I'm stopping here. Imagined? You're either trolling, or fucking retarded.
You saw pictures, you read the description. You deny the obvious? Fuck you, and your little dog too.
My little dog is called Scrameustache, he follows me affectionately from story to story and provides endless amusement for everyone on/. .
In your head you make little pictures. This process is called Imagination. The past perfect is imagined. You were upset by seeing a black Ford because you had pictured him as being white. Therefore you had imagined Ford to be white.
Incidentally, you've again failed to address 98% of my wonderful insightful post and focused on a tiny little throwaway line that you thought (incorrectly) you could nitpick. Consider this objectively and decide whether this mode of argument leads to a constructive debate, or not.
And no, I am not "fucking" retarded. Whether or not you are, I suppose would depend on if you're over 13 years old or not. Go and wash your mouth out and come back when you can argue your case without relying on juvenile insults.
Yep. I'm doing my bit now - 34% downloaded at time of typing. Actually, I have a website I ought to test in different browsers, so now that I have it, it'll probably get installed too.
It's touching to see someone willing to die for the sake of their product.:D
If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid?
I am not a Canadian lawyer, but it seems reasonable. However, since the Internet made national borders obsolete, you have to bare in mind that you're transferring music abroad (assuming you accept the definition of "uploading" which I don't). It might be worth checking if Canada has any international agreements that would be broken by uploading, something akin to smuggling.
Note, this point is valid within its own context, though I disagree with the underlying assumptions that you are "uploading" by doing this.
I had said I survived only because of stubborness.
Good for you mate. Live forever, or die in the attempt - that's my motto. Yeah, you get burned out sometimes, or you run dry as I think of it; but sometimes it only takes a bit of success to re-ignite the fires. The deeper the stubborness goes the harder it is to actually kill.
Anyway, just replying because this story is old, and I doubt many are still reading it, but what you're talking about - stubborness, absolutely agree - it can keep you alive. Stay stubborn. You ain't alone, we're just spread far and wide cause every country needs bastards like us.;)
Yes, I do remember you. You had the viewpoint that because you had imagined Ford to be white, a white actor should be cast in the role of Ford to save you from "cognitive dissonance." To protect your preconceptions, you argued a talented (and good looking) actor should be turned down for the part. You also couldn't see why others thought this racist.
You also attempted to argue that Ford was white because he turned into a penguin in the first book. Which was a little wasted because if you had read the second book, you would come across the passage that Ford, having been roaming prehistoric earth, had returned with bronzed skin, implying that it had not been bronzed before. Now Ford could still be Chinese or Japanese, but is unlikely to be black as is Mos Def. However, your penguin arguments were too funny to spoil by giving you the answer that you wanted.
It doesn't really matter to me what colour skin Ford was described as having in the book as my counter to you was (and remains) not that the book says this or that, but that this is irrelevant to the character and it doesn't matter what race the actor is if he gets the character right. I think soothing your pre-conceptions is a poor reason for rejecting someone.
Addendum: Why would you think that Mos Def was hired for the sake of "tokenism?" If the World's population were 2% black, then a high ratio of black actors in a film would seem odd, but given that black people comprise a fair share of the World's population, then it is only natural to expect a similar proportion of ethnic groups in a film.
It probably is insightful on/. The news that there are people who don't find HH2G hilarious will be a radical and unprecedented viewpoint to many here.
As would the fact that people may not like the movie for reasons other than because "it's different to the book." Honestly, every other comment is someone saying justcauseitisn'tlikethebookrealfanswouldneverbehap pyetcthebooksweredifferenttotheradiosoitsallgoodre ally
I've just moved from Mandrake 10.1 to Ubuntu (Sarge in disguise) and it's beautiful. Almost everything I'm installing is saying "No, I don't want anything more thanks, I've got all my dependancies right here." The same goes for multimedia - most of it was ready for me, and the rest was remedied by a quick download and uncompressing of the essential codecs package at mplayerhq.
If we can just hold off the European patent laws a little longer then I think we've almost arrived at user-friendly linux.
It's a very interesting idea. I laughed out loud when you compared your idea with the current situation as torture - you have a good point, although bear in mind that solitary is still a punishment for prisoners though, so it must be at least percieved as worse than normal imprisonment.
