"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.
No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.
There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.
First off, it seems to me that the weak link in this extortion scheme would be the money transfer. The extortionist (not to be confused with "contortionist" or "exorcist", or some combination thereof) would have to be very clever not to be caught by the transfer. If it's something as simple as a wire or drop-off, catching the person or persons responsible would be a snap.
Second, there is no reason to believe that the person(s) making the threat actually has child pornography (not that I'm defending him/her/them). The posession of the material is not required to make the threat. The extortionist could be like a bank robber without a firearm, either claiming to have one but not, or having a toy pistol (having "barely 18" pornography that looks like child pornography).
In short, in order to actually pull something like this off without getting caught, one has to either be very smart or have a very stupid target.
I'd like to make an observation and ask a question, if I may. My obvservation is that you seem to be siding, and I know I'm mangling this quote, with the evil you know over the evil you don't. Whether you're right or wrong in doing so--if you are doing so--is not my place to say.
As for the question, I base it on these two quotes from your post:
OK, I understand the war is a big deal [...] For me it is a big issue, but not big enough to call myself a one-issue voter.
and
[...] there isn't much reason for a Slashdot type to vote for either one of them. That leaves me mostly deciding on the war issue [...]
My question is: How do you reconcile those two statements?
Ok, someone help me out, here. We aren't supposed to stop taking antibacterials until the prescription is up, because we might make a more resistant strain... but it's often the case that the bacterial strain we're taking antibiotics for is something that our bodies need. So, if we're whiping out that bacteria in our bodies, isn't that a bad thing?
I'm pretty sure I'm wrong in what I just said, but I'd like to know where.
I'd also like to know why it would be good to use a bacteriophage in the first place. It seems like overkill... especially if it whipes out and prevents the re-establishment of bacteria our bodies depend on.
I agree that it is impossible to please everyone. If I get the thrust of what you're saying, you're trying to tell me that those who want to re-create history within a game have a right to do so. To this I would also agree, but again reiterate that the game in question is a fantasy game; those who want to re-create a time period and/or geologic location within a computer/video game can and should do so, but they should probably start from scratch.
It's all I will argue on this situation. Personally, I feel that there is a time and place for sexism, and humor and role-play are some of them. Of course, you are more than welcome to disagree with my consent or not, but understand that I will go elsewhere if I feel strongly enough about the topic, while our poster in question will complain loudly and still send in his check, citing that the developer has some kind of obligation.
Beatrice Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The difference here is that I don't necessarily disagree with you; sexism as present in acting can be a very appropriate tool.
As for the poster, I know not that he or she is or will continue to send in a check, nor do I believe that the developer has an obligation. Legally, the developer does not; by social and/or economic reasons, it might be said that the developer has a strong interest in modifying its behavior in this regard. Indeed, if enough people "vote with their wallets," and if the company has publically owned stock, it could be said that the developer does have an obligation to do so--an obligation to the stock holders.
As for your question in regards to history majors and philosophers, the answer is: some more than others. Historians in general, and history students specifically, can study who- and whomever they want, if they even want to focus on that particular flavor of history (as opposed to a history of scientific invention in an academic field like Geology, for example). These days, at least where I am studying, history is more about a technique than specific names, dates, or events. It's more important for the student to learn how to do actual historical research, historical analysis, and historical writing than for any particular student to know what George Washington ate for breakfast on the morning of August 8, 1778. To borrow and mangle a phrase from another field of study, history professors are more interested in teaching their students how to fish than in giving their students fish.
Get into the ROLE and forget your modern sensibilities. Sheesh.
I think you're forgetting that this is a Fantasy game, not a game purporting to create historically-accurate re-enactments of past events. Therefore, I find it entirely appropriate that someone would take their "modern sensibilities" into the game with them and apply those moral values to both their role within the game and the game's universe itself.
Though we should, I think, recognize the realities of the past, we should not prevent ourselves from re-creating the past as we wish--but only so long as we do not try to pass off the re-created, historically inaccurate version as what really happened to those who are not historically trained.
The game in question is not a part of Social Memory, nor does it try to be. Instead, it tries to be a fiction loosely based upon what humanity knows about a particular time and place. This is why it is appropriate to complain about the sexist content presented by the game's authors.
As for those who are complaining about the content: I think you have every right to do so, and those who complain about your complaints can take a bit of their own advice and ignore your complaints.
