Yes. It's not a requirement thus if one goes above the call of duty it is seen in a better light. What in god's name is so hard to understand about that? If I work at a job and help a client more than required to wouldn't people view my behavior as better than if I had simply done what is required?
You seem to lack understanding of what people are saying, they're not saying a company NEEDS to do anything however if it does then they'll think more highly of that company, specifically BECAUSE it doesn't need to do that. Furthermore some people not only look at companies which do so more highly but look at companies which don't with disdain. This too is perfectly acceptable as it's their own damn opinion, and they have every right to it.
I can refuse to buy products from a company which uses sweat shops (I actually don't since I'm not really that nice), does that make me a bad person because the company can legally do so?
*sigh* Japan asfaik built a whole new infrastructure, they didn't extend phone lines or cable but built fiber (I belive that is right) everywhere. The US can do that as well however there has been no incentive till now since people generally don't need that much speed. If everyone has dial-up they will bitch, if everyone has mdoerate broadband the generally won't as much. Verizon's FIOS is closest to what Japan did and amaxingly enough they seem to be building it without much trouble however its going slowly and took time (probably to become cheap enough).
Its called competition and capitalism, an existing infrastructure limits the profits from a new one since the old one can usually be sold for less. People will buy cheaper things even if they're not the best.
Do you even read what the discussion is about or just blindly reply whenver certain terms come up?
Legally neither did anything wrong, however even if something is legal doesn't mean people will not complain. Welcome to the great field of "ethics."
In Japan at least this is the case because they started getting broadband much later than the US. In the US they already had broadband which both made it less important to upgrade things yet again, and also made it less profitable to do so.
While I don't particularly like the book the point is valid.
I mean come the fuck on, we barely understand what is happening to the planet NOW. We don't even know for certain if we are causing global warming, some studies indicate our pollution is also blocking out the sun already, and so on. Simulations are barely adequate with decades of hard data to back then up. What lunatic decided that screwing with the planet even more is a good idea? Just lower pollution as a whole damn it, at least that isn't too likely to screw up the environment even more.
I believe the following is a nice analogy of what they are proposing: Lets say you have a guy and he falls into some really hot water (or said water is dumped on him). Instead of cooling the water, getting the guy away, or getting rid of the water the proposal is akin to dumping liquid nitrogen on the guy to try and cool him off. I'm sure that when that overcools him they'd attempt to find a nice pool of lava.
I thought the context would be enough to clarify what I was talking about but I guess some people need things spelled out. I was first of all we are talking about spam (telephone and email), where the vast majority of the former was/is easily traceable compared to the later. I'd like to note that by traceable I meant to a person, which also doesn't include "some guy in China/Romania" (needless to say the country of origin of the perpetrators is quite important when talking about these matters). In addition, it is potentially much easier to make email untraceable than phone calls (ie: the costs don't drive spammers out of business).
You're a moron, can't find a nicer way to say it. As someone else said the Do Not Call List works, and comparing it to an email list only helps prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. E-mail is mostly untraceable, free and can come from anywhere. Phones are traceable (mostly), cost money and in reality can't come from anywhere due to their cost (phone spamming from China would be amusing). There are also difference of volume and time. Can people get around these things? Yes. Is it through legal means? Probably not. Do they bother? It seems not.
Compared to all the other ways money is wasted that $18 billion for NASA is pocket change. Go look at the cost of the war in Iraq for example. As for their lives, they chose to do this and they knew the risks. Because you're a coward who doesn't believe it is something worth risking ones life for doesn't mean everyone is.
So you pick 9 people, 7 of whom probably haven't even read the constitution to interpret things based on said document. Brilliant, just fuckin brilliant. You ignore the fact that the court screens cases to review and doesn't blindly look at every single case. I mean, the sheer bureaucracy and inefficiency (every single little thing will have to be explained to the "jurors"... cases would take eternity) you wish to introduce is mind boggling.