What you haven't explicitly stated in your post, although it's clearly the idea at the centre of it, is that the removal of social context is what will force the prisoner to develop. For most people, defining themselves by the face they want to present to others is a large part of defining themselves in total. Removing this context suddenly forces self-awareness to fill the void. Hopefully, when the prisoner emerges, this will not be pushed back again. I believe the Hatha Yoga book is a superb idea as Yoga brings on a state of psychological change.
Of course, who the prisoner decides to become is up to him, and for this reason I like your approach, although the incarceration time would have to be dramatically reduced. Social deprivation is still a torture. I don't mean this in the legal definition (although it is), but that it really is a form of torture. Bear in mind that the prisoner is unlikely to be going into this in a clear and prepared way. He will be thrown into this forcefully, abruptly, facing the loss of a partner, perhaps and with all the various emotional trials of guilt, anger and finding yourself reduced to powerlessness by strangers,
You might want to take a look at this fellah who went through some of what you describe. He's genuinely an exceptional person and well worth reading about.
Internet access=less bored=less likely to start a fight, no?
Yes. Also, Internet access=more informed / educated=more opportunities for coping with life without resorting to crime.
Seriously, we might still be in the stage of society where Internet access isn't vital for routine life, but only just. You want to cope in a working environment these days, you need to be Web-savvy. It's how you find jobs, read news, maintain contacts and skills, etc etc ad infinitem. Soon, deprival of Internet access will be on a parr with gagging and blindfolding them 24/7
The whole idea of a society where the right to vote is granted to those willing to invest a certain amount of time dedicated to society somehow seems very attractive.
Of course, who decides the form your contribution should take to earn your vote? Those in power. Who decides when your "right" to vote has been forfeited? Those in power. What you have now established is a self-preserving power elite that cannot be democratically removed. You might be able to change the odd person, but not the system - any meaningful attempt to do that would have been categorised a vote-forfeiting felony long ago.
Remember that in Starship Troopers people were earning the right to vote by serving a term in the military. What do you think they were needed for if not to surpress the non-voters. Well, okay, there were the bugs, but I don't see them on Earth, yet. Starship Troopers was a pretty funny satire. People could have their vote when they'd been through bootcamp and shown that they could be trusted to obey orders and vote how the powerful wanted them to.
I just hope it remains +4 funny and doesn't become +5 Insightful.
You realize that this constitutes torture under International Treaties?
That said, the inclusion of the Hatha Yoga book shows you have some idea. You're envisioning prisoners coming out enlightened and self-aware. Could work, but do you really think the authorities want free-thinking criminals? After all, they might turn their liberated attention to the social / environmental conditions that led them to crime. What a problem for the governments that would be!
Arguing over whether supplying drugs (tobacco, anyone?) should be a felony may be academic to whether or not prisoners should be prevented from voting. It depends what you think the purpose of prison is for. As a deterrant, I think it's largely useless (see below), and presumably deterrence is the purpose of punishment. Even if you do regard the purpose of prison as deterrence, denial of voting rights isn't going to scare anyone. Which leaves the purposes of re-habilitation and protection of society. I would think that for the first, encouraging prisoners to participate in a democratic process for their country is engaging them in a useful way; and for the second, given who the remaining non-felons of the US voted in last year, I can't imagine you need protecting from prisoner's voting preferances.;)
* I don't believe prisons work as a deterrant because (a) real violent crime usually operates on a seperate level to the "if I do X --> Y consequence" and (b) if it were really such a deterrant, would there be such a high re-offending rate. Higher-end white collar crime might be more deterred by the risk of prison, but these criminals are less likely to be sent there. The really powerful shape the laws to make what they want to do legal and what they don't want other people doing, illegal.
Agree with both points (although anyone with a little savvy should be able to get this on a PC), but a little addendum.
It's only a couple of generations ago that all music was essentially open to the public, and considerably more open than this! If you heard a good song and you could play an instrument, then you'd probably perform it yourself somewhere. That's how it grew.
Amen! Enough with the talk about rights of advertisers and rights of consumers. We need to look at the practical implications of this. After all, ethics comes down to the greater good.