~UP
Disclaimer: IAAHMASIC (I Am A History Major And Senior In College).
... to see some of President Bush's responses include plans for the future rather than statements of past actions. On the flip side, it would have been nice to see some of Senator Kerry's responses include statements of past actions backing up his plans (and unstated claims therein).
It also would have been nice to have a few "third party" candidates respond, as others have said. Still, what's done is done, and we can only ask the persons who set up this Q&A set to include third party candidates, next time.
This is frightening; I registered to vote through a non-government organization where I am. If I hadn't gotten my voters registration card in the mail just today, I'd be flipping out, I think.
I'm pretty sure that what has been done is a federal offense, especially now that they've crossed state lines to do it in Oregon. What I'm not sure about is if it's High Treason. Is there a lawyer in the house?
At the least, what the pictures have shown is not leather. Leather is what you have after tanning a hide (a process which usually involves chemicals or enzymes, if I recall correctly). What is shown is raw hide, untreated skin (and, in this case, bone).
I grew up in the rural areas of the northern Rocky Mountains, and I've seen more than one disembowled deer corpse hanging from a garage ceiling--among other things that would make a vegan howl in rage (after heaving, of course). Those images still disturb me, as does the concept of engineering flesh and bone from two different species to create an item of clothing.
And I can't help but wonder how they got the human bone cells for that ghastly project.
We keep seeing stories about abuses of the DMCA on slashdot, but I am left wondering if there are cases where the DMCA has been used fairly, and if so, how many.
Even if it's not factually correct or true, the parent is interesting. It may not be directly on-topic, but it's still relevent to the topic in my opinion, be it humble or otherwise.
As it so happens, I'm taking a geology course, right now. We already went over St. Helens, but since my prof. is of the "vulcanism and igneous rock" variety, I might be able to convince him into a more detailed look at the prior eruption and the present cirucmstances.
As it also so happens, I'm a bit of a severe asthmatic, and I am thus hoping--completely selfishly--that the volcano does not blow, but that if it does erupt, it does so without much ash or other atmospheric particulates. Unselfishly, I'm hoping the same for the sake of others like me and unlike me, that they may be spared from such a thing.
(I still remember the ash from the Yellowstone fires of '88.)
I made a promise to myself to apologize to you before I posted again; I would like to do so now. What I said was unclear and offensive, stated in an inappropriate manner. The moderation on that comment came down to [0, Flamebait], but it is my opinion that it should have been lower. I apologize for my comments.
At any rate, though, I don't think that maintaining flexible profiles for high risk passengers is such a bad idea. Some passengers may be inconvenienced; however, if it will save lives, then I am quite willing for some people to end up having their feelings hurt.
Using this logic, you wouldn't mind a bit if I had you thrown in a straightjacket and padded rubber room at a high-security insane asylum, for the rest of your natural life. Nothing to do, no ability to interact with your surroundings or even see another human being, and only your feelings will be hurt. But I'm sure it will save the lives of others, as you will no longer be capable of even accidentally contributing to the death of another person. The only two reasons I'm going to do this are a) you said you were willing and b) your pseudonym contains the name "John," and several people with that name have been extremely violent in the past.
---
I know this looks a lot like a troll--hell, maybe it is, and I just don't realize it--but the entire purpose of this post is to make it personal enough for you to understand why such things are wrong.
I appreciate the information you have brought into the discussion. Your post not only blows away the disinformation of the grandparent post, but adds new and relevent information, as well.
What I'd like to mention, however, is that there is another concern: The bomb is sitting above a fresh-water aquifer used by the nearby town. As, according to another source I read, the barrier between this device and the aquifer is only a (thick) layer of clay, I would imagine that there has already been some level of contamination to the drinking water. As the bomb settles and slowly sinks, likely being more dense than the surrounding clay, the contamination levels will rise.
The hard part, and the most expensive aspect to the retreival situation, is that a crew would have to retrieve the bomb without collapsing the aquifer roof and using equipment that would prevent radiation poisoning of the retrieval crew. Add to that the fact that the bomb is under twenty feet of silt, and you have a very tricky situation. You can't just build a four-sided dam to keep the water out--like those used to construct bridge pylons--and it would take some very specialized and delicate equipment to remove enough silt to retrieve the bomb without spreading contaminated silt everywhere.
