"+1 interesting" as it may be, from that point on the parent was utterly wrong.
Some definitions: TSE is the general name of the TYPE of disease. Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE), or "Mad Cow's Disease", is the specific name of the disease as it appears in bovine, or cows. Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) disease is the specific name of the disease at it appears in people.
Some common points of confusion:
There are multiple forms of CJD, dependent upon how it is contracted
cCJD, or Classical CJD is a genetic form
In cCJD, YOUR BODY produces the malfolded protein (prion) which causes the disease. This is rare and ONLY manifests itself in the elderly (>55). It is a rare genetic defect (about 1:1 million) that causes this.
nCJD (or sometimes nvCJD) is the acquired form of the disease. It can be acquired from contact with any infected bodily fluid and, of course, meat. It can affect anyone of any age.
A person can get nCJD by contact with a cow with BSE OR a person with cCJD. This is why they aren't allowing blood transfusions of possibly infected people.
All people are susceptible to the disease. It's simply a matter of contracting the disease. This is difficult to do if you: 1. Don't practice cannibalism (prevent contact to CJD) 2. Slaughter cows without coming into contact with the brain or spine (prevent contact to BSE) and 3. Prevent contact with an infected patient's spinal fluid (this really only applies to healthcare professionals, but it's fundamentally no different from #1)
Wow...thanks for providing a fact filled response to my display of facts (irrelevant or otherwise is left up to the reader to decide.) My first thought was not to reply, since you didn't provide anything of substance to reply to. But this is/., so what the hell...
Facts? You talked about your monthly bills and that you bought a motorcycle. Those are anecdotal details, not facts relevant to your larger claim that market forces are sufficient to stop an energy crisis.
Fact: Worldwide, oil demand is increasing and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
Fact: Worldwide, oil production, on the other hand, is leveling off and will probably continue to or may even begin to decline in the near future.
See how that works?
Competition is an amazing thing... businesses find all kinds of ways to cut costs when they have to. And if prices go up 25% AND 25% fewer people fly, well, we have a magical 25% reduction in consumption, don't we.
But the free-market supply-demand curve is a simplification only completely accurate in ideal circumstances. The airline industry is, in fact, probably best example of an industry where such a simplification doesn't work. First of all, the airline industry is highly subsidized and regulated by the government. The basic infrastructure costs are enormous, and these costs are present regardless of demand. Combine that with the fact that the profit-margins are slim and based upon a high-volume of demand and it's obvious that simply increasing prices won't help. Listen, we're not talking about fucking lemonade stands here.
Faith that market forces will stop the inevitable fuel crisis is a bit misguided. While consumers can "buy closer houses," use motorcycles, or carpool, many industries (which far out use residential use) have no way to cut their oil expenses.
Take the airlines, for instance. A minor change in the price of crude oil sends their bottom-line crashing. At some point, there's nothing more that they can do to limit that cost. In fact, given the already high cost of oil as it is, one could assume that the streamlining effect of the market would dictate that they already have cut costs where they could. Now, imagine what a %10 or %25 increase in the price of oil would do to these already beleaguered industries. Furthermore, imagine what effect the failure of the airline industries would have on other parts of the market.
And this isn't an isolated example of the oil-dependence of our market. Our national infrastructure is a house of cards propped up against the cheap price of oil. There's not going to be time for the market to react if a large shortage in supply occurs.
Suppose through (bought) legislation, or some other means, a company found a way to charge everybody in the country a recurring charge every month, while providing no service at all. This is the Holy Grail of corporate America; every company that could do this would be required to, in orcer to keep the stock price up. This would lead to the company essentially being a parasite on the economy; a large enough parasite could bleed the economy dry.
Exactly. And that example simply focuses on economics. It doesn't take much research to see how much most modern businesses care about non-market values--they don't. Examples include: freedom of expression, the environment, employee (domestic and foreign) health/safety and so on.
One could argue that the content industry in the United States is almost exactly what you describe. How else can you explain the related legislation? The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act which increased copyright protections to 75 years--greater than the average US male lifespan male--does not promote the arts and sciences. In fact, it arguably does the opposite. What it does do is allow companies to make money without providing a product or service. The only difference being that by promoting strict copyright protections abroad, the parasite isn't limited to simply the domestic economy.
mean, can't the shareholders see value in the company doing things right for the surrounding society (including the shareholders) even for less profit?
You might think that, and in the classical model of a conscientious investor funding a well-managed company, you'd be entirely right. But that's not how things work. Today's investors don't care. Greed is good, didn't you hear? They see the stock market as a get-rich-quick scheme--some kind of lucky lotto for already-affluent people. The only difference from the real estate crap you see on infomercials is that it actually works.
Buy low. Sell high. It doesn't matter what. It doesn't even matter if they offer a valid product or service! Look at SCO, for instance: how else do you explain the rise in stock value time after time (or should I say press-release after press-release)?
Some investors have even resorted to what they call "algorithmic trading". This type of trading is completely automated and exploits periodic fluctuations in the market to *automagically* generate money. They do this by making micro-investments across a broad range of stocks that are then sold shortly after. With a proper statistics model, most of the chosen stocks rise before being sold... profit. Of course, in reality, the money came from somewhere, and the investor didn't actually provide any liquidable capital by any common sense of the word (I'm told that some of these transactions take place in milliseconds.) Moreover, the statistics model won't care about the ethics of a particular stocks business practices. But, again, such things matter not, because they are, of course, secondary to the Almighty Dollar.
