...create all of the helpful technology and medicine that you want, but natural selection has a way of always coming back into play to pick off the dumb ones. Until we just wrap newborn babies in big hunks of foam and leave them mostly stationary in climate controlled bubbles for their entire lives, fed through a carefully monitored nourishment tube, the stupid ones will always find ways to kill themselves in embarassing and pointless ways.
Heck, even then they'd probably try to eat the foam.
I say don't ban texting while driving - just build a couple of new roads for people who do it. That way the pileups won't accidentally snag someone who is smart enough to NOT be doing things like that. The new roads wouldn't cost too much because, heck, they wouldn't have to be very long. Just like a block or so and then they could just sort of end. The drivers won't even notice.
Why in the world am I rambling about this? I need sleep. Mod -1 (Pointless).
...isn't from slashdot. It's the last part of this page:
"I can foresee a day when this community of nihilistic pranksters hold its first convention, and they spend a week at the Marriott sneaking up on each other, flicking each other's ears and laughing until they drool."
I've heard the alarmists often say that many people will die if changes are not made, but I haven't heard the skeptics say the same thing until now. Who dies if we DO make changes? I'm not really thinking of poor countries when I ask that, mind you - I'm thinking of the wealthy and industrialized portions of the world. What percentage of the American population, for instance, would die if we cut our pollution output in, say, half? And how would that compare to the number who would be saved by cutting down on pollution?
I suppose I could see how somebody somewhere would die if restrictions were implemented across the world and enforced with an iron fist, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard anyone suggest such a thing. I've never heard someone say that Johnny Thirdworld absolutely should not have ANY access to heating oil with which to boil the limited and polluted water supply he has access to. The environmentalists who address the third world in their considerations do seem to urge responsible development (thanks to lessons learned from the past), but I personally have never heard an environmentalist argue for so strict of standards for those countries that would actually prevent people from living. All the restrictions I've heard seem to focus on the greenhouse gas power brokers: America, China, etc. The more wealth and industry in each country, the tighter the restrictions because they can afford it.
But this all certainly could be a case of me not being fully educated on the topic - so if you know of any good resources that suggest that massive numbers of people will die in first world countries if changes are made, then I honestly would love to read those because that's something I've yet to see. Also, I'm interested in knowing if there are any mainstream (read: non-quack) scientists or environmental groups that want restrictions so tight that it would indeed result in mass death in the third world. And any comparisons of those numbers to the numbers that would die if nothing is done to fix the environment would be great, as well. These are things I'd love to read about from anyone if you know of such resources, not necessarily specifically you, cdrguru.
Barring that, I still feel like the "skeptics" have a bat swinging at their head and have yet to come up with an argument worthy of not ducking. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but it still seems to me to be a problem worth a little urgency and emotion.
Someone may have already mentioned this, but does anyone else think that there's nothing wrong with being emotionally charged on this issue? I mean, surely it's good to consider all sides and whatnot - but there are times for consideration and there are times that demand more urgent action. If it's just a "yes it's happening/no it's not" kind of argument, that's one thing - but if one way could kill me while the other way means I have to spend a few thousand dollars more on a more environmentally friendly car, I have only one thing to ask: cash, check, or charge?
If we really are considering all sides then we also have to consider the more extreme end of those individuals who say that we're so far beyond fixing this crazy thing that there's not too much we can do. And if there's even the slightest possibility that things are that bad, then I'm all for everyone getting emotional and cutting down on the sit-around-and-consider mindset.
If someone's swinging a bat at my head, I tend not to just stand there scratching my chin and thinking, "Hmmm... should I duck? Try to block it? There's certainly a possibility that I could JUMP high enough that it will miss me... nah that's silly. Well what if I just let it hit me? It may not do much damage..." I just react.
Now, I'm not a crazy environmentalist. I just value my head and don't want it getting hit by bats. And though I like my head, I don't think there are as many people depending on it as there are depending on, you know, the planet.