Compared to the utter crap that happened during the Cultural Revolution, I'm sure the Chinese people are quite happy about the current government. The thing is that it is changing (compared to a few decades ago for example), and government figures have indicated a desire for democracy in the future. However, if they change too quickly they risk rebellion and instability which really won't help the people in the long term (look at Russia or most of the regime changes the US helped).
For now the current government is bringing economic prosperity and all its side-effects (which is what most people really care about, freedom is secondary to a full stomach), such as education which probably will cause changes on its own. That's probably why the government is so open to change, they understand that if they maintain the current policies and growth there will be change whether they like it or not. They may as well make the change as pain free as possible, which in the end is also good for them (messy change generally involves the death/exile of numerous leaders).
Why not, answer me. You claim that because they're value system is different we cannot interfere. However, by saying that you're forcing YOUR value system onto me since there is no universal right or law preventing me from interfering with someone else's value system. Why can't I condemn them? Why can't I interfere? What are you basing my actions as being "bad" on? They have no inherent universal right to anything as you claim, which also includes the right to keep me from interfering.
You're a hypocrite, attempting to use a line of reasoning without following it through to completion.
You also ignore the fact that the very existence of such dissidents means not everyone subscribes to the Chinese governments moral system, so you cannot use the government to claim I am interfering. You talk of moral systems, and as such you must compare the Western one to the Chinese one not to the Chinese government's one. If some people do not agree with the government then they are no longer covered under its moral system. If you're going to use the governments actions as a basis for morality than at least use it for both sides, and don't compare apples to oranges.
I'd like to point out what the above statement says about the parent. It seems that he believes we have no rights to do anything unless specifically given to us, it seems that some other entity (government?) must give said rights to us. This, of course, goes against the Western point of view which gives me all rights unless I decide to give them up (say because my government says so, China is NOT my government may I add). See it's funny however if you say that using the Western view of things to justify some actions is bad, what is there to define said actions as bad? I mean why should I accept another person's view of things?
By refusing the existence of universal rights, the parent gives me the right to mess with China because there is nothing that forces me to adhere to the Chinese government's view of things. If they wish to they can try to change our view of things, we can resist of course but nothing keeps them from trying.
Yes, they're people will just suffer a lot more and lose whatever chance they may have had at goverment reform in the future (from everything I've read the Chinese goverment isn't stupid enough to believe they can keep their current system going once China become rich/capitalistic enough). Look at Iraq and North Korea, or Cuba.
Depends what school of morality you subscribe to, some preach that such rights are in essence unviersal. We have every right to say whatever we want about those laws, it's called freedom of speech. As for changing them; we again have every right to, given China's involvement with the world, try to influence Chinese politics by aiding certain factions.
IT training probably means "since you will never own a computer, let us show you how to use one." And given that the US has millions of teachers, yes there probably are 50k with the same level of IT training.
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 1
The government among other things funds scientific research, if their service helps promote this research (ie: its cost is expected to pay off) then it doesn't matter if there already is a private version. Keep in mind that the government will be paying for this either way, since either it offers a free service or its grant money gets used to pay for the private service. Please read up on the Human Genome Project and Celera, to see why government copying of private things isn't always a bad thing.
Yeah, people seem to lack knowledge of US history. Sad really, so I'll mention two interesting events: -Nixon: I found some interesting comments in the news after the whole Deep Throat thing. In essence, seems like the FBI wanted to and almost managed to monitor every single member of organization whose only crime was their political view. -Eugenics: Till the late 50s almost 100k "feeble-minded" people were sterilized, many of them because they somehow didn't follow "Christian moral standards." For example, let's say you're a teen and got raped then sent to an institution for such people. If you're unlucky enough (say your mother committed some crimes) then you could get sterilized as would your child (after of course being determined to be "feeble-minded " by a "specialist").
Nonetheless we have to oppose such things, so that they don't destroy the US. I've heard people who've lived through the above history say that our acceptance of presidential lies is disturbing. The government doesn't matter, society does and if we accept these losses of freedom as normal than it's all over. If kids are thought there is nothing wrong with such actions then everything will collapse.