So with investors concerned only with short-term gains, should it be surprising that companies do the same? We often mock the business paradigm of "expansion or death", because, in a sane world, it would make sense that a business can still turn the same profit it made last year and everything would be fine. And yet, we're wrong. Expansion is required in today's businesses because that's what brings in today's investors--not playing nice and most certainly not doing the right thing.
The whole system is rotten to the core. The one control (prudent, conscientious investors) has disappeared. It's no wonder incidents like Enron and Worldcom happen. Eventually, the whole system will fail--it's inevitable.
Personally, I accept that the precept "all (wo)men are created equal" was never true. I think what they should have said (and what they would have said if they had thought a little harder) would be something along the lines of "all (wo)men shall be afforded equal opportunity in line with their capabilities -- and what they make of those opportunities and capabilities shall be their own business."
But who decides those capabilities? By leaving that part out, one places determination of capabilities solely upon God, fate, "the cold, hard facts of life", or whatever (s)he wishes to subscribe. Your version leaves the determination up to other men--men who either are either intentionally or accidentally subject to err.
Remember, the Declaration of Independence wasn't created in the politically correct times in which we exist today. There's a reason why there was no "(wo)" in the original copy. It was quite common a perception that women and many minorities were stupid and incapable of abstract thought. I guarantee that had "all white men are created equal", sounded better, they would have used it. Many now obviously debunked scientific studies proudly proclaimed their own ethnicity (big surprise) as the most intelligent. To think that we can accurately (and objectively) gauge human "capability" today is utter hubris at best.
At worst, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The next great physicist shuns science because he's told his math "capabilities" are not up to snuff. Entire classes/races of people remain subjugated economically (or maybe even literally) because of some stupid measure of capability. Personally, I'd much rather have a society filled with unwarranted optimism than consisting of a bunch of underachievers.
People have been desiring reward for their work long before you were born.
Of course they have, but that doesn't mean that they should be compensated based upon their desires or the fact that they worked alone.
One may work very hard to build a sand castle on the beach, but come high tide, it has no economic value. Should he be paid for his ephemeral creation? After all, he did work hard for it, and choosing between not being compensated for it (over 75 years, as it were) or not being compensated for it, surely he would desire the former.
You are working for free then?
Much of the problem with using intellectual property in the arts and sciences is that it undermines and taints the directions they take. Too much art is no longer created for the sake of art. Too much science is no longer sought for the pursuit of knowledge. It culminates until we have, as the recent article on slashdot talked about, a huge part of the scientific community creating nonsense in hopes of getting funding. It doesn't take much examination to realize that modern "art" fares no better.
And yet, before intellectual property, people freely pursued the professions of scientist and artist without regard to monetary reward. Art existed long before the fallacious idea of Intellectual Property ever crossed anyone's mind. Following in my previous example, should we mandate artificial compensation structures to encourage people to build sandcastles?
As hard as it may be to believe, there used to be entire societies which flourished without vaulting greed to the height of human achievement.
It seems to me that the consensus (whatever that is worth) is that what Real has done with Harmony probably is legal. At the same time, I can't agree that Real deserves our support. What Real is doing might be legal, but it's completely lame. With Harmony, Real has just further proves that its marketing strategy is one of mediocrity and hypocrisy.
Real only respects DRM and copyright measures when it suits them. Try and reverse engineer their player or format, and you'll get smacked with a cease and desist letter in no time. And yet reverse engineering Apple's product is just fine. Real tries to champion this as a benefit for its customers, but aren't those the same customers that Real itself tricks into installing spyware?
Why even bother with buying an expensive keyboard to get programmable keys for gaming when you can buy a USB device that aleady does just that. Plus, you can do custom, complex, toggle-able macros with the software that comes with it--very very handy. I swear by mine.
The downside is that you have to have a client, but I bet that browsers will have integrated BT support soon (the new Opera does, FF has a plugin).
You know what I'd like to see? A protocol that, in cases of low load, performs similar to modern FTP/HTTP implementations (pause/resume, multi-sourcing, etc.) but switches seamlessly a swarming model when a certain threshold is met.
Maybe BitTorrent already does this, but it doesn't feel that way. When just starting a rare file (or even trying a popular file after the rush to get it), BT is so slow. It feels like my dial-up days all over again.
I'm currently a student at Virginia Tech and I object to the common perception in the submission that most college students use laptops in class. This couldn't be farther from the truth--at least at VT. In huge lecture halls filled with hundreds of students, you can count the laptops on one (maybe two) hands. They're just not practical enough. It doesn't matter how fast you can type if the professor is making a diagram. You may save some paper not printing out the presentation the professor gives by using a laptop, but then you can't make notes next to or on the slides like you otherwise could. This becomes a problem in classes where the professor posts incomplete notes (to encourage attendance).
Worst of all, with wireless internet access becoming common on campuses, half of the students I see with laptops aren't typing notes but typing on AIM or browsing the internet. It's a huge distraction. You'd probably get more out of sleeping in the class than tooling around on your computer--at least sleeping you might be listening sub-consciously or something.
I'm not arguing that most students don't have laptops, though. That's not the case at all. Most do. But their laptops just sit there on a desk somewhere in place of where a desktop should be--only with none of the cost/upgrade benefits. That being said, laptops are very handy. I'm one of the few students who brings one on campus. I mainly use it to browse the internet or work on assignments in between classes. There is the occasional class where the professor's style works well with typing out the notes--these are few and far between.