Whether all of the specifics of global warming are true or not, I've yet to hear a single positive redeeming argument in favor of all the pollution we're belching out. I'm sure even the skeptics would prefer not to eat anything caught in the Mississippi River or breathe the air during LA rush hour if they can help it. The alarmists are saying, "DUCK!" while the skeptics are saying, "Why should I?" If the alarmists are wrong and we listened to them, then what harm came? If the skeptics are wrong and we listened... I call dibs on the oxygen tank.
So, to me at least, it seems to be kind of a moot point to be skeptical. On many levels.
Why not have a website devoted to "outing" cyber-bullies? A la the sex offender registry? If someone is found to be a bully on a regular basis, the most lasting punishment would be to have them publicly named for permanent reference.
Yes, I know it would be harsh for someone to perhaps lose an opportunity at a job when they're 30 for something they did when they were 14... but I just have zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense. I know that being picked on and picking on others is part of growing up - but I've also witnessed that a lot of folks who are bullies when they're younger tend to maintain a fair part of that as they get older. If they're so proud of that behavior, let us give them an internet badge of sorts and let them deal with the consequence.
I was fortunate enough to be a fairly large guy and so never got bullied seriously - but I still think we should have a strong stance against ANYONE who preys on the small/weak at any age. I feel that preying on the weak is one of the underlying issues behind major "adult" conflicts, as well, so we shouldn't be afraid to fight it hard and early.
So the entire works of Charles Darwin have been made available online? By "have been" I assume you mean it's already done or is at least incredibly close, right? Buuuuuuuuuuut it's only halfway done? Should be completed by 2009? Just checking. Carry on.
I got to about the 3rd sentence before the hamster running on the wheel in my head fell off and, in a daze, started pooping everywhere. That happens anytime I read something math related. Good thing math is just a fad.
In the example you used - the wiki is merely the house itself, just standing there waiting to be vandalized. Saying that the house itself should be directly accountable for what gets spraypainted on an outside wall doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Maybe it's just that the particular metaphor you used doesn't quite work in this case... but I disagree with the point you seem to be trying to make. It appears that you're saying that since the originaly contributor can't be caught and held accountable, we should find someone else to blame in his/her place. While that would go along very well with the current state of the American legal system (blame the teachers, schools, video games, TV, music, ANYTHING but the actual offenders themselves), it doesn't make it right.
It does indeed suck when you can't catch the criminal/offender that you really want, but it's absolutely ridiculous just to pour the blame onto someone else for lack of the real criminal.
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy, but we're not buying it. Next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted: But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy: Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for right now, for your sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality item from me.
DRM for the common man. I was sick of the "big labels" being the only ones that had say in restricting or hindering the usage of my entertainment. I'll take my restrictions indie-style and support the regular Joe's methods of hindrance. Man, I'm so emo.
It's about time some people stepped up and took my side against the publishing of names and personal addresses. I've been looking to take down phone book publishers for years. Now my evil plot is finally coming to fruition.
Today the yellow pages, tomorrow the world! Mu ha ha ha ha ha ha!
...but if you try sometimes, you just might find - you get what you need.
Do you spazoids really NEED 40 frickin' gigs? Or are you just too lazy to update your digital music player regularly?
You're not paying the extra cash because you really need it, but for the convenience. I have a 40-gig iPod for regular use and an iPod mini that I got on the cheap for jogging. The truth is that I listen to the same music on both. It's a sad fact I reluctantly admitted to myself when I was going over my finances to consider buying a 60-gig.
I really don't need 40 gigs. I definitely don't need 60, despite having that much music in my collection. But the truth is that so much of that is really just excess. My Allman Brothers collection has about 4 different versions of every song, for chrissakes! A "puny" little 4 gig ipod mini really is more than enough.
The only downside is that I'd have to go through the "hassle" of updating it once every couple of months. Oh, the agony!
Take a look at your own player. Chances are you've had at least half your collection on that iPod of yours for as long as you've owned it yet never listened to it. You don't "need" so much - you're just unwilling to part with your live version of the "best of Celine Dion." Do you really need to always have the normal and live versions of that garbage to compare with one another? Moderation, discipline, self-control - c'mon people! Celine will still be waiting to screech at you on your home computer.