There is no species which deliberately handicaps itself
It's not about the creature which is most likely to survive but the one who is most likely to reproduce (technically which is most likely to pass on a given gene). If some trait will cause a creature to have a 5% larger chance of dying but attracts females at a 10% greater rate then it will survive. I need to note that any disadvantages caused need to be small enough as to not affect the species as a whole (a handicap but one the species can absorb in essence). -Gerald S. Wilkinson and Paul Reillo showed such evolution for the stalk-eyed fly (Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni) -Giant antlers, potentially evolved because the directly indicate a healthy individual. -Passerina amoena: bird species has two subpopulations, one bright and aggressive while the other dull and passive. It seems females select for the best of either population, so in other words the selection seems to not be due to some survival probabilities.
There is no way for a species to spiral out of control. Eventually the species will either become the main course for others, or hit the limits of its food supply.
Please learn to read next time, spiral out of control was not used for population size and I never indicated so. I was talking in terms of a feature getting more and more pronounced, ie: spiraling out of control. And yes it would either stop once it became too disadvantageous or once it caused the species to go extinct.
What most such pseudo-science theories seem to mis-represent as such are other factors which the species needed, and which are _not_ there as handicaps.
If you wish to debate this issue you can contact the people who came up with the following:
E.g., human breasts, since you mention them are there _not_ either as handicap, nor as the "sex signal of having a butt on the chest" idiocy. They're there because that's convenient for a primate to hold its baby, and they're that size in humans because a human baby needs a _lot_ of food. The brains alone needs ridiculous quantities of proteins to even keep working. (See why the evoloution of human brain size kept step with the availability of food sources: e.g., fire allowing us to eat plants.)
Fire allowed us to eat meat I believe but that another point. And as someone mentioned breast size has jack shit to do with milk production as all that extra mass is fat not mammary glands. There is a reason tiny asian woman who are flat as airport runways can successfully have kids. By your logic everyone would have decently sized breasts however that is not true. As I said, other primates do not have such large breasts and they also carry their children.
Humans were very good at surviving so small handicaps could be accumulated without endangering their survival.
E.g., other signals (such as colours) in various species are _not_ there as a handicap, but to solve problems like finding each other. See, being well hidden from predators doesn't help that much if you also don't find a partner to mate with. Or like the kid being able to follow the mother.
And yet some of those colors are quite flamboyant aren't they? Your logic only works u to a point, especially since coloring varies greatly among birds and many are decently well hidden.
It applies to other animals so why not humans? Culture can override genetic predisposition however it's important to note that we need to talk about "lack of fitness". Many organisms seem to look for features which in essence say "I'm SO fit that I can have this giant handicap and still survive." Well not really but it sounds nice, from what I understand you have some feature which indicates fitness. So the species starts selecting for it and the process spirals out of control leading to the feature being so exaggerated it now hampers the animal. It's no longer related to fitness as genes have appeared which "artificially" cause it to appear.
Go look at a chimpanzee, our closest relative, and you'll notice that the females lack fat in a certain area compared to humans. See, decently sized breasts have no advantage from what I can see (and potentially a disadvantage) however out ancestors probably selected for them.
I really have no idea what your point is anymore. The original poster, at least from my point of view, was saying this was a method to PREVENT the sale of stolen goods, as buyers could verify a given objects validity and NOT buy it if it was stolen. You analogy seems to perfectly justify that point, the scrolls can now be checked by a dealer to see if they are authentic just like your violin. This seems to have been a problem before due to the lack of any real "marks" to distinguish scrolls easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It's not a requirement thus if one goes above the call of duty it is seen in a better light. What in god's name is so hard to understand about that? If I work at a job and help a client more than required to wouldn't people view my behavior as better than if I had simply done what is required?
You seem to lack understanding of what people are saying, they're not saying a company NEEDS to do anything however if it does then they'll think more highly of that company, specifically BECAUSE it doesn't need to do that. Furthermore some people not only look at companies which do so more highly but look at companies which don't with disdain. This too is perfectly acceptable as it's their own damn opinion, and they have every right to it.