It's a difficult situation, to say the least. The good news is that there few sea-floor excavation vehicles capable of retrieving the bomb, even without the contamination issue, and that an excavation going on in that area, now that the (supposed) find has been publicized, will draw a huge amount of suspicion. Due to the weight of the bomb itself and the sheer volume of silt required to be removed before the bomb could even be reached, it wouldn't exactly be an overnight job. The threat of terrorists digging up a piece of the bomb is, therefore, less than the threat of terrorists getting their hands on a seperate source of radioactive materials and building an atomic bomb.
[Hopefully, I'm not spreading bad information, myself, now.]
It's not enough to simply post a reply to a troll to ignore them. Indeed, this feeds their desire to continue. The fact is, any attention feeds a troll.
Here's what I would do: First, put up an image in your "reply" area/page, warning everyone not to respond to trolls. Second, delete every post that responds to a troll as soon as possible, even if it's just a post warning others not to respond to a troll. As I said, any attention feeds them... and a simple lack of attention will get boring for them, encouraging them to leave (or start behaving themselves).
Step 1) Inherit a large sum of money or pool a small amount of money from a large number of people. Step 2) Trademark as many Open Source, trendy names as you can. Step 3) ???? Step 4) Non-Profit!
If the whole "petroleum companies keep their monopoly by buying viable competing technologies" thing is true (and I'm not saying that it is / is not), it's fairly clever that the inventor is disguising it as a new form of antenna. The only problem would be that it'd have to be LoS, which means that closing the curtains to watch TV with the antenna laying on top of the set would no longer be a possibility.
However, as a method of attaining electrical energy from light, it looks to be rather interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
If the accused had dressed up as characters from the Clue(TM) boardgame, would boardgames be blamed, and why or why not?
~UP
That's a truly funny website, if only for the javascript warning. Thanks for a laugh!
~UP
"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.
No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.
There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.
~UP
First off, it seems to me that the weak link in this extortion scheme would be the money transfer. The extortionist (not to be confused with "contortionist" or "exorcist", or some combination thereof) would have to be very clever not to be caught by the transfer. If it's something as simple as a wire or drop-off, catching the person or persons responsible would be a snap.
Second, there is no reason to believe that the person(s) making the threat actually has child pornography (not that I'm defending him/her/them). The posession of the material is not required to make the threat. The extortionist could be like a bank robber without a firearm, either claiming to have one but not, or having a toy pistol (having "barely 18" pornography that looks like child pornography).
In short, in order to actually pull something like this off without getting caught, one has to either be very smart or have a very stupid target.
~UP
I'd like to make an observation and ask a question, if I may. My obvservation is that you seem to be siding, and I know I'm mangling this quote, with the evil you know over the evil you don't. Whether you're right or wrong in doing so--if you are doing so--is not my place to say.
As for the question, I base it on these two quotes from your post:
OK, I understand the war is a big deal [...] For me it is a big issue, but not big enough to call myself a one-issue voter.
and
[...] there isn't much reason for a Slashdot type to vote for either one of them. That leaves me mostly deciding on the war issue [...]
My question is: How do you reconcile those two statements?
~UP
Ok, someone help me out, here. We aren't supposed to stop taking antibacterials until the prescription is up, because we might make a more resistant strain... but it's often the case that the bacterial strain we're taking antibiotics for is something that our bodies need. So, if we're whiping out that bacteria in our bodies, isn't that a bad thing?
I'm pretty sure I'm wrong in what I just said, but I'd like to know where.
I'd also like to know why it would be good to use a bacteriophage in the first place. It seems like overkill... especially if it whipes out and prevents the re-establishment of bacteria our bodies depend on.
~UP
I agree that it is impossible to please everyone. If I get the thrust of what you're saying, you're trying to tell me that those who want to re-create history within a game have a right to do so. To this I would also agree, but again reiterate that the game in question is a fantasy game; those who want to re-create a time period and/or geologic location within a computer/video game can and should do so, but they should probably start from scratch.
It's all I will argue on this situation. Personally, I feel that there is a time and place for sexism, and humor and role-play are some of them. Of course, you are more than welcome to disagree with my consent or not, but understand that I will go elsewhere if I feel strongly enough about the topic, while our poster in question will complain loudly and still send in his check, citing that the developer has some kind of obligation.