Assuming we can continue to block ads easily and near completely, what are the implications? Will the Web (not Internet) lose quality due to lack of financial support from advertisers or will it not?
My personal belief is that it will survive just fine. My reasoning is that the actual costs of hosting and providing anything other than heavy media or massively popular information is low enough (and still falling) that the Web can run quite happily without support from advertisers. If anything, ad-supporting inflates costs.
I think that what minimal costs there are can be bourne by those parties that are interested.
And if this is all the case, then I'm happy to do my bit to shift the model of the Web away from being a medium controlled by advertising sponsors.
I'm sick of people desperately trying to sell me things everywhere I look.
You're right - the best way to change the World is to get on with it. The majority of people will start following once you get somewhere. But bear in mind, you can never tell who you may have influenced, both through your words and through your actions. You may have achieved more good than you realize. Even stopping an erosion is progress sometimes.
Hang in there, mate. All I know is that however, frustrating it is to keep banging my head against mankind's ignorance, I'm still happier with myself that way than I am giving up the fight. There's a pleasure in being a stubborn bitch sometimes.
First off, what the Hell does Lord of the Rings have to do with whether this will be a good film or not?
More to the point though, how do you know the film will be close to the book. Even if it were close to the book, it doesn't mean it'll be a good film. Two people can tell a joke and one will make it funny and the other drag it out.
But since DNA didn't even keep true to his original work, how can you criticize?
I haven't criticised, I'm interested in what it was that Douglas Adams was fighting them on. After all, he has produced very funny books and radio plays on this idea. I respect the gift for humour and intelligence he had. If he had fights with the studio over which direction the film would take, then I'd like to know what they were. Whether or not the film varied the plot yet again, the author knew what was funny and what wasn't.
You have it on your list down the bottom, but you didn't stress the possible value of Helium-3. Once the Fusion reactor is going, we're going to want some of that to feed it with. The potential energy output per kg is so great that it would actually be worth flying it back to Earth!
And being able to turn off your own or another's aggression would be a good thing for who? Aggression can allow us to stand up for ourselves and our loved ones, to compete and to generally not be the sheep that governments and police want you to be.
Aside from which, 19/20 times, aggression is the symptom, not the cause. Hey, we don't need to see why youths vandalise, hassle or assault people, we'll just blanket the deprived area with aggression neutralising laser beams.
Aggression is the human emotion of feeling threatened. Remember - don't deal with it, accept it, with Anger-Be-Gone laser pointers, available on prescription.
And yet, the editors got exactly what they wanted from you:
Not entirely. I'm hearing this sentiment from people quite a lot here recently, or else I'm noticing it more -- people saying, enough, I'm off, goodbye. The effect it has on me is that I begin to feel the site is in a slow decline, which in turn makes me less interested.
And the post is a symptom, not the thing itself. The things that cause the GP to abandon/. also cause others to leave without posting their farewells and still more not to get really involved in the first place. There is plenty of interest happening in the world of technology and science. I don't feel that this is one of them.
I've also just been wading through the story on life's early origins which, yet again, turned into a flamefest of angry rationalists and unconvincable Creationists. GP has a point.
Ok. Then what existed before the beginning of time itself?
It's really a limitation of your reality model that causes you to ask this, in the same way as square trying to imagine being a cube.
Try and picture a globe with South being past and North being Future. I can't tell you where on the globe we are or how big it is without knowing how long the Universe will last, but you get the idea. Now if you were to ask me in the same puzzled voice about Earth: "But... but... what's South of South?" Then I would reply, 'nothing, that's the end of the globe.'
The same applies with Time. The Universe has more than the three dimensions of a sphere, but each dimension is still curved in on itself.
"But... but... what's before Before?" Nothing, that's the end of the globe.
And if I were still a subscriber, I'd look back at the comment history and see what it was you said that prompted me to add you to the list. And before anyone else chips in, my Friends list is predominantly made up of those who say interesting things or can put together a well-structured argument. Only a few of them are in there so that I can keep an eye on them and counter their nefarious misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm stopping here. Imagined? You're either trolling, or fucking retarded. You saw pictures, you read the description. You deny the obvious? Fuck you, and your little dog too.