So how do you get the benefits of both? It's very simple--buy a cheap laptop (don't be too cheap--make sure it at least has wireless!), use openoffice.org (or even Linux if your kid is comfortable with that) on it, and then get a good desktop computer with Windows XP (or Mac OS X) and Microsoft Office (it sucks, but some classes require this). In class, the most computationally intensive things should be: loading adobe.pdf files, browsing the course website, or using a text editing program. None of these require any meaty hardware--so why pay for it?
Save your money. Use it to buy a better desktop if your kid is into computers. If not, spend it on something they'll actually use; at least then it will be appreciated. And for God's sakes, don't get a laptop bag! Those things get stolen all the time and they can't hold a college-level amount of books/supplies. Instead, get a backpack that has a laptop slot. I have a Spire USA one (which has a hard shell around a softer pocket, for better protection), and I swear by it. Sure, it is more expensive, but I have yet to crack my screen (which, I can assure you is not covered in your extended warrenty), despite my bad habit of throwing my bookbag around.
The Quran is unchanged since then. How are Muslims today somehow less Cosmopolitan than in 7th century AD? If anything, I'd say they are more cosmopolitan now than before.
In the past, the arts and sciences flourished in Islamic countries. They had many scientific achievements, probably the most prolific and identifiable of which is algebra. The whole concept of chivalry even has Islamic roots. Muslims were encouraged to interact with peacefully and teach non-muslims if they could.
Contrast that with "modern" Islamic states such as Pakistan where music--even music *about* the Koran--is banned. Places like Iran prefer to shun modern science and technology (aside from nuclear weapons, of course). Female circumcision is still practiced today. Husbands in most Islamic countries have the option to kill (or often mutilate) their wife (who is more considered property than another human being) if he suspects her of cheating--so much for chivalry. Countless areas where Islamic societies interface with a society of a different religion (be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, or even other sects of Islam) are wrought with religiously-based violence. Forgive me for thinking that all of the above isn't very cosmopolitan behavior.
No, you're right. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't take one to make such a simple qualitative analysis: The interpretation of Islam today is simply not the same. My humble guess would be that this probably (in most recent times) has to do with the prolific spread of Wahhabism throughout the world.
I'd sure like to hear a better rationale for the blatant fabrication the neocons indulged in over Iraq, and especially the Office of Special Plans. You have a better one?
So you're asking me if I can come up with a better theory than... one that involves an elaborate conspiracy to dominate the world deftly orchestrated by a small group of people who are only tangentially related to the "mastermind" and who otherwise bungle nearly everything else that they try? Please...
What if they are just manipulative people in positions of power? A brief look back in history would reveal that these types of people and their tactics are quite common. In just recent history, members of the ruling elite in such countries as Soviet Russia, North Vietnam, and pre-WWII Germany routinely whipped up their people into jingoist fervor by overstating threats and, oftentimes, outright lying. It's not rocket science--it's politics.
I see your point, and yet, I still don't like referral links or the related Slashdot/Roland debacle.
Why? Because it makes me question the intentions of the poster. And that makes me question the integrity of his statements. Is he truly being informative--or just trying to make a book description fit the topic at hand (even if only remotely related) in order to make some money?
I take advertising with a grain of salt. Having watched more than a few infomercials in my lifetime, I've come to regard the vast majority of advertisers as shysters. Fake interview programs, false investment opportunities, "donation" telemarketing calls, and so on have left me bitter. I have no reason to doubt that misleading internet posts are not below them.
Yes, it is easy to find. And what better source than the Department of Energy?
Here are some graphs depicting oil production. Note the one on the lower left which shows the US's production. The trend is declining production, and has been for decades. The net-energy problems with the oil shales aside, at the very least it would take about 10 years for the first oil rig to become operational in the shales if we started today. Seeing as how that's the case, this decline in production won't be slowing anytime soon.
Contrast that with this graph depicting oil consumption. Note the graph on the right depicting the US's oil consumption. The trend is increasing rapidly.
Recap-- Domestic Production: Down, Domestic Demand: Up. Is the problem not already obvious?
It might be possible that we could break even with oil alone. (However, just briefly looking at the above graphs, the numbers don't seem to add up.) It doesn't matter, though. I'm not even going to try to argue against USA Today's "conclusion." But based upon the data, even if we were able to acheive self-suffiency, how long do you think we could keep that up? A year? Maybe a decade? Eventually it won't work if current trends continue.
Self-suffiency would only be possible in my opinion, if we radically changed our energy distribution methods (using a variety of alternatives--not just one or two) while simultaneously curtailing demand on an epic scale. This would be a huge undertaking that would take decades and be very harmful to the growth-based economy we exit. Now what congresscritter looking to get re-elected is going to support that? Do you really think the Big Oil lobby would just rollover and let that happen?
Nice try, but none of that is proof that Tony Blair's recent iniative will squelch political dissident speech now or anytime in the near future as the GP suggested.
Half of the material you posted is on advertisements and political correctness which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
As for the actual case involving thehomegunsmith.com, there is, at the very least, an ongoing trial. Isn't that how things are supposed to work? In what pre-Orwellian state would that be the case?
He didn't write that much about his theories on the modern world he injected in to neoconservatism. He mostly shunned speaking engagements, interviews, etc. When he did give interviews he didn't share the heart of his doctrine.