I can refuse to buy products from a company which uses sweat shops (I actually don't since I'm not really that nice), does that make me a bad person because the company can legally do so?
*sigh* Japan asfaik built a whole new infrastructure, they didn't extend phone lines or cable but built fiber (I belive that is right) everywhere. The US can do that as well however there has been no incentive till now since people generally don't need that much speed. If everyone has dial-up they will bitch, if everyone has mdoerate broadband the generally won't as much. Verizon's FIOS is closest to what Japan did and amaxingly enough they seem to be building it without much trouble however its going slowly and took time (probably to become cheap enough).
Its called competition and capitalism, an existing infrastructure limits the profits from a new one since the old one can usually be sold for less. People will buy cheaper things even if they're not the best.
Do you even read what the discussion is about or just blindly reply whenver certain terms come up? Legally neither did anything wrong, however even if something is legal doesn't mean people will not complain. Welcome to the great field of "ethics."
In Japan at least this is the case because they started getting broadband much later than the US. In the US they already had broadband which both made it less important to upgrade things yet again, and also made it less profitable to do so.
While I don't particularly like the book the point is valid.
I mean come the fuck on, we barely understand what is happening to the planet NOW. We don't even know for certain if we are causing global warming, some studies indicate our pollution is also blocking out the sun already, and so on. Simulations are barely adequate with decades of hard data to back then up. What lunatic decided that screwing with the planet even more is a good idea? Just lower pollution as a whole damn it, at least that isn't too likely to screw up the environment even more.
I believe the following is a nice analogy of what they are proposing: Lets say you have a guy and he falls into some really hot water (or said water is dumped on him). Instead of cooling the water, getting the guy away, or getting rid of the water the proposal is akin to dumping liquid nitrogen on the guy to try and cool him off. I'm sure that when that overcools him they'd attempt to find a nice pool of lava.
I thought the context would be enough to clarify what I was talking about but I guess some people need things spelled out. I was first of all we are talking about spam (telephone and email), where the vast majority of the former was/is easily traceable compared to the later. I'd like to note that by traceable I meant to a person, which also doesn't include "some guy in China/Romania" (needless to say the country of origin of the perpetrators is quite important when talking about these matters). In addition, it is potentially much easier to make email untraceable than phone calls (ie: the costs don't drive spammers out of business).
You're a moron, can't find a nicer way to say it. As someone else said the Do Not Call List works, and comparing it to an email list only helps prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. E-mail is mostly untraceable, free and can come from anywhere. Phones are traceable (mostly), cost money and in reality can't come from anywhere due to their cost (phone spamming from China would be amusing). There are also difference of volume and time. Can people get around these things? Yes. Is it through legal means? Probably not. Do they bother? It seems not.
Compared to all the other ways money is wasted that $18 billion for NASA is pocket change. Go look at the cost of the war in Iraq for example. As for their lives, they chose to do this and they knew the risks. Because you're a coward who doesn't believe it is something worth risking ones life for doesn't mean everyone is.
MOD PARENT UP The dissenting judges want to EXTEND federal power not limit it, and yet no one notices it.
So you pick 9 people, 7 of whom probably haven't even read the constitution to interpret things based on said document. Brilliant, just fuckin brilliant. You ignore the fact that the court screens cases to review and doesn't blindly look at every single case. I mean, the sheer bureaucracy and inefficiency (every single little thing will have to be explained to the "jurors"... cases would take eternity) you wish to introduce is mind boggling.
Compared to the utter crap that happened during the Cultural Revolution, I'm sure the Chinese people are quite happy about the current government. The thing is that it is changing (compared to a few decades ago for example), and government figures have indicated a desire for democracy in the future. However, if they change too quickly they risk rebellion and instability which really won't help the people in the long term (look at Russia or most of the regime changes the US helped).