Beatrice Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The difference here is that I don't necessarily disagree with you; sexism as present in acting can be a very appropriate tool.
As for the poster, I know not that he or she is or will continue to send in a check, nor do I believe that the developer has an obligation. Legally, the developer does not; by social and/or economic reasons, it might be said that the developer has a strong interest in modifying its behavior in this regard. Indeed, if enough people "vote with their wallets," and if the company has publically owned stock, it could be said that the developer does have an obligation to do so--an obligation to the stock holders.
As for your question in regards to history majors and philosophers, the answer is: some more than others. Historians in general, and history students specifically, can study who- and whomever they want, if they even want to focus on that particular flavor of history (as opposed to a history of scientific invention in an academic field like Geology, for example). These days, at least where I am studying, history is more about a technique than specific names, dates, or events. It's more important for the student to learn how to do actual historical research, historical analysis, and historical writing than for any particular student to know what George Washington ate for breakfast on the morning of August 8, 1778. To borrow and mangle a phrase from another field of study, history professors are more interested in teaching their students how to fish than in giving their students fish.
~UP
Get into the ROLE and forget your modern sensibilities. Sheesh.
I think you're forgetting that this is a Fantasy game, not a game purporting to create historically-accurate re-enactments of past events. Therefore, I find it entirely appropriate that someone would take their "modern sensibilities" into the game with them and apply those moral values to both their role within the game and the game's universe itself.
Though we should, I think, recognize the realities of the past, we should not prevent ourselves from re-creating the past as we wish--but only so long as we do not try to pass off the re-created, historically inaccurate version as what really happened to those who are not historically trained.
The game in question is not a part of Social Memory, nor does it try to be. Instead, it tries to be a fiction loosely based upon what humanity knows about a particular time and place. This is why it is appropriate to complain about the sexist content presented by the game's authors.
As for those who are complaining about the content: I think you have every right to do so, and those who complain about your complaints can take a bit of their own advice and ignore your complaints.
~UP
Disclaimer: IAAHMASIC (I Am A History Major And Senior In College).
... to see some of President Bush's responses include plans for the future rather than statements of past actions. On the flip side, it would have been nice to see some of Senator Kerry's responses include statements of past actions backing up his plans (and unstated claims therein).
It also would have been nice to have a few "third party" candidates respond, as others have said. Still, what's done is done, and we can only ask the persons who set up this Q&A set to include third party candidates, next time.
~UP
Battalions of lawyers? Cool! Let's set them all on one pacific atoll and let 'em have at it!
We'll even let 'em have some WWI artillery pieces. Should be fun to watch.
~UP
This system requires the use of email, right?
... and more electronic junk mail, too!
Well then, there's only one certain outcome of this system: more spam!
~UP
This is frightening; I registered to vote through a non-government organization where I am. If I hadn't gotten my voters registration card in the mail just today, I'd be flipping out, I think.
I'm pretty sure that what has been done is a federal offense, especially now that they've crossed state lines to do it in Oregon. What I'm not sure about is if it's High Treason. Is there a lawyer in the house?
~UP
At the least, what the pictures have shown is not leather. Leather is what you have after tanning a hide (a process which usually involves chemicals or enzymes, if I recall correctly). What is shown is raw hide, untreated skin (and, in this case, bone).
I grew up in the rural areas of the northern Rocky Mountains, and I've seen more than one disembowled deer corpse hanging from a garage ceiling--among other things that would make a vegan howl in rage (after heaving, of course). Those images still disturb me, as does the concept of engineering flesh and bone from two different species to create an item of clothing.
And I can't help but wonder how they got the human bone cells for that ghastly project.
~UP
We keep seeing stories about abuses of the DMCA on slashdot, but I am left wondering if there are cases where the DMCA has been used fairly, and if so, how many.
I know it's off-topic, but I am curious.
~UP
So I guess this means George Soros won the VP debate....
~UP
I have to concur with what others have said: homo sapiens should be on that list.
Let me put it this way: If humans had not been around, how many of the species on that list would still be invasive?
~UP
Even if it's not factually correct or true, the parent is interesting. It may not be directly on-topic, but it's still relevent to the topic in my opinion, be it humble or otherwise.