So lack of proof of his dastardly plan is itself proof of the insidious nature of his dastardly plan? Isn't that the same flawed brand of logic Adam Curtis accuses neo-conservatives of in the OP-referenced documentary (Power of Nightmares)?
Dude its early yet. If you saw Blair's speech last week he is starting the first concerted wave of outlawing websites and bookstores carrying a message the government decides it disapproves of.
Care to provide some evidence that any legitimate websites or bookstores that have been censored by the UK? Or is that information censored too?
Providing detailed instructions describing how to carry out terrorist attacks in websites, books, mosques, or anywhere for that matter is unacceptable. It's organized crime, and the government has not only a right but an obligation to fight it.
If I lived in the U.K. some of the stuff I post here seeking to provide understanding for why Palestinians and Muslims might rationalize what they do, may well soon be illegal in the U.K
May well soon? What kind of fantasy are you constructing? The British people are far more liberal than us Americans. They especially would never stand for that kind of political censorship. The only people who will be affected by this will be those aiding and abetting in the crime of terrorism. You needn't worry about either the U.S. or British governments knocking down your door for posting your misguided views on Slashdot.
What the radical Islamists are fighting isn't democracy or Western values.
I meant to say--radical Islamists aren't fighting for survival (as the OP suggested) against democracy or Western values.
They ARE fighting Western values--especially the best ones. But fundamentalist Islamists' main goal is the establishment of their own twisted set of values
When you are cornered, and an omnipresent foe threatens to destroy your lifestyle and enslave you to a set of norms completely against everything you believe, do you not think you would take up a rifle or machete and fight "the man" ??
What exactly about core Western values are so deplorable? Would you be so quick to empathize with the position of the Confederate States during the U.S.'s Civil War--despite the fact that much of it was over the deplorable issue of slavery? Certainly it too could be described in the same light as you paint the current situation in the middle east.
There's nothing that prevents muslim people from participating in democratic, modernized societies--look at Turkey. What the radical Islamists are fighting isn't democracy or Western values. They're fighting for a disgusting, chauvinist form of fascism.
We can prevent all this. We leave the arabs to reconquer their lands, and we're likely never going to hear from them again. Especially after we put alternative fuels and energy sources to work...
Unless you have a working fusion reactor in your mother's basement, oil as a primary energy source isn't going away anytime soon. Like it or not, our economy and ultimately our way of life is, for the foreseeable future, completely dependent upon foreign oil. Pretending otherwise and just letting the middle east become unstable through a series of revolutions (even solely contained within the region, as you naively describe it), would be foolish.
We will be cutting their funding AND their anger by containing them instead of trying to convert them to christianity.
How did this get modded insightful? What are you talking about? Tell me, how many Christian missions are in Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia? If you think the goal of any of the recent events is a ploy to spread Christianity (a declining religion in both the United States and especially Europe), you're off your rocker.
As I recall it, Jerusalem managed to be a peaceful place when it was under Muslim rule, it was bloodiest while under Christian rule, and so it is with the rest of the Middle East.
You recall, huh? You mean as you recall your history lesson? You need a refresher. The major interpretation of Islam today is FAR different from the cosmopolitian version that was practiced before the events leading up to the Crusades. And even if that weren't the case, you make a ridiculous leap in your logic: that events confined to a small area hundreds of years ago is applicable to a much larger area with completely different people.
It is? Do you have any proof for this sweeping statement?
"...the new government would claim to represent the people, and by claiming a basis in Islam, any attack would be claimed an attack against Islam.
"There is no way the U.S. government would describe their intercession as preventing the formation of a self-described 'Islamic State' as doing so would incur the wrath of far more groups than having a stated reason of "deposing a tyrant", "protecting the region", "WMD's", "Terrorists", etc."
Radical movements are characterized by the absolute condemnation of any dissent. Therefore, if radical Islam is dying, why would the establishment of a radical Islamic state even be a possibility--let alone one dire enough to merit military action?
Seriously, though. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that "a majority of Americans" voted for Bush when he won with, what, 51% of the vote? Maybe 52%? And now that his approval ratings are sub-Clinton, that statement is even more disingenuous than ever.
What's wrong with that statement? He didn't say a majority of Americans liked Bush. All he said is that a majority voted for him. A majority is, by defition, larger than half. What part of that description doesn't 51 or 52 doesn't fit?
They don't want us infidels to convert. This isn't about spreading or enforcing a religion. That is a christian tactic.
Funny. I never stop hearing about how similar Islam is to Christianity when discussions of tolerance come up. And yet, when anything negative about Christianity (particularly the Crusades) arises, Islam is appearantly vastly different. It's quite convient how that works.
It's also wholly ignorant of both history, what's stated in the Koran, what many muslims themselves often claim, and the actions of countless muslims worldwide even today. But such things shouldn't get in the way of a good rant simultaneously on the war on terrorism and Christianity. A guy's gotta earn karma somehow, right?
There's a problem with intent that you're just not dealing with. Terrorists intend to kill women and children (innocents). Whereas, Israeli and American armed forces solely target military or other combatants. Any others who die in the resulting battle (which can just as easily be blamed on the other combatant), are accidents. The U.S. and Israeli forces do not want to kill civilians. In fact, it's in their best interest that they do not, because as soon as they do, Al Jazeera and the rest of the Arab media is there to stir up hatred.
