive would be rightly lambasted for risking the profitability of the company on some damnfool idea like educating the masses rather than ensuring stable returns for investors. Sadly, the corporate culture is geared entirely towrads shareholder return, and ensures that 'safe and stupid' is the only investment made.
I would also say that TV is not necessarily socially demanded; in the circles I move in, it's chic not to have a TV and to get all your viewing from the internet. Hell, I've not even done that of late and I enjoy befuddling people when they talk about some show that is supposed to be uber-popular and I honestly say I've never heard of it. I prefer to spend my time differently these days.
You forget thinking of the children - after all, if we didn't routinely seize laptops, who knows what monstrous things not available on the internet might be brought into the country?
Good point - a real moon rock is hugely valuable. Who would really know enough to spot the difference at a distance? If you can get away with it, it's a fantastic swindle.
An interesting point! Is the internet simply making writing of others which might otherwise be hidden away in a personal diary somewhere actually accessible to others for the first time?
If nothing had ever happened to Anne Frank, probably none of us would have seen her writing, ever - she'd just be a normal girl too embarrassed to let other people see what she penned in her free time. Now through the internet, anyone with a will to write can be published.
It may be it's always been there, but now it's more visible.
You make a good point - is this entirely a refleciton of changes in the TV market as a whole? TV sets still seem to be selling; I wonder how many are being sold to technologically adept people who buy things like Tivos, compared to more average people. I get the feeling that the continued paucity of quality TV might be driving away the kinds of people who would otherwise buy it.
I disagree because... uhm... er... well... You make a good point there.
I guess there is a spectrum of sacrifices people will make; most people don't value privacy and liberty as much as they value life or food. Makes you wonder how far people would be prepared to go?
People trade liberty for safety; would people give up the right to education if it meant guaranteed employment? And then would they trade self-determination for guaranteed food?
And then would they in anyway distinguishable from slaves?
It's a scary thing when what you think is gone and hidden can suddenly be dredged up by accident at inopportune times. Same goes for files recovered from harddrives after deletion. Already, google finds those embarrassing photos from university days you thought were behind you.
As time goes on, will we learn to be more circumspect, or will society change to accept that people are not perfect?
Both can be changed, but neither easily. It would be political suicide to try to curtail the HRA; it effectively serves the same purpose as the constitution even if it's framed differently. There was much debate in Australia at one point, as well, as to whether we needed a bill of rights; in the end it was said that a bill of rights was superfluous and unnecessary since existing legislation did all that in practice (conspiracy theory: they wanted the power to remove our rights and enumerating them would make that harder!)
So far as file-sharing goes, I don't think either of them are expressly covered by either the constitution or the HRA. I think both governments could craft laws that would void file-sharing as a 'right' without making changes to any existing doctrine. It's not hard to imagine how it could be affected.
I don't think 'Primacy of Parliament' means what you think it means (and it's certainly not how you spell it). To start with the monarch technically retains executive authority, delegated to ministers. While it's true that there is no supra-legal constitution equivalent in the UK (the Human Rights Act is legislated), the ammendability of the US constitution makes them both mutable in practice. That said, the real-politik of the situation is that you can't just go rewriting the HRA or constitution willy-nilly.
Of course, the UK works on a negative-rights system, and it's quite possible that they can legislate rights out of existence to appease US interests and that may very well bring them into conflict with EU rulings. It'll be interesting to watch!
You're quite right - there are plenty of ways to kill time before you die, drinking and WoWing and slashdot commenting amongst them. These are all good things in moderation. However, I suspect most people would agree that there is too much of a good thing. It's the obsessive qualities of WoW players and alcoholics that is self-defeating, not the activity itself.
I must agree. This kind of company-obsessive crap is on the level of Apple fanboyism. There's a real world out there, people! You won't find the meaning of life at level 80.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got plenty of tolerance for extreme greens, extreme vegans and extreme whatevers, so long as they don't bother me with it.
It seems, though, the problem is the extremism, not the underlying stance. Afterall, who cares if they believe the desert snail is more important than humanity, so long as they aren't trying to violently enforce that agenda? People don't hate the ELF because want to save the planet - they hate them because they're violent dipshits.
The problem is that many people who agree that humanity is less important than the environment misinterpret that as "Humanity is not important at all" and then feel free to act wantonly. It's a logical failing of stupid people, but it's not the overarching philosophy itself that is stupid.