For now the current government is bringing economic prosperity and all its side-effects (which is what most people really care about, freedom is secondary to a full stomach), such as education which probably will cause changes on its own. That's probably why the government is so open to change, they understand that if they maintain the current policies and growth there will be change whether they like it or not. They may as well make the change as pain free as possible, which in the end is also good for them (messy change generally involves the death/exile of numerous leaders).
Why not, answer me. You claim that because they're value system is different we cannot interfere. However, by saying that you're forcing YOUR value system onto me since there is no universal right or law preventing me from interfering with someone else's value system. Why can't I condemn them? Why can't I interfere? What are you basing my actions as being "bad" on? They have no inherent universal right to anything as you claim, which also includes the right to keep me from interfering.
You're a hypocrite, attempting to use a line of reasoning without following it through to completion.
You also ignore the fact that the very existence of such dissidents means not everyone subscribes to the Chinese governments moral system, so you cannot use the government to claim I am interfering. You talk of moral systems, and as such you must compare the Western one to the Chinese one not to the Chinese government's one. If some people do not agree with the government then they are no longer covered under its moral system. If you're going to use the governments actions as a basis for morality than at least use it for both sides, and don't compare apples to oranges.
You mean like spying on my goverment and stealing information from it?
I'd like to point out what the above statement says about the parent. It seems that he believes we have no rights to do anything unless specifically given to us, it seems that some other entity (government?) must give said rights to us. This, of course, goes against the Western point of view which gives me all rights unless I decide to give them up (say because my government says so, China is NOT my government may I add). See it's funny however if you say that using the Western view of things to justify some actions is bad, what is there to define said actions as bad? I mean why should I accept another person's view of things?
By refusing the existence of universal rights, the parent gives me the right to mess with China because there is nothing that forces me to adhere to the Chinese government's view of things. If they wish to they can try to change our view of things, we can resist of course but nothing keeps them from trying.
Yes, they're people will just suffer a lot more and lose whatever chance they may have had at goverment reform in the future (from everything I've read the Chinese goverment isn't stupid enough to believe they can keep their current system going once China become rich/capitalistic enough). Look at Iraq and North Korea, or Cuba.
Depends what school of morality you subscribe to, some preach that such rights are in essence unviersal. We have every right to say whatever we want about those laws, it's called freedom of speech. As for changing them; we again have every right to, given China's involvement with the world, try to influence Chinese politics by aiding certain factions.
Sorry to tell you this but its only an "act of war" if the US goverment doesn't like the country, just look at Israel and what they do.
IT training probably means "since you will never own a computer, let us show you how to use one." And given that the US has millions of teachers, yes there probably are 50k with the same level of IT training.
The government among other things funds scientific research, if their service helps promote this research (ie: its cost is expected to pay off) then it doesn't matter if there already is a private version. Keep in mind that the government will be paying for this either way, since either it offers a free service or its grant money gets used to pay for the private service. Please read up on the Human Genome Project and Celera, to see why government copying of private things isn't always a bad thing.
...and everyone who uses linux wants to become a sys admin or similar. Because most other jobs really don't need it you know.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay 8text.html
Googling for things like "sterilization law", "eugenics Virginia" and so on will give more results.
I was also a bit mistaken; sterilization kept going on till the mid-70s not late-50s. It also appears to be a lovely example of government corruption.
Yeah, people seem to lack knowledge of US history. Sad really, so I'll mention two interesting events:
-Nixon: I found some interesting comments in the news after the whole Deep Throat thing. In essence, seems like the FBI wanted to and almost managed to monitor every single member of organization whose only crime was their political view.
-Eugenics: Till the late 50s almost 100k "feeble-minded" people were sterilized, many of them because they somehow didn't follow "Christian moral standards." For example, let's say you're a teen and got raped then sent to an institution for such people. If you're unlucky enough (say your mother committed some crimes) then you could get sterilized as would your child (after of course being determined to be "feeble-minded " by a "specialist").