~UP
In space, no one can hear you freeze your ass off. ;-)
~UP
As it so happens, I'm taking a geology course, right now. We already went over St. Helens, but since my prof. is of the "vulcanism and igneous rock" variety, I might be able to convince him into a more detailed look at the prior eruption and the present cirucmstances.
As it also so happens, I'm a bit of a severe asthmatic, and I am thus hoping--completely selfishly--that the volcano does not blow, but that if it does erupt, it does so without much ash or other atmospheric particulates. Unselfishly, I'm hoping the same for the sake of others like me and unlike me, that they may be spared from such a thing.
(I still remember the ash from the Yellowstone fires of '88.)
~UP
I made a promise to myself to apologize to you before I posted again; I would like to do so now. What I said was unclear and offensive, stated in an inappropriate manner. The moderation on that comment came down to [0, Flamebait], but it is my opinion that it should have been lower. I apologize for my comments.
~UP
At any rate, though, I don't think that maintaining flexible profiles for high risk passengers is such a bad idea. Some passengers may be inconvenienced; however, if it will save lives, then I am quite willing for some people to end up having their feelings hurt.
Using this logic, you wouldn't mind a bit if I had you thrown in a straightjacket and padded rubber room at a high-security insane asylum, for the rest of your natural life. Nothing to do, no ability to interact with your surroundings or even see another human being, and only your feelings will be hurt. But I'm sure it will save the lives of others, as you will no longer be capable of even accidentally contributing to the death of another person. The only two reasons I'm going to do this are a) you said you were willing and b) your pseudonym contains the name "John," and several people with that name have been extremely violent in the past.
---
I know this looks a lot like a troll--hell, maybe it is, and I just don't realize it--but the entire purpose of this post is to make it personal enough for you to understand why such things are wrong.
~UP
I appreciate the information you have brought into the discussion. Your post not only blows away the disinformation of the grandparent post, but adds new and relevent information, as well.
What I'd like to mention, however, is that there is another concern: The bomb is sitting above a fresh-water aquifer used by the nearby town. As, according to another source I read, the barrier between this device and the aquifer is only a (thick) layer of clay, I would imagine that there has already been some level of contamination to the drinking water. As the bomb settles and slowly sinks, likely being more dense than the surrounding clay, the contamination levels will rise.
The hard part, and the most expensive aspect to the retreival situation, is that a crew would have to retrieve the bomb without collapsing the aquifer roof and using equipment that would prevent radiation poisoning of the retrieval crew. Add to that the fact that the bomb is under twenty feet of silt, and you have a very tricky situation. You can't just build a four-sided dam to keep the water out--like those used to construct bridge pylons--and it would take some very specialized and delicate equipment to remove enough silt to retrieve the bomb without spreading contaminated silt everywhere.
It's a difficult situation, to say the least. The good news is that there few sea-floor excavation vehicles capable of retrieving the bomb, even without the contamination issue, and that an excavation going on in that area, now that the (supposed) find has been publicized, will draw a huge amount of suspicion. Due to the weight of the bomb itself and the sheer volume of silt required to be removed before the bomb could even be reached, it wouldn't exactly be an overnight job. The threat of terrorists digging up a piece of the bomb is, therefore, less than the threat of terrorists getting their hands on a seperate source of radioactive materials and building an atomic bomb.
[Hopefully, I'm not spreading bad information, myself, now.]
~UP
It's not enough to simply post a reply to a troll to ignore them. Indeed, this feeds their desire to continue. The fact is, any attention feeds a troll.
Here's what I would do: First, put up an image in your "reply" area/page, warning everyone not to respond to trolls. Second, delete every post that responds to a troll as soon as possible, even if it's just a post warning others not to respond to a troll. As I said, any attention feeds them... and a simple lack of attention will get boring for them, encouraging them to leave (or start behaving themselves).
~UP
Step 1) Inherit a large sum of money or pool a small amount of money from a large number of people.
Step 2) Trademark as many Open Source, trendy names as you can.
Step 3) ????
Step 4) Non-Profit!
~UP
If the whole "petroleum companies keep their monopoly by buying viable competing technologies" thing is true (and I'm not saying that it is / is not), it's fairly clever that the inventor is disguising it as a new form of antenna. The only problem would be that it'd have to be LoS, which means that closing the curtains to watch TV with the antenna laying on top of the set would no longer be a possibility.
However, as a method of attaining electrical energy from light, it looks to be rather interesting.
~UP