Now, here's the interesting part. Knowing that it's not in the best interest for the U.S. or Israeli forces to kill civilians, many terrorists actually put their own innocents in danger through various means such as: putting weapons caches in schools/hospitals, using their own innocents as human shields, and so on.
In light of this, do you really think it's fair to draw analogies between uniformed soldiers not intending to harm innocents and murderous saboteurs who hide behind their women and children? To me, the difference is night and day.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Serves me right for posting minutes before class.
vCJD, varient CJD is also known as new varient CJD or nvCJD. That's where that n came from.
-Grym
"The facts are..."
"+1 interesting" as it may be, from that point on the parent was utterly wrong.
Some definitions: TSE is the general name of the TYPE of disease. Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE), or "Mad Cow's Disease", is the specific name of the disease as it appears in bovine, or cows. Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) disease is the specific name of the disease at it appears in people.
Some common points of confusion:
-Grym
Wow...thanks for providing a fact filled response to my display of facts (irrelevant or otherwise is left up to the reader to decide.) My first thought was not to reply, since you didn't provide anything of substance to reply to. But this is /., so what the hell...
Facts? You talked about your monthly bills and that you bought a motorcycle. Those are anecdotal details, not facts relevant to your larger claim that market forces are sufficient to stop an energy crisis.
Here are some examples of actual facts.
See how that works?
Competition is an amazing thing ... businesses find all kinds of ways to cut costs when they have to. And if prices go up 25% AND 25% fewer people fly, well, we have a magical 25% reduction in consumption, don't we.
But the free-market supply-demand curve is a simplification only completely accurate in ideal circumstances. The airline industry is, in fact, probably best example of an industry where such a simplification doesn't work. First of all, the airline industry is highly subsidized and regulated by the government. The basic infrastructure costs are enormous, and these costs are present regardless of demand. Combine that with the fact that the profit-margins are slim and based upon a high-volume of demand and it's obvious that simply increasing prices won't help. Listen, we're not talking about fucking lemonade stands here.
-Grym
Faith that market forces will stop the inevitable fuel crisis is a bit misguided. While consumers can "buy closer houses," use motorcycles, or carpool, many industries (which far out use residential use) have no way to cut their oil expenses.
Take the airlines, for instance. A minor change in the price of crude oil sends their bottom-line crashing. At some point, there's nothing more that they can do to limit that cost. In fact, given the already high cost of oil as it is, one could assume that the streamlining effect of the market would dictate that they already have cut costs where they could. Now, imagine what a %10 or %25 increase in the price of oil would do to these already beleaguered industries. Furthermore, imagine what effect the failure of the airline industries would have on other parts of the market.
And this isn't an isolated example of the oil-dependence of our market. Our national infrastructure is a house of cards propped up against the cheap price of oil. There's not going to be time for the market to react if a large shortage in supply occurs.
-Grym
Suppose through (bought) legislation, or some other means, a company found a way to charge everybody in the country a recurring charge every month, while providing no service at all. This is the Holy Grail of corporate America; every company that could do this would be required to, in orcer to keep the stock price up. This would lead to the company essentially being a parasite on the economy; a large enough parasite could bleed the economy dry.
Exactly. And that example simply focuses on economics. It doesn't take much research to see how much most modern businesses care about non-market values--they don't. Examples include: freedom of expression, the environment, employee (domestic and foreign) health/safety and so on.
One could argue that the content industry in the United States is almost exactly what you describe. How else can you explain the related legislation? The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act which increased copyright protections to 75 years--greater than the average US male lifespan male--does not promote the arts and sciences. In fact, it arguably does the opposite. What it does do is allow companies to make money without providing a product or service. The only difference being that by promoting strict copyright protections abroad, the parasite isn't limited to simply the domestic economy.
-Grym
mean, can't the shareholders see value in the company doing things right for the surrounding society (including the shareholders) even for less profit?
You might think that, and in the classical model of a conscientious investor funding a well-managed company, you'd be entirely right. But that's not how things work. Today's investors don't care. Greed is good, didn't you hear? They see the stock market as a get-rich-quick scheme--some kind of lucky lotto for already-affluent people. The only difference from the real estate crap you see on infomercials is that it actually works.
Buy low. Sell high. It doesn't matter what. It doesn't even matter if they offer a valid product or service! Look at SCO, for instance: how else do you explain the rise in stock value time after time (or should I say press-release after press-release)?
Some investors have even resorted to what they call "algorithmic trading". This type of trading is completely automated and exploits periodic fluctuations in the market to *automagically* generate money. They do this by making micro-investments across a broad range of stocks that are then sold shortly after. With a proper statistics model, most of the chosen stocks rise before being sold... profit. Of course, in reality, the money came from somewhere, and the investor didn't actually provide any liquidable capital by any common sense of the word (I'm told that some of these transactions take place in milliseconds.) Moreover, the statistics model won't care about the ethics of a particular stocks business practices. But, again, such things matter not, because they are, of course, secondary to the Almighty Dollar.
So with investors concerned only with short-term gains, should it be surprising that companies do the same? We often mock the business paradigm of "expansion or death", because, in a sane world, it would make sense that a business can still turn the same profit it made last year and everything would be fine. And yet, we're wrong. Expansion is required in today's businesses because that's what brings in today's investors--not playing nice and most certainly not doing the right thing.
The whole system is rotten to the core. The one control (prudent, conscientious investors) has disappeared. It's no wonder incidents like Enron and Worldcom happen. Eventually, the whole system will fail--it's inevitable.