My little dog is called Scrameustache, he follows me affectionately from story to story and provides endless amusement for everyone on
In your head you make little pictures. This process is called Imagination. The past perfect is imagined. You were upset by seeing a black Ford because you had pictured him as being white. Therefore you had imagined Ford to be white.
Incidentally, you've again failed to address 98% of my wonderful insightful post and focused on a tiny little throwaway line that you thought (incorrectly) you could nitpick. Consider this objectively and decide whether this mode of argument leads to a constructive debate, or not.
And no, I am not "fucking" retarded. Whether or not you are, I suppose would depend on if you're over 13 years old or not. Go and wash your mouth out and come back when you can argue your case without relying on juvenile insults.
Yep. I'm doing my bit now - 34% downloaded at time of typing. Actually, I have a website I ought to test in different browsers, so now that I have it, it'll probably get installed too.
It's touching to see someone willing to die for the sake of their product.
If this is correct, would it not be the case that the people making the copy would be protected against suit only if the copy was being made to media for which the surcharge was paid?
I am not a Canadian lawyer, but it seems reasonable. However, since the Internet made national borders obsolete, you have to bare in mind that you're transferring music abroad (assuming you accept the definition of "uploading" which I don't). It might be worth checking if Canada has any international agreements that would be broken by uploading, something akin to smuggling.
Note, this point is valid within its own context, though I disagree with the underlying assumptions that you are "uploading" by doing this.
I had said I survived only because of stubborness.
Good for you mate. Live forever, or die in the attempt - that's my motto. Yeah, you get burned out sometimes, or you run dry as I think of it; but sometimes it only takes a bit of success to re-ignite the fires. The deeper the stubborness goes the harder it is to actually kill.
Anyway, just replying because this story is old, and I doubt many are still reading it, but what you're talking about - stubborness, absolutely agree - it can keep you alive. Stay stubborn. You ain't alone, we're just spread far and wide cause every country needs bastards like us.
Yes, I do remember you. You had the viewpoint that because you had imagined Ford to be white, a white actor should be cast in the role of Ford to save you from "cognitive dissonance." To protect your preconceptions, you argued a talented (and good looking) actor should be turned down for the part. You also couldn't see why others thought this racist.
You also attempted to argue that Ford was white because he turned into a penguin in the first book. Which was a little wasted because if you had read the second book, you would come across the passage that Ford, having been roaming prehistoric earth, had returned with bronzed skin, implying that it had not been bronzed before. Now Ford could still be Chinese or Japanese, but is unlikely to be black as is Mos Def. However, your penguin arguments were too funny to spoil by giving you the answer that you wanted.
It doesn't really matter to me what colour skin Ford was described as having in the book as my counter to you was (and remains) not that the book says this or that, but that this is irrelevant to the character and it doesn't matter what race the actor is if he gets the character right. I think soothing your pre-conceptions is a poor reason for rejecting someone.
Addendum: Why would you think that Mos Def was hired for the sake of "tokenism?" If the World's population were 2% black, then a high ratio of black actors in a film would seem odd, but given that black people comprise a fair share of the World's population, then it is only natural to expect a similar proportion of ethnic groups in a film.
It probably is insightful on
As would the fact that people may not like the movie for reasons other than because "it's different to the book." Honestly, every other comment is someone saying justcauseitisn'tlikethebookrealfanswouldneverbeha
The point is that Microsoft's market share is
Surely not - shouldn't the real point be why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low that this is just a given now and not worthy of comment?
I've just moved from Mandrake 10.1 to Ubuntu (Sarge in disguise) and it's beautiful. Almost everything I'm installing is saying "No, I don't want anything more thanks, I've got all my dependancies right here." The same goes for multimedia - most of it was ready for me, and the rest was remedied by a quick download and uncompressing of the essential codecs package at mplayerhq.
If we can just hold off the European patent laws a little longer then I think we've almost arrived at user-friendly linux.
It's a very interesting idea. I laughed out loud when you compared your idea with the current situation as torture - you have a good point, although bear in mind that solitary is still a punishment for prisoners though, so it must be at least percieved as worse than normal imprisonment.
