If you are indeed them, then why do vegans refuse to eat you?
By negotiation I mean I'll build a hammer and smash a rock into small pieces and move on to the next rock until there are no rocks left or I need to build a better hammer and continue on. Or I work out a deal where the rocks smash against themselves, perhaps through a medium of moving water, and I can sit back and relax.
I am not a mouse by the simple fact you can't bribe me with cheese or peanut butter and you can't use those commonly used things to catch me in a trap. Also mice can't talk and pinky and brain are cartoons and fake.
I am not your friend because, well you don't have me listed as one in your profile.
Even though you are a stranger, I'd choose you over a mouse which was my friend. While the mouse's life is precious and I really liked it. If it had to give its life to save yours of whom I do not know and I had a choice, that would be my decision. Perhaps it is a petty thing to say but a mouse can't look you in the face and thank you for saving it. You can. But that's not the point. Might as well ask which has more meaning, you are grass. Since you are a vegetarian, you don't eat meat. So you feel vegetables are of a lesser value than animals that walk around and with which can be more easily identified.
I'd rather not muddle through and would rather like to renegotiate the terms of the arrangement.
Better is relative to everyone and everything. What is better to me might be better or worse for you. It is better for me that I get to live and try to contribute to society. It is better for you to save a mouse which is your friend, for I am neither a mouse or your friend.
If more people drove hybrids, then some wouldn't be able to throw it in other people's faces and try to use it as a means of feeling superior or tell others that they are "beneath them".
All life has meaning but some things are more meaningful than others. Lest we have the choice to either save a human or a mouse. What would be your decision? I believe more meaning should be given to the human no matter what state, than to the mouse or any other beings on earth. Though I believe we can coexist, when it is the choice between one life or another. I'll choose the one that seems to have more potential.
"Walk uphill?" Hah, great one. How about we build a hill beneath us so we don't have to walk up it?
Survival is not, ultimately, achieved by holding things static. It is achieved by effectively coping with change.
Yes we can cope with change, the larger the change, the more detrimental it seems for us. Could we cope without fire, perhaps.. Would we have ever achieved what we achieved without it and be so successful? Doubtful. So surviving is coping with small changes. Change some fundamental thing like gravity and how would one cope with that? Surviving is adapting to changes to a certain extent. Beyond that we are doomed.
We used tools to overcome our own shortcomings to become the dominate species on this planet and spread out farther than any other animal. Take away our ability to wisely use such tools and what advantage would we have left over everything else?
"Grow where you're planted, but always keep a bag packed and be ready to run like hell."
Awesome comment by the way. Yes, but if something disastrous happened to the earth tomorrow, where would you run? Do you have a spaceship ready to fly you to another planet, solar system, galaxy?
Intelligence is adapting. Wisdom is seeing that something is beyond our natural ability to change. Survival is using our intelligence and wisdom to keep it at an acceptable level of change or find/make some place else better suited for us.
Ahh the great KFG. I've been reading your posts for quite some time. It is an honor.
Is man arrogant to think he could destroy all meaningful life on this earth? Is he arrogant when he tries to cultivate it instead of letting it be destroyed? Whether islands and other low lying areas are being covered in raising sea levels caused by us, barely nudged in that direction or even through a process totally unrelated to our actions. We change our environment to suit us. While that isn't totally encompassing, who is to say that won't one day be the case?
Do you not see a progression? Building homes, cutting down forests and farming land, herding wild animals and domesticating them for our own benefit, building dams thus forming lakes, making man made islands. True given adequate time, the elements would take back such unnatural changes and find a balance.
Whether the rising sea levels be our fault or not, is there nothing we can do? I place my hope in mankind. If the water is rising because of us then we can stop it. If not, then at least we can try or alter the effects it would have on us by doing what we have already been doing. Perhaps that is foolish and we can never achieve such change, still I rather be foolish than accept it the way it is.
Indeed, the only thing constant is change. Perhaps it is arrogant and ignorant of me to believe, that we can change it back.
Atlantis anyone?
Seriously though, the severity of this "unprecedented" time will only cause most unaffected by swelling sea levels to erroneously wait and when it does become a precedented event, they will probably be in danger of being affected. Since the precedent has been set, and they were too self absorbed to try to do anything about it since it didn't affect them, they'll be in the same boat as everyone else.
Boat, water.. Pun indeed.
When we look back on predictions we often find them absurd. Where as the ones we think of mediocre and not very awe inspiring, turn out to be the most valid. In such cases those who predicted the future were the ones who were down in there working to make it happen. They knew what was possible or at least what they thought they could make happen. Instead of sitting back and waiving their hand hoping others would make their dreams come true. They thought of the future as a progressive change instead of a revolution of technology at every turn.
If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way.
Well, one is free to read a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free, some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs.
And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this..
Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or Firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done.
Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal wi
If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way.
Well, one is free to read a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free, some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs.
And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this..
Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or Firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done.
Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal with. It is yours, it is your conten
Slashdot Mirror
Started with 11/mo, now 96/yr.
Not just that, but from a galaxy, far far away.
The aliens who seeded life on earth of course!
If you are indeed them, then why do vegans refuse to eat you?
By negotiation I mean I'll build a hammer and smash a rock into small pieces and move on to the next rock until there are no rocks left or I need to build a better hammer and continue on. Or I work out a deal where the rocks smash against themselves, perhaps through a medium of moving water, and I can sit back and relax.