-Grym
As opposed to a real game?
No, he meant a fake game.
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
-Grym
Personally, I accept that the precept "all (wo)men are created equal" was never true. I think what they should have said (and what they would have said if they had thought a little harder) would be something along the lines of "all (wo)men shall be afforded equal opportunity in line with their capabilities -- and what they make of those opportunities and capabilities shall be their own business."
But who decides those capabilities? By leaving that part out, one places determination of capabilities solely upon God, fate, "the cold, hard facts of life", or whatever (s)he wishes to subscribe. Your version leaves the determination up to other men--men who either are either intentionally or accidentally subject to err.
Remember, the Declaration of Independence wasn't created in the politically correct times in which we exist today. There's a reason why there was no "(wo)" in the original copy. It was quite common a perception that women and many minorities were stupid and incapable of abstract thought. I guarantee that had "all white men are created equal", sounded better, they would have used it. Many now obviously debunked scientific studies proudly proclaimed their own ethnicity (big surprise) as the most intelligent. To think that we can accurately (and objectively) gauge human "capability" today is utter hubris at best.
At worst, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The next great physicist shuns science because he's told his math "capabilities" are not up to snuff. Entire classes/races of people remain subjugated economically (or maybe even literally) because of some stupid measure of capability. Personally, I'd much rather have a society filled with unwarranted optimism than consisting of a bunch of underachievers.
-Grym
People have been desiring reward for their work long before you were born.
Of course they have, but that doesn't mean that they should be compensated based upon their desires or the fact that they worked alone.
One may work very hard to build a sand castle on the beach, but come high tide, it has no economic value. Should he be paid for his ephemeral creation? After all, he did work hard for it, and choosing between not being compensated for it (over 75 years, as it were) or not being compensated for it, surely he would desire the former.
You are working for free then?
Much of the problem with using intellectual property in the arts and sciences is that it undermines and taints the directions they take. Too much art is no longer created for the sake of art. Too much science is no longer sought for the pursuit of knowledge. It culminates until we have, as the recent article on slashdot talked about, a huge part of the scientific community creating nonsense in hopes of getting funding. It doesn't take much examination to realize that modern "art" fares no better.
And yet, before intellectual property, people freely pursued the professions of scientist and artist without regard to monetary reward. Art existed long before the fallacious idea of Intellectual Property ever crossed anyone's mind. Following in my previous example, should we mandate artificial compensation structures to encourage people to build sandcastles?
As hard as it may be to believe, there used to be entire societies which flourished without vaulting greed to the height of human achievement.
-Grym
It seems to me that the consensus (whatever that is worth) is that what Real has done with Harmony probably is legal. At the same time, I can't agree that Real deserves our support. What Real is doing might be legal, but it's completely lame. With Harmony, Real has just further proves that its marketing strategy is one of mediocrity and hypocrisy.
Real only respects DRM and copyright measures when it suits them. Try and reverse engineer their player or format, and you'll get smacked with a cease and desist letter in no time. And yet reverse engineering Apple's product is just fine. Real tries to champion this as a benefit for its customers, but aren't those the same customers that Real itself tricks into installing spyware?
-Grym
Exactly.
Why even bother with buying an expensive keyboard to get programmable keys for gaming when you can buy a USB device that aleady does just that. Plus, you can do custom, complex, toggle-able macros with the software that comes with it--very very handy. I swear by mine.
-Grym
The downside is that you have to have a client, but I bet that browsers will have integrated BT support soon (the new Opera does, FF has a plugin).
You know what I'd like to see? A protocol that, in cases of low load, performs similar to modern FTP/HTTP implementations (pause/resume, multi-sourcing, etc.) but switches seamlessly a swarming model when a certain threshold is met.
Maybe BitTorrent already does this, but it doesn't feel that way. When just starting a rare file (or even trying a popular file after the rush to get it), BT is so slow. It feels like my dial-up days all over again.
-Grym
Exactly.
I'm currently a student at Virginia Tech and I object to the common perception in the submission that most college students use laptops in class. This couldn't be farther from the truth--at least at VT. In huge lecture halls filled with hundreds of students, you can count the laptops on one (maybe two) hands. They're just not practical enough. It doesn't matter how fast you can type if the professor is making a diagram. You may save some paper not printing out the presentation the professor gives by using a laptop, but then you can't make notes next to or on the slides like you otherwise could. This becomes a problem in classes where the professor posts incomplete notes (to encourage attendance).
Worst of all, with wireless internet access becoming common on campuses, half of the students I see with laptops aren't typing notes but typing on AIM or browsing the internet. It's a huge distraction. You'd probably get more out of sleeping in the class than tooling around on your computer--at least sleeping you might be listening sub-consciously or something.
I'm not arguing that most students don't have laptops, though. That's not the case at all. Most do. But their laptops just sit there on a desk somewhere in place of where a desktop should be--only with none of the cost/upgrade benefits. That being said, laptops are very handy. I'm one of the few students who brings one on campus. I mainly use it to browse the internet or work on assignments in between classes. There is the occasional class where the professor's style works well with typing out the notes--these are few and far between.
So how do you get the benefits of both? It's very simple--buy a cheap laptop (don't be too cheap--make sure it at least has wireless!), use openoffice.org (or even Linux if your kid is comfortable with that) on it, and then get a good desktop computer with Windows XP (or Mac OS X) and Microsoft Office (it sucks, but some classes require this). In class, the most computationally intensive things should be: loading adobe .pdf files, browsing the course website, or using a text editing program. None of these require any meaty hardware--so why pay for it?