Nonetheless we have to oppose such things, so that they don't destroy the US. I've heard people who've lived through the above history say that our acceptance of presidential lies is disturbing. The government doesn't matter, society does and if we accept these losses of freedom as normal than it's all over. If kids are thought there is nothing wrong with such actions then everything will collapse.
There is no species which deliberately handicaps itself
a ndicap_principle.html)y pes_of_handicap.html)
It's not about the creature which is most likely to survive but the one who is most likely to reproduce (technically which is most likely to pass on a given gene). If some trait will cause a creature to have a 5% larger chance of dying but attracts females at a 10% greater rate then it will survive. I need to note that any disadvantages caused need to be small enough as to not affect the species as a whole (a handicap but one the species can absorb in essence).
-Gerald S. Wilkinson and Paul Reillo showed such evolution for the stalk-eyed fly (Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni)
-Giant antlers, potentially evolved because the directly indicate a healthy individual.
-Passerina amoena: bird species has two subpopulations, one bright and aggressive while the other dull and passive. It seems females select for the best of either population, so in other words the selection seems to not be due to some survival probabilities.
There is no way for a species to spiral out of control. Eventually the species will either become the main course for others, or hit the limits of its food supply.
Please learn to read next time, spiral out of control was not used for population size and I never indicated so. I was talking in terms of a feature getting more and more pronounced, ie: spiraling out of control. And yes it would either stop once it became too disadvantageous or once it caused the species to go extinct.
What most such pseudo-science theories seem to mis-represent as such are other factors which the species needed, and which are _not_ there as handicaps.
If you wish to debate this issue you can contact the people who came up with the following:
- Zahavi's handicap principle (http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap/h
- Grafen's model (http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap/t
-Runaway selection (proposed by Ronald Fisher)
E.g., human breasts, since you mention them are there _not_ either as handicap, nor as the "sex signal of having a butt on the chest" idiocy. They're there because that's convenient for a primate to hold its baby, and they're that size in humans because a human baby needs a _lot_ of food. The brains alone needs ridiculous quantities of proteins to even keep working. (See why the evoloution of human brain size kept step with the availability of food sources: e.g., fire allowing us to eat plants.)
Fire allowed us to eat meat I believe but that another point. And as someone mentioned breast size has jack shit to do with milk production as all that extra mass is fat not mammary glands. There is a reason tiny asian woman who are flat as airport runways can successfully have kids. By your logic everyone would have decently sized breasts however that is not true. As I said, other primates do not have such large breasts and they also carry their children.
Humans were very good at surviving so small handicaps could be accumulated without endangering their survival.
E.g., other signals (such as colours) in various species are _not_ there as a handicap, but to solve problems like finding each other. See, being well hidden from predators doesn't help that much if you also don't find a partner to mate with. Or like the kid being able to follow the mother.
And yet some of those colors are quite flamboyant aren't they? Your logic only works u to a point, especially since coloring varies greatly among birds and many are decently well hidden.
It applies to other animals so why not humans? Culture can override genetic predisposition however it's important to note that we need to talk about "lack of fitness". Many organisms seem to look for features which in essence say "I'm SO fit that I can have this giant handicap and still survive." Well not really but it sounds nice, from what I understand you have some feature which indicates fitness. So the species starts selecting for it and the process spirals out of control leading to the feature being so exaggerated it now hampers the animal. It's no longer related to fitness as genes have appeared which "artificially" cause it to appear.
Go look at a chimpanzee, our closest relative, and you'll notice that the females lack fat in a certain area compared to humans. See, decently sized breasts have no advantage from what I can see (and potentially a disadvantage) however out ancestors probably selected for them.
I really have no idea what your point is anymore. The original poster, at least from my point of view, was saying this was a method to PREVENT the sale of stolen goods, as buyers could verify a given objects validity and NOT buy it if it was stolen. You analogy seems to perfectly justify that point, the scrolls can now be checked by a dealer to see if they are authentic just like your violin. This seems to have been a problem before due to the lack of any real "marks" to distinguish scrolls easily.