I am not a mouse by the simple fact you can't bribe me with cheese or peanut butter and you can't use those commonly used things to catch me in a trap. Also mice can't talk and pinky and brain are cartoons and fake.
I am not your friend because, well you don't have me listed as one in your profile.
Who on Slashdot actually follows links, especially when they are in signatures? I think everyone in this thread was trying to be funny, including me.
Even though you are a stranger, I'd choose you over a mouse which was my friend. While the mouse's life is precious and I really liked it. If it had to give its life to save yours of whom I do not know and I had a choice, that would be my decision. Perhaps it is a petty thing to say but a mouse can't look you in the face and thank you for saving it. You can. But that's not the point. Might as well ask which has more meaning, you are grass. Since you are a vegetarian, you don't eat meat. So you feel vegetables are of a lesser value than animals that walk around and with which can be more easily identified.
I'd rather not muddle through and would rather like to renegotiate the terms of the arrangement.
Better is relative to everyone and everything. What is better to me might be better or worse for you. It is better for me that I get to live and try to contribute to society. It is better for you to save a mouse which is your friend, for I am neither a mouse or your friend.
Or use offshore drilling rigs where there used to be land.
If more people drove hybrids, then some wouldn't be able to throw it in other people's faces and try to use it as a means of feeling superior or tell others that they are "beneath them".
All life has meaning but some things are more meaningful than others. Lest we have the choice to either save a human or a mouse. What would be your decision? I believe more meaning should be given to the human no matter what state, than to the mouse or any other beings on earth. Though I believe we can coexist, when it is the choice between one life or another. I'll choose the one that seems to have more potential.
"Walk uphill?" Hah, great one. How about we build a hill beneath us so we don't have to walk up it?
Survival is not, ultimately, achieved by holding things static. It is achieved by effectively coping with change.
Yes we can cope with change, the larger the change, the more detrimental it seems for us. Could we cope without fire, perhaps.. Would we have ever achieved what we achieved without it and be so successful? Doubtful. So surviving is coping with small changes. Change some fundamental thing like gravity and how would one cope with that? Surviving is adapting to changes to a certain extent. Beyond that we are doomed.
We used tools to overcome our own shortcomings to become the dominate species on this planet and spread out farther than any other animal. Take away our ability to wisely use such tools and what advantage would we have left over everything else?
"Grow where you're planted, but always keep a bag packed and be ready to run like hell."
Awesome comment by the way. Yes, but if something disastrous happened to the earth tomorrow, where would you run? Do you have a spaceship ready to fly you to another planet, solar system, galaxy?
Intelligence is adapting. Wisdom is seeing that something is beyond our natural ability to change. Survival is using our intelligence and wisdom to keep it at an acceptable level of change or find/make some place else better suited for us.
You do know that I was joking, right? :)
Ahh the great KFG. I've been reading your posts for quite some time. It is an honor.
Is man arrogant to think he could destroy all meaningful life on this earth? Is he arrogant when he tries to cultivate it instead of letting it be destroyed? Whether islands and other low lying areas are being covered in raising sea levels caused by us, barely nudged in that direction or even through a process totally unrelated to our actions. We change our environment to suit us. While that isn't totally encompassing, who is to say that won't one day be the case?
Do you not see a progression? Building homes, cutting down forests and farming land, herding wild animals and domesticating them for our own benefit, building dams thus forming lakes, making man made islands. True given adequate time, the elements would take back such unnatural changes and find a balance.
Whether the rising sea levels be our fault or not, is there nothing we can do? I place my hope in mankind. If the water is rising because of us then we can stop it. If not, then at least we can try or alter the effects it would have on us by doing what we have already been doing. Perhaps that is foolish and we can never achieve such change, still I rather be foolish than accept it the way it is.
Indeed, the only thing constant is change. Perhaps it is arrogant and ignorant of me to believe, that we can change it back.
Atlantis anyone? Seriously though, the severity of this "unprecedented" time will only cause most unaffected by swelling sea levels to erroneously wait and when it does become a precedented event, they will probably be in danger of being affected. Since the precedent has been set, and they were too self absorbed to try to do anything about it since it didn't affect them, they'll be in the same boat as everyone else. Boat, water.. Pun indeed.
Hmm, (Microsoft bullshit protocol)? Perhaps use %nbsp; (No bullshit protocol) instead next time.
Perhaps he was censoring it because it was "Fark".
If you were really out there making it happen.. Would you be on Slashdot? I think not.
When we look back on predictions we often find them absurd. Where as the ones we think of mediocre and not very awe inspiring, turn out to be the most valid. In such cases those who predicted the future were the ones who were down in there working to make it happen. They knew what was possible or at least what they thought they could make happen. Instead of sitting back and waiving their hand hoping others would make their dreams come true. They thought of the future as a progressive change instead of a revolution of technology at every turn.
It is not the bottle FP's should be worried about, it's where he'll put it.
Broom closet my ass!
If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way.
Well, one is free to read a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free, some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs.
And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this..
Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or Firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done.
Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal wi
If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way. Well, one is free to read a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free, some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs. And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this.. Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or Firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done. Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal with. It is yours, it is your conten
How about you give him some hydrogen, mix it with some chlorine and blast it with a stream of photons?
That's even easier than what I was doing. I was out in the woods chopping off bear claws.
They think they might be able to reattach my left arm..
If that were the movie, I'm sure his father would have encouraged him to explore the whole computer with a modem thing.
Slashdot Effect is to Google as is a bullet to a train.