Save your money. Use it to buy a better desktop if your kid is into computers. If not, spend it on something they'll actually use; at least then it will be appreciated. And for God's sakes, don't get a laptop bag! Those things get stolen all the time and they can't hold a college-level amount of books/supplies. Instead, get a backpack that has a laptop slot. I have a Spire USA one (which has a hard shell around a softer pocket, for better protection), and I swear by it. Sure, it is more expensive, but I have yet to crack my screen (which, I can assure you is not covered in your extended warrenty), despite my bad habit of throwing my bookbag around.
-Grym
The Quran is unchanged since then. How are Muslims today somehow less Cosmopolitan than in 7th century AD? If anything, I'd say they are more cosmopolitan now than before.
In the past, the arts and sciences flourished in Islamic countries. They had many scientific achievements, probably the most prolific and identifiable of which is algebra. The whole concept of chivalry even has Islamic roots. Muslims were encouraged to interact with peacefully and teach non-muslims if they could.
Contrast that with "modern" Islamic states such as Pakistan where music--even music *about* the Koran--is banned. Places like Iran prefer to shun modern science and technology (aside from nuclear weapons, of course). Female circumcision is still practiced today. Husbands in most Islamic countries have the option to kill (or often mutilate) their wife (who is more considered property than another human being) if he suspects her of cheating--so much for chivalry. Countless areas where Islamic societies interface with a society of a different religion (be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, or even other sects of Islam) are wrought with religiously-based violence. Forgive me for thinking that all of the above isn't very cosmopolitan behavior.
No, you're right. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't take one to make such a simple qualitative analysis: The interpretation of Islam today is simply not the same. My humble guess would be that this probably (in most recent times) has to do with the prolific spread of Wahhabism throughout the world.
-Grym
I'd sure like to hear a better rationale for the blatant fabrication the neocons indulged in over Iraq, and especially the Office of Special Plans. You have a better one?
So you're asking me if I can come up with a better theory than... one that involves an elaborate conspiracy to dominate the world deftly orchestrated by a small group of people who are only tangentially related to the "mastermind" and who otherwise bungle nearly everything else that they try? Please...
What if they are just manipulative people in positions of power? A brief look back in history would reveal that these types of people and their tactics are quite common. In just recent history, members of the ruling elite in such countries as Soviet Russia, North Vietnam, and pre-WWII Germany routinely whipped up their people into jingoist fervor by overstating threats and, oftentimes, outright lying. It's not rocket science--it's politics.
-Grym
I see your point, and yet, I still don't like referral links or the related Slashdot/Roland debacle.
Why? Because it makes me question the intentions of the poster. And that makes me question the integrity of his statements. Is he truly being informative--or just trying to make a book description fit the topic at hand (even if only remotely related) in order to make some money?
I take advertising with a grain of salt. Having watched more than a few infomercials in my lifetime, I've come to regard the vast majority of advertisers as shysters. Fake interview programs, false investment opportunities, "donation" telemarketing calls, and so on have left me bitter. I have no reason to doubt that misleading internet posts are not below them.
-Grym
The evidence is actually easy to find.
Yes, it is easy to find. And what better source than the Department of Energy?
Here are some graphs depicting oil production. Note the one on the lower left which shows the US's production. The trend is declining production, and has been for decades. The net-energy problems with the oil shales aside, at the very least it would take about 10 years for the first oil rig to become operational in the shales if we started today. Seeing as how that's the case, this decline in production won't be slowing anytime soon.
Contrast that with this graph depicting oil consumption. Note the graph on the right depicting the US's oil consumption. The trend is increasing rapidly.
Recap-- Domestic Production: Down, Domestic Demand: Up. Is the problem not already obvious?
It might be possible that we could break even with oil alone. (However, just briefly looking at the above graphs, the numbers don't seem to add up.) It doesn't matter, though. I'm not even going to try to argue against USA Today's "conclusion." But based upon the data, even if we were able to acheive self-suffiency, how long do you think we could keep that up? A year? Maybe a decade? Eventually it won't work if current trends continue.
Self-suffiency would only be possible in my opinion, if we radically changed our energy distribution methods (using a variety of alternatives--not just one or two) while simultaneously curtailing demand on an epic scale. This would be a huge undertaking that would take decades and be very harmful to the growth-based economy we exit. Now what congresscritter looking to get re-elected is going to support that? Do you really think the Big Oil lobby would just rollover and let that happen?
Foreign Oil isn't going anywhere.
-Grym
Nice try, but none of that is proof that Tony Blair's recent iniative will squelch political dissident speech now or anytime in the near future as the GP suggested.
Half of the material you posted is on advertisements and political correctness which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
As for the actual case involving thehomegunsmith.com, there is, at the very least, an ongoing trial. Isn't that how things are supposed to work? In what pre-Orwellian state would that be the case?
-Grym
He didn't write that much about his theories on the modern world he injected in to neoconservatism. He mostly shunned speaking engagements, interviews, etc. When he did give interviews he didn't share the heart of his doctrine.
So lack of proof of his dastardly plan is itself proof of the insidious nature of his dastardly plan? Isn't that the same flawed brand of logic Adam Curtis accuses neo-conservatives of in the OP-referenced documentary (Power of Nightmares)?