But on the subject of Sony - yes, they do suck in this case. I remember when people would walk into an electronics store and ask for Sony stuff just because they trusted the name so much. Now they only do that with the PS2 - and even then a lot of typical consumers forget that Sony makes it.
However you are being disingenuous here. Very much misleading actually. That, or stupid. Quoted from the very article you link to, "Apple's attorney George Rliey, argued earlier in the trial that journalists, whether or not belonging to traditional media like press and broadcast were never entitled to the leaked information." ... So Apple is saying it doesn't matter if they are, or aren't, journalists.
Actually, Apple is saying that it matters if they are or aren't journalists. As stated in TFA I linked:
"Apple's attorney Riley countered by saying that free speech protection applied only to legitimate members of the press and not to website publishers. Freedom of the press was for the press, meaning the traditional media, he said."
Apple has NOT asserted that freedom of the press applies only to "legitimate members of the press."
actually, according to TFA that I posted a link to in my parent post - "Apple's attorney Riley countered by saying that free speech protection applied only to legitimate members of the press and not to website publishers. Freedom of the press was for the press, meaning the traditional media, he said."
But thanks for playing. With all due respect... next time please read what's cited before pretending to talk knowledgably of it. Otherwise the conversation just has no point because you're not listening.
The only thing that I seriously hate in all this hooplah is the assertion by Apple's lawyers that freedom of the press applies ONLY to the traditional media. I may not have any legal training, but any assertion that certain constitutionally guaranteed rights apply exclusively to people in the elite makes me nervous. Because then you have to start asking where the line is.
If I print out my own weekly newsletter on my computer, am I more of a traditional (and thus constitutionally protected) journalist than a reporter with 30+ years experience who now writes exclusively online?
I think that EVERY citizen has a constitutionally protected right to free press. I don't recall a clause in the constitution that says you have to be certified to truly enjoy that right. The right covers us all.
Additionally, what would Apple's lawyers be saying if this information HAD been published in a big "traditional" paper? Or if it were on CNN?
IMHO, I think they are behaving like Microsoft. They don't really care about constitutional rights or legal protections of free speech, etc. It's just about money. I'm a mac user, but I'm not an Apple apologist - and I think there's something terribly wrong with any corporation's greed can circumvent the rights of ordinary citizens.
Whether you journalism snobs like it or not, anyone CAN be a journalist with enough time and dedication. No certification necessary, according to our constitution.
Yes, it's moronic that the owners refuse to sell something that people want to buy. Still doesn't give you the right to just take it.
This statement made me laugh out loud:
Why bother promoting the creation of content if the creators won't distribute it. There should be a stipulation in copyright law that if I want to buy it you have to sell it to me(preferably at a preset price)
A demand for a product isn't a good reason for people to be required to sell something. That's just ridiculous. What if I wanted copies of some "personal" pictures/videos you'd made with your wife/girlfriend? If there were such a stipulation in copyright law, then I would have a RIGHT to purchase a copy of your private sexual recordings because they'd be covered under the same umbrella.
Stop and think about things more thoroughly before you say them. To this day I have still not heard a single good argument for piracy. The majority of the arguments can ultimately be simplified as "I want it entirely on my terms, not on the terms of those that produced the work. But since they won't provide things to me on my terms, I'll just take it because I'm a spoiled brat who has to have everything my way even at the expense of other good hardworking people."
As I said in my previous posts in this and other threads - it's not yours, and you have NO inherent rights to it. Just because the other party is being stingy or stupid doesn't give you the right to make your own rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Wa! (sniff sniff) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (gurgle) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
...create all of the helpful technology and medicine that you want, but natural selection has a way of always coming back into play to pick off the dumb ones. Until we just wrap newborn babies in big hunks of foam and leave them mostly stationary in climate controlled bubbles for their entire lives, fed through a carefully monitored nourishment tube, the stupid ones will always find ways to kill themselves in embarassing and pointless ways. Heck, even then they'd probably try to eat the foam. I say don't ban texting while driving - just build a couple of new roads for people who do it. That way the pileups won't accidentally snag someone who is smart enough to NOT be doing things like that. The new roads wouldn't cost too much because, heck, they wouldn't have to be very long. Just like a block or so and then they could just sort of end. The drivers won't even notice. Why in the world am I rambling about this? I need sleep. Mod -1 (Pointless).