What you haven't explicitly stated in your post, although it's clearly the idea at the centre of it, is that the removal of social context is what will force the prisoner to develop. For most people, defining themselves by the face they want to present to others is a large part of defining themselves in total. Removing this context suddenly forces self-awareness to fill the void. Hopefully, when the prisoner emerges, this will not be pushed back again. I believe the Hatha Yoga book is a superb idea as Yoga brings on a state of psychological change.
Of course, who the prisoner decides to become is up to him, and for this reason I like your approach, although the incarceration time would have to be dramatically reduced. Social deprivation is still a torture. I don't mean this in the legal definition (although it is), but that it really is a form of torture. Bear in mind that the prisoner is unlikely to be going into this in a clear and prepared way. He will be thrown into this forcefully, abruptly, facing the loss of a partner, perhaps and with all the various emotional trials of guilt, anger and finding yourself reduced to powerlessness by strangers,
You might want to take a look at this fellah who went through some of what you describe. He's genuinely an exceptional person and well worth reading about.
Internet access=less bored=less likely to start a fight, no?
Yes. Also, Internet access=more informed / educated=more opportunities for coping with life without resorting to crime.
Seriously, we might still be in the stage of society where Internet access isn't vital for routine life, but only just. You want to cope in a working environment these days, you need to be Web-savvy. It's how you find jobs, read news, maintain contacts and skills, etc etc ad infinitem. Soon, deprival of Internet access will be on a parr with gagging and blindfolding them 24/7
The whole idea of a society where the right to vote is granted to those willing to invest a certain amount of time dedicated to society somehow seems very attractive.
Of course, who decides the form your contribution should take to earn your vote? Those in power. Who decides when your "right" to vote has been forfeited? Those in power. What you have now established is a self-preserving power elite that cannot be democratically removed. You might be able to change the odd person, but not the system - any meaningful attempt to do that would have been categorised a vote-forfeiting felony long ago.
Remember that in Starship Troopers people were earning the right to vote by serving a term in the military. What do you think they were needed for if not to surpress the non-voters. Well, okay, there were the bugs, but I don't see them on Earth, yet. Starship Troopers was a pretty funny satire. People could have their vote when they'd been through bootcamp and shown that they could be trusted to obey orders and vote how the powerful wanted them to.
I just hope it remains +4 funny and doesn't become +5 Insightful.
Fuck!
You realize that this constitutes torture under International Treaties?
That said, the inclusion of the Hatha Yoga book shows you have some idea. You're envisioning prisoners coming out enlightened and self-aware. Could work, but do you really think the authorities want free-thinking criminals? After all, they might turn their liberated attention to the social / environmental conditions that led them to crime. What a problem for the governments that would be!
Arguing over whether supplying drugs (tobacco, anyone?) should be a felony may be academic to whether or not prisoners should be prevented from voting. It depends what you think the purpose of prison is for. As a deterrant, I think it's largely useless (see below), and presumably deterrence is the purpose of punishment. Even if you do regard the purpose of prison as deterrence, denial of voting rights isn't going to scare anyone. Which leaves the purposes of re-habilitation and protection of society. I would think that for the first, encouraging prisoners to participate in a democratic process for their country is engaging them in a useful way; and for the second, given who the remaining non-felons of the US voted in last year, I can't imagine you need protecting from prisoner's voting preferances.
* I don't believe prisons work as a deterrant because (a) real violent crime usually operates on a seperate level to the "if I do X --> Y consequence" and (b) if it were really such a deterrant, would there be such a high re-offending rate. Higher-end white collar crime might be more deterred by the risk of prison, but these criminals are less likely to be sent there. The really powerful shape the laws to make what they want to do legal and what they don't want other people doing, illegal.
Agree with both points (although anyone with a little savvy should be able to get this on a PC), but a little addendum.
It's only a couple of generations ago that all music was essentially open to the public, and considerably more open than this! If you heard a good song and you could play an instrument, then you'd probably perform it yourself somewhere. That's how it grew.
Amen! Enough with the talk about rights of advertisers and rights of consumers. We need to look at the practical implications of this. After all, ethics comes down to the greater good.
Assuming we can continue to block ads easily and near completely, what are the implications? Will the Web (not Internet) lose quality due to lack of financial support from advertisers or will it not?