Dude its early yet. If you saw Blair's speech last week he is starting the first concerted wave of outlawing websites and bookstores carrying a message the government decides it disapproves of.
Care to provide some evidence that any legitimate websites or bookstores that have been censored by the UK? Or is that information censored too?
Providing detailed instructions describing how to carry out terrorist attacks in websites, books, mosques, or anywhere for that matter is unacceptable. It's organized crime, and the government has not only a right but an obligation to fight it.
If I lived in the U.K. some of the stuff I post here seeking to provide understanding for why Palestinians and Muslims might rationalize what they do, may well soon be illegal in the U.K
May well soon? What kind of fantasy are you constructing? The British people are far more liberal than us Americans. They especially would never stand for that kind of political censorship. The only people who will be affected by this will be those aiding and abetting in the crime of terrorism. You needn't worry about either the U.S. or British governments knocking down your door for posting your misguided views on Slashdot.
-Grym
What the radical Islamists are fighting isn't democracy or Western values.
I meant to say--radical Islamists aren't fighting for survival (as the OP suggested) against democracy or Western values.
They ARE fighting Western values--especially the best ones. But fundamentalist Islamists' main goal is the establishment of their own twisted set of values
-Grym
When you are cornered, and an omnipresent foe threatens to destroy your lifestyle and enslave you to a set of norms completely against everything you believe, do you not think you would take up a rifle or machete and fight "the man" ??
What exactly about core Western values are so deplorable? Would you be so quick to empathize with the position of the Confederate States during the U.S.'s Civil War--despite the fact that much of it was over the deplorable issue of slavery? Certainly it too could be described in the same light as you paint the current situation in the middle east.
There's nothing that prevents muslim people from participating in democratic, modernized societies--look at Turkey. What the radical Islamists are fighting isn't democracy or Western values. They're fighting for a disgusting, chauvinist form of fascism.
We can prevent all this. We leave the arabs to reconquer their lands, and we're likely never going to hear from them again. Especially after we put alternative fuels and energy sources to work...
Unless you have a working fusion reactor in your mother's basement, oil as a primary energy source isn't going away anytime soon. Like it or not, our economy and ultimately our way of life is, for the foreseeable future, completely dependent upon foreign oil. Pretending otherwise and just letting the middle east become unstable through a series of revolutions (even solely contained within the region, as you naively describe it), would be foolish.
We will be cutting their funding AND their anger by containing them instead of trying to convert them to christianity.
How did this get modded insightful? What are you talking about? Tell me, how many Christian missions are in Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia? If you think the goal of any of the recent events is a ploy to spread Christianity (a declining religion in both the United States and especially Europe), you're off your rocker.
As I recall it, Jerusalem managed to be a peaceful place when it was under Muslim rule, it was bloodiest while under Christian rule, and so it is with the rest of the Middle East.
You recall, huh? You mean as you recall your history lesson? You need a refresher. The major interpretation of Islam today is FAR different from the cosmopolitian version that was practiced before the events leading up to the Crusades. And even if that weren't the case, you make a ridiculous leap in your logic: that events confined to a small area hundreds of years ago is applicable to a much larger area with completely different people.
-Grym
Fortunetly, radical Islam is dying
It is? Do you have any proof for this sweeping statement?
"...the new government would claim to represent the people, and by claiming a basis in Islam, any attack would be claimed an attack against Islam.
"There is no way the U.S. government would describe their intercession as preventing the formation of a self-described 'Islamic State' as doing so would incur the wrath of far more groups than having a stated reason of "deposing a tyrant", "protecting the region", "WMD's", "Terrorists", etc."
Radical movements are characterized by the absolute condemnation of any dissent. Therefore, if radical Islam is dying, why would the establishment of a radical Islamic state even be a possibility--let alone one dire enough to merit military action?
-Grym
What's wrong with that statement? He didn't say a majority of Americans liked Bush. All he said is that a majority voted for him. A majority is, by defition, larger than half. What part of that description doesn't 51 or 52 doesn't fit?
-Grym
They don't want us infidels to convert. This isn't about spreading or enforcing a religion. That is a christian tactic.
Funny. I never stop hearing about how similar Islam is to Christianity when discussions of tolerance come up. And yet, when anything negative about Christianity (particularly the Crusades) arises, Islam is appearantly vastly different. It's quite convient how that works.
It's also wholly ignorant of both history, what's stated in the Koran, what many muslims themselves often claim, and the actions of countless muslims worldwide even today. But such things shouldn't get in the way of a good rant simultaneously on the war on terrorism and Christianity. A guy's gotta earn karma somehow, right?
-Grym
There's a problem with intent that you're just not dealing with. Terrorists intend to kill women and children (innocents). Whereas, Israeli and American armed forces solely target military or other combatants. Any others who die in the resulting battle (which can just as easily be blamed on the other combatant), are accidents. The U.S. and Israeli forces do not want to kill civilians. In fact, it's in their best interest that they do not, because as soon as they do, Al Jazeera and the rest of the Arab media is there to stir up hatred.
Now, here's the interesting part. Knowing that it's not in the best interest for the U.S. or Israeli forces to kill civilians, many terrorists actually put their own innocents in danger through various means such as: putting weapons caches in schools/hospitals, using their own innocents as human shields, and so on.
In light of this, do you really think it's fair to draw analogies between uniformed soldiers not intending to harm innocents and murderous saboteurs who hide behind their women and children? To me, the difference is night and day.
-Grym