What is required is a fair dose of pragmatism. It's much easier and more effective to get one person, ten people, a million people, to change their ways or work with you than it is to destroy them. Likewise, you must pick your battles. Saving one whale at all costs will not dramatically help the world - use some of that effort to raise awareness so that the community demands the saving of all whales.
if they are middle class they will try and justify it under some 'flavour of the month' banner
Wait... are you saying that if they aren't middle class they'll justify it differently or not at all? What does class have to do with any of this?
I disagree. Nothing about monopoles breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Even if they existed, there would still be constraints imposed by the rest of physics (eg. friction). Magnetic monopoles do not make that magically disappear.
Not quite true - I've seen a fair few BMWs in Canberra. My brother even owned one for a while (until his girlfriend). I said he should have dropped her in return. Alas, he married her instead, sold his bikes and now works a job he hates to pay for her.
I don't think that catastrophe sci fi is anti-science, I just think it's easier - it's the 'disaster movie' equivalent.
And what exactly do they intend to use it for? Does this have any practical applications where it would be superior to an inorganic robot that isn't at risk of being eaten by the first moderately complex organism that thinks mold looks tasty?
I go to the same guy - I really wish he'd clean the razor between jobs.
Clearly, we need to figure out how to get the Russians to operate Woomera for us. Why we let that go to rust I will never understand.
Sorry. I'm an Aussie - any spaceflight looks terrific to us, since we blew our chances with Woomera.
There are three things that turn otherwise sensible people into assholes: money, cars and sex. So long as somebody thinks there's money to be made with them, they'll be around.
What's really interesting is that much Russian space technology hasn't changed from the 70s as a result of limited funding. As a result, they've pretty much got all the bugs out of their craft and it's very reliable. I think it's impressive that the American space hardware is just as reliable considering equally strenuous time constraints and stupid management in the US. Just imagine what could be accomplished if these space agencies were globally integrated, well-funded and properly managed. Spaceflight continues to be the crowning achievement of humanity; something we can all be proud of, no matter where we're from.
I would also say that TV is not necessarily socially demanded; in the circles I move in, it's chic not to have a TV and to get all your viewing from the internet. Hell, I've not even done that of late and I enjoy befuddling people when they talk about some show that is supposed to be uber-popular and I honestly say I've never heard of it. I prefer to spend my time differently these days.
DHS is an equal opportunity employer, you insensitive clod!
It's a good plan! Afterall - who better to trust with your valuables than a politician?
You forget thinking of the children - after all, if we didn't routinely seize laptops, who knows what monstrous things not available on the internet might be brought into the country?
Good point - a real moon rock is hugely valuable. Who would really know enough to spot the difference at a distance? If you can get away with it, it's a fantastic swindle.
If nothing had ever happened to Anne Frank, probably none of us would have seen her writing, ever - she'd just be a normal girl too embarrassed to let other people see what she penned in her free time. Now through the internet, anyone with a will to write can be published.
It may be it's always been there, but now it's more visible.
You make a good point - is this entirely a refleciton of changes in the TV market as a whole? TV sets still seem to be selling; I wonder how many are being sold to technologically adept people who buy things like Tivos, compared to more average people. I get the feeling that the continued paucity of quality TV might be driving away the kinds of people who would otherwise buy it.
I guess there is a spectrum of sacrifices people will make; most people don't value privacy and liberty as much as they value life or food. Makes you wonder how far people would be prepared to go? People trade liberty for safety; would people give up the right to education if it meant guaranteed employment? And then would they trade self-determination for guaranteed food?
And then would they in anyway distinguishable from slaves?
*suddenly paranoid*
As time goes on, will we learn to be more circumspect, or will society change to accept that people are not perfect?
So far as file-sharing goes, I don't think either of them are expressly covered by either the constitution or the HRA. I think both governments could craft laws that would void file-sharing as a 'right' without making changes to any existing doctrine. It's not hard to imagine how it could be affected.
Of course, the UK works on a negative-rights system, and it's quite possible that they can legislate rights out of existence to appease US interests and that may very well bring them into conflict with EU rulings. It'll be interesting to watch!
You're quite right - there are plenty of ways to kill time before you die, drinking and WoWing and slashdot commenting amongst them. These are all good things in moderation. However, I suspect most people would agree that there is too much of a good thing. It's the obsessive qualities of WoW players and alcoholics that is self-defeating, not the activity itself.
I must agree. This kind of company-obsessive crap is on the level of Apple fanboyism. There's a real world out there, people! You won't find the meaning of life at level 80.