...isn't from slashdot. It's the last part of this page:
"I can foresee a day when this community of nihilistic pranksters hold its first convention, and they spend a week at the Marriott sneaking up on each other, flicking each other's ears and laughing until they drool."
I've heard the alarmists often say that many people will die if changes are not made, but I haven't heard the skeptics say the same thing until now. Who dies if we DO make changes? I'm not really thinking of poor countries when I ask that, mind you - I'm thinking of the wealthy and industrialized portions of the world. What percentage of the American population, for instance, would die if we cut our pollution output in, say, half? And how would that compare to the number who would be saved by cutting down on pollution? I suppose I could see how somebody somewhere would die if restrictions were implemented across the world and enforced with an iron fist, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard anyone suggest such a thing. I've never heard someone say that Johnny Thirdworld absolutely should not have ANY access to heating oil with which to boil the limited and polluted water supply he has access to. The environmentalists who address the third world in their considerations do seem to urge responsible development (thanks to lessons learned from the past), but I personally have never heard an environmentalist argue for so strict of standards for those countries that would actually prevent people from living. All the restrictions I've heard seem to focus on the greenhouse gas power brokers: America, China, etc. The more wealth and industry in each country, the tighter the restrictions because they can afford it. But this all certainly could be a case of me not being fully educated on the topic - so if you know of any good resources that suggest that massive numbers of people will die in first world countries if changes are made, then I honestly would love to read those because that's something I've yet to see. Also, I'm interested in knowing if there are any mainstream (read: non-quack) scientists or environmental groups that want restrictions so tight that it would indeed result in mass death in the third world. And any comparisons of those numbers to the numbers that would die if nothing is done to fix the environment would be great, as well. These are things I'd love to read about from anyone if you know of such resources, not necessarily specifically you, cdrguru. Barring that, I still feel like the "skeptics" have a bat swinging at their head and have yet to come up with an argument worthy of not ducking. I'm not the smartest man in the world, but it still seems to me to be a problem worth a little urgency and emotion.
Someone may have already mentioned this, but does anyone else think that there's nothing wrong with being emotionally charged on this issue? I mean, surely it's good to consider all sides and whatnot - but there are times for consideration and there are times that demand more urgent action. If it's just a "yes it's happening/no it's not" kind of argument, that's one thing - but if one way could kill me while the other way means I have to spend a few thousand dollars more on a more environmentally friendly car, I have only one thing to ask: cash, check, or charge?
If we really are considering all sides then we also have to consider the more extreme end of those individuals who say that we're so far beyond fixing this crazy thing that there's not too much we can do. And if there's even the slightest possibility that things are that bad, then I'm all for everyone getting emotional and cutting down on the sit-around-and-consider mindset.
If someone's swinging a bat at my head, I tend not to just stand there scratching my chin and thinking, "Hmmm... should I duck? Try to block it? There's certainly a possibility that I could JUMP high enough that it will miss me... nah that's silly. Well what if I just let it hit me? It may not do much damage..." I just react.
Now, I'm not a crazy environmentalist. I just value my head and don't want it getting hit by bats. And though I like my head, I don't think there are as many people depending on it as there are depending on, you know, the planet.
Whether all of the specifics of global warming are true or not, I've yet to hear a single positive redeeming argument in favor of all the pollution we're belching out. I'm sure even the skeptics would prefer not to eat anything caught in the Mississippi River or breathe the air during LA rush hour if they can help it. The alarmists are saying, "DUCK!" while the skeptics are saying, "Why should I?" If the alarmists are wrong and we listened to them, then what harm came? If the skeptics are wrong and we listened... I call dibs on the oxygen tank.