My personal belief is that it will survive just fine. My reasoning is that the actual costs of hosting and providing anything other than heavy media or massively popular information is low enough (and still falling) that the Web can run quite happily without support from advertisers. If anything, ad-supporting inflates costs.
I think that what minimal costs there are can be bourne by those parties that are interested.
And if this is all the case, then I'm happy to do my bit to shift the model of the Web away from being a medium controlled by advertising sponsors.
I'm sick of people desperately trying to sell me things everywhere I look.
You're right - the best way to change the World is to get on with it. The majority of people will start following once you get somewhere. But bear in mind, you can never tell who you may have influenced, both through your words and through your actions. You may have achieved more good than you realize. Even stopping an erosion is progress sometimes.
Hang in there, mate. All I know is that however, frustrating it is to keep banging my head against mankind's ignorance, I'm still happier with myself that way than I am giving up the fight. There's a pleasure in being a stubborn bitch sometimes.
First off, what the Hell does Lord of the Rings have to do with whether this will be a good film or not?
More to the point though, how do you know the film will be close to the book. Even if it were close to the book, it doesn't mean it'll be a good film. Two people can tell a joke and one will make it funny and the other drag it out.
But since DNA didn't even keep true to his original work, how can you criticize?
I haven't criticised, I'm interested in what it was that Douglas Adams was fighting them on. After all, he has produced very funny books and radio plays on this idea. I respect the gift for humour and intelligence he had. If he had fights with the studio over which direction the film would take, then I'd like to know what they were. Whether or not the film varied the plot yet again, the author knew what was funny and what wasn't.
This movie was in deadlock for a long time until Douglas Adams died. In a reasonably short time span after this, things began moving.
My question is what things did Douglas Adams block that have now gone ahead?
You have it on your list down the bottom, but you didn't stress the possible value of Helium-3. Once the Fusion reactor is going, we're going to want some of that to feed it with. The potential energy output per kg is so great that it would actually be worth flying it back to Earth!
Tell you what, build the base on the other side of the moon and send Goths. Lots of Goths.
Gothsss in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!
And being able to turn off your own or another's aggression would be a good thing for who? Aggression can allow us to stand up for ourselves and our loved ones, to compete and to generally not be the sheep that governments and police want you to be.
Aside from which, 19/20 times, aggression is the symptom, not the cause. Hey, we don't need to see why youths vandalise, hassle or assault people, we'll just blanket the deprived area with aggression neutralising laser beams.
Aggression is the human emotion of feeling threatened. Remember - don't deal with it, accept it, with Anger-Be-Gone laser pointers, available on prescription.
And yet, the editors got exactly what they wanted from you:
Not entirely. I'm hearing this sentiment from people quite a lot here recently, or else I'm noticing it more -- people saying, enough, I'm off, goodbye. The effect it has on me is that I begin to feel the site is in a slow decline, which in turn makes me less interested.
And the post is a symptom, not the thing itself. The things that cause the GP to abandon
I've also just been wading through the story on life's early origins which, yet again, turned into a flamefest of angry rationalists and unconvincable Creationists. GP has a point.
Of course they didn't, everyone knows that. The British did!
More specifically, the Welsh... of course.
Ok. Then what existed before the beginning of time itself?
It's really a limitation of your reality model that causes you to ask this, in the same way as square trying to imagine being a cube.
Try and picture a globe with South being past and North being Future. I can't tell you where on the globe we are or how big it is without knowing how long the Universe will last, but you get the idea. Now if you were to ask me in the same puzzled voice about Earth: "But... but... what's South of South?" Then I would reply, 'nothing, that's the end of the globe.'
The same applies with Time. The Universe has more than the three dimensions of a sphere, but each dimension is still curved in on itself.
"But... but... what's before Before?" Nothing, that's the end of the globe.
Hi!
You're not one of them.
And if I were still a subscriber, I'd look back at the comment history and see what it was you said that prompted me to add you to the list. And before anyone else chips in, my Friends list is predominantly made up of those who say interesting things or can put together a well-structured argument. Only a few of them are in there so that I can keep an eye on them and counter their nefarious misinformation.