So, to me at least, it seems to be kind of a moot point to be skeptical. On many levels.
Ewwww... crust wound...
...then I for one am proud to be a genetic freak.
Why not have a website devoted to "outing" cyber-bullies? A la the sex offender registry? If someone is found to be a bully on a regular basis, the most lasting punishment would be to have them publicly named for permanent reference.
Yes, I know it would be harsh for someone to perhaps lose an opportunity at a job when they're 30 for something they did when they were 14... but I just have zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense. I know that being picked on and picking on others is part of growing up - but I've also witnessed that a lot of folks who are bullies when they're younger tend to maintain a fair part of that as they get older. If they're so proud of that behavior, let us give them an internet badge of sorts and let them deal with the consequence.
I was fortunate enough to be a fairly large guy and so never got bullied seriously - but I still think we should have a strong stance against ANYONE who preys on the small/weak at any age. I feel that preying on the weak is one of the underlying issues behind major "adult" conflicts, as well, so we shouldn't be afraid to fight it hard and early.
This just in: people are hypocrites. And now back to our regularly scheduled program here at DuhTV.
So the entire works of Charles Darwin have been made available online? By "have been" I assume you mean it's already done or is at least incredibly close, right? Buuuuuuuuuuut it's only halfway done? Should be completed by 2009? Just checking. Carry on.
GRAPHICAL user interface? You mean GUI doesn't stand for Greg's User Interface?
I got to about the 3rd sentence before the hamster running on the wheel in my head fell off and, in a daze, started pooping everywhere. That happens anytime I read something math related. Good thing math is just a fad.
Is there fun that != enjoyable? Why can't we mod the title "redundant" while doing so for my post as well?
In the example you used - the wiki is merely the house itself, just standing there waiting to be vandalized. Saying that the house itself should be directly accountable for what gets spraypainted on an outside wall doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Maybe it's just that the particular metaphor you used doesn't quite work in this case... but I disagree with the point you seem to be trying to make. It appears that you're saying that since the originaly contributor can't be caught and held accountable, we should find someone else to blame in his/her place. While that would go along very well with the current state of the American legal system (blame the teachers, schools, video games, TV, music, ANYTHING but the actual offenders themselves), it doesn't make it right.
It does indeed suck when you can't catch the criminal/offender that you really want, but it's absolutely ridiculous just to pour the blame onto someone else for lack of the real criminal.
Where have I heard that before?
(tommyboy)
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy, but we're not buying it. Next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted: But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy: Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for right now, for your sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality item from me.
(/tommyboy)
DRM for the common man. I was sick of the "big labels" being the only ones that had say in restricting or hindering the usage of my entertainment. I'll take my restrictions indie-style and support the regular Joe's methods of hindrance. Man, I'm so emo.
I've been trying for years to find a way to get rid of my mother-in-law. Thank you, Dan Wilson!
I don't think there's ever been a single thread I've read on slashdot more worthy of the phrase, "My god, what a bunch of nerds," than this one.
It's about time some people stepped up and took my side against the publishing of names and personal addresses. I've been looking to take down phone book publishers for years. Now my evil plot is finally coming to fruition.
Today the yellow pages, tomorrow the world! Mu ha ha ha ha ha ha!
...but if you try sometimes, you just might find - you get what you need.
Do you spazoids really NEED 40 frickin' gigs? Or are you just too lazy to update your digital music player regularly?
You're not paying the extra cash because you really need it, but for the convenience. I have a 40-gig iPod for regular use and an iPod mini that I got on the cheap for jogging. The truth is that I listen to the same music on both. It's a sad fact I reluctantly admitted to myself when I was going over my finances to consider buying a 60-gig.
I really don't need 40 gigs. I definitely don't need 60, despite having that much music in my collection. But the truth is that so much of that is really just excess. My Allman Brothers collection has about 4 different versions of every song, for chrissakes! A "puny" little 4 gig ipod mini really is more than enough.
The only downside is that I'd have to go through the "hassle" of updating it once every couple of months. Oh, the agony!
Take a look at your own player. Chances are you've had at least half your collection on that iPod of yours for as long as you've owned it yet never listened to it. You don't "need" so much - you're just unwilling to part with your live version of the "best of Celine Dion." Do you really need to always have the normal and live versions of that garbage to compare with one another? Moderation, discipline, self-control - c'mon people! Celine will still be waiting to screech at you on your home computer.
But on the subject of Sony - yes, they do suck in this case. I remember when people would walk into an electronics store and ask for Sony stuff just because they trusted the name so much. Now they only do that with the PS2 - and even then a lot of typical consumers forget that Sony makes it.
However you are being disingenuous here. Very much misleading actually. That, or stupid. Quoted from the very article you link to, "Apple's attorney George Rliey, argued earlier in the trial that journalists, whether or not belonging to traditional media like press and broadcast were never entitled to the leaked information."
...
So Apple is saying it doesn't matter if they are, or aren't, journalists.
Actually, Apple is saying that it matters if they are or aren't journalists. As stated in TFA I linked:
"Apple's attorney Riley countered by saying that free speech protection applied only to legitimate members of the press and not to website publishers. Freedom of the press was for the press, meaning the traditional media, he said."
Please read the whole thing.
Apple has NOT asserted that freedom of the press applies only to "legitimate members of the press."
actually, according to TFA that I posted a link to in my parent post - "Apple's attorney Riley countered by saying that free speech protection applied only to legitimate members of the press and not to website publishers. Freedom of the press was for the press, meaning the traditional media, he said."
But thanks for playing. With all due respect... next time please read what's cited before pretending to talk knowledgably of it. Otherwise the conversation just has no point because you're not listening.
The only thing that I seriously hate in all this hooplah is the assertion by Apple's lawyers that freedom of the press applies ONLY to the traditional media. I may not have any legal training, but any assertion that certain constitutionally guaranteed rights apply exclusively to people in the elite makes me nervous. Because then you have to start asking where the line is.
If I print out my own weekly newsletter on my computer, am I more of a traditional (and thus constitutionally protected) journalist than a reporter with 30+ years experience who now writes exclusively online?
I think that EVERY citizen has a constitutionally protected right to free press. I don't recall a clause in the constitution that says you have to be certified to truly enjoy that right. The right covers us all.
Additionally, what would Apple's lawyers be saying if this information HAD been published in a big "traditional" paper? Or if it were on CNN?
IMHO, I think they are behaving like Microsoft. They don't really care about constitutional rights or legal protections of free speech, etc. It's just about money. I'm a mac user, but I'm not an Apple apologist - and I think there's something terribly wrong with any corporation's greed can circumvent the rights of ordinary citizens.
Whether you journalism snobs like it or not, anyone CAN be a journalist with enough time and dedication. No certification necessary, according to our constitution.
...your head asplode
Yes, it's moronic that the owners refuse to sell something that people want to buy. Still doesn't give you the right to just take it.
This statement made me laugh out loud:
Why bother promoting the creation of content if the creators won't distribute it. There should be a stipulation in copyright law that if I want to buy it you have to sell it to me(preferably at a preset price)
A demand for a product isn't a good reason for people to be required to sell something. That's just ridiculous. What if I wanted copies of some "personal" pictures/videos you'd made with your wife/girlfriend? If there were such a stipulation in copyright law, then I would have a RIGHT to purchase a copy of your private sexual recordings because they'd be covered under the same umbrella.
Stop and think about things more thoroughly before you say them. To this day I have still not heard a single good argument for piracy. The majority of the arguments can ultimately be simplified as "I want it entirely on my terms, not on the terms of those that produced the work. But since they won't provide things to me on my terms, I'll just take it because I'm a spoiled brat who has to have everything my way even at the expense of other good hardworking people."
As I said in my previous posts in this and other threads - it's not yours, and you have NO inherent rights to it. Just because the other party is being stingy or stupid doesn't give you the right to make your own rules.
Sorry. The world doesn't revolve around you.