Specifically, Greenpeace (real quote), said: "
At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project"
You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.
Having a single pipe feeding an entire country is pretty damn stupid.
Actually, some of their larger users have been routed around to satellite backups, but the load is way, way too much and it pretty much unusable according to TFA.
Surely the last think the middle east needed after 9/11 was the creation of more terrorists
No, actually. I'm saying the last thing the middle east needed was for the poor bastards that live there to be perpetually ruled by mysoginistic, medieval-minded, brutal, theocratic thugs. And the more that people like the Taliban became fashionable, the more that aggressive regimes like Saddam's were going to increase their traffic with them. Taking him out and allowing the people that live there to build their own democracy is a huge step towards more of the same throughout the region.
Ask the average Iraqi what they think of the out-of-towners that are blowing up their police cadets, restaurants, and so on... they'll tell you that they hate it. But they recognize that it's not some noble struggle against Yankee Crusaders. It's leftover Baathists and their supporters from Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that have a vested interest in crushing democracy movements. The people there know that. Everybody involved knows it. The people in Lebannon who have just shrugged off a Syrian military occupation without firing a shot knew it, too.
but his intention of ousting Saddam Hussein predates 9/11
The policy predates him. The Clinton administration's policy was also, explicitly, "regime change in Iraq." It's a good thing no matter who was CINC at the time. But the larger middle east needed some changes following 9/11, and that happened right after Bush got the job.
But doesn't all that selective breeding lead to decreased genetic variation and all of the problems that entails? I've always wondered about that.
Well, selective is the key word, here. Horrible genetic problems usually result from lazy (read: convenient) breeding. Meaning, people who don't care will breed dogs to other geographically (or genetically) nearby dogs. It's cheap, it's easy, and it results in ugly, stupid, poorly structured, short-lived, ill-tempered, disease-ridden dogs. Serious breeders "outcross" with great care to mix the elements of more far-flung populations. This, combined with some "line" breeding (where you reinforce some of your own line a generation or two down) makes for some good results if you choose carefully.
As silly as dog shows seem, they are opportunities to meet other breeders, look for dogs in your breed that are ideal examples (relative to the formal breed standard), and the shows filter out the poorly formed dogs.
For a popular breed (in my case, say German Shorthaired Pointers), there are enough quality breeders, and the occasional introduction of some DNA from similar dogs (say, English Pointers) to keep the breed genetically diverse and healthy. But it's only as good as the breed organization/club and the serious breeders who truly dedicate their lives to it.
Many breeds have been almost completely ruined by puppy mills producing litters to sell on the cheap. Their DNA pools are highly isolated, or too shallow. It's painful.
Yeah, there's even more heartache for all of the not-so-perfectly-bred animals who die in animal shelters because people buy animals from breeders. Personally, I don't think that breeding of cats and dogs should be allowed until there are no unwanted animals in shelters.
For this, I blame idiots. Idiot would-be owners that can't think beyond the immediate pleasure of picking up that puppy at the best price they can find, and (much worse) idiot factory-scale breeders who should know better than to produce dogs for cheap sale to prospective owners who clearly shouldn't have them.
The only way we get healthy, well-tempered dogs free of inbred congenital problems is through careful breeding. My breeder either finds a good home for every dog, or keeps and loves any that aren't placed. But people stand in line (for months) for those dogs because of their stellar talents, health, and brain power. Many of these owners also adopt sub-par rescue dogs from shelters.
Honest, ethical breeders are not part of the problem you describe.
For your example, couldn't you just freeze some sperm and eggs and such and accomplish the same thing more easily?
You sure could, and many breeders already do exactly that. More with the stud's sperm than the bitch's eggs, though. For the males, they call it being "collected," and that way a breeder can have his recipe available at a moment's notice when the prospective dam is shown to be ovulating. This avoids flying dogs all of the country, or just having bad luck with doing it The Old Fashioned Way (which, with dogs, is actually rather rough on everybody involved, and not even a drink in advance).
But the funny thing about breeding mammals (most critters, no doubt) is that even repeat breedings of the same two dogs can produce wildly different litters. The odds of particular dominant and recessive genes expressing themselves (in color, for example) are the same for any give puppy, but the actual output (of say, 4 to 10 puppies) can produce some surprising trends towards or away from the statistical expectations.
Believe me, breeders that have produced a real gem are seriously thinking about cloning. But right now, if you've got a great dog, you're better off repeating a breeding of that dog's parents than you are breeding that dog in hopes of having another just like it. It's a pretty fascinating world, and the people who are way into are both a little bit nuts, and amazingly patient at the same time. A lot of heartache goes hand in hand with the process, and hence you get people who shift their devotion to the breed and away from a particular animal. It's too hard, otherwise.
But the flaw is that the movie industry promotes and advertises illegal gun use. say what you will, violence crimes have eseclated in the last 30 years.
But how does the Hollywood portrayal of violence, which shows the clearly illegal use of weapons (when it's not military, cops, self defense, etc) make it appropriate to sue the manufacturers of the guns? There are some famous gun brands represented in the movies (say, James Bond's famous Walther PPK), but a specific make/model is usually limited to the "good guys" in these portrayals, or it shows people using fully automatic weapons - and those are very difficult to buy in the private sector (you invite plenty of annual federal scrutiny). I don't believe we have any record at all of a legally, privately owned full auto weapon being used in a crime in the U.S. since the prohibition/gangster days.
You're absolutely right about the parents, though. The need to get their kids' heads screwed on straight about violence (not just about guns, but about all violence) so that they know the difference between fantasy/entertainment and real life (and death).
In my family, we've done that by hunting. Believe me, nothing makes a more sober impression on a kid than watching a 150-pound deer get shot, and then having to personally deal with the actual blood and guts as you reduce the carcass to a freezer full of gourmet meat. Seeing mortality, up close, and seeing what damage a modern firearm can do to the torso of a mammal that's just about the same size as you... that puts guns (and safety) in very clear perspective for most kids. It also takes away the mystery, and kids immediately begin to see the nonsense in the movies as being just that - nonsense.
You'd have to really know a dog well (and observe its sensory and motor skills, note its emotional stability, and have a sense of its habits) before subjecting it to this sort of process. And then you'd have to pursue the dog's regular activities afterwards and note the changes. Anyone who has lived with a bright, energetic dog can tell you instantly if the animal is "off" in some way. Just like you'd notice it in your child. Now, longer-term issues, who knows. Like, would some degenerative, trauma-induced thing (something Alzheimers-ish) kick in later? No way to know. But no matter how good your brain scans or other imaging techniques may be, these are complex animals, and long-time handler/owner could tell you if you'd dropped a couple of circuits along the way.
Why would you want to freeze someone indefinately?
Let's go for a Sci-Fi answer since we're dealing with a near-Sci-Fi topic. Let's say that you've got the aging examples of some really prize breedings from a particular bloodline (I'm talking dogs here). And then, something ugly not unlike hoof-and-mouth, or bird flu starts turning in a species-specific pandemic. If I were a breeder that had been perfecting a bloodline for 50 years, I'd seriously consider taking a couple of those dogs and letting them have A Big Nap.
For a lot of breeders, they love the individual dogs, but their truly beloved "pet" is the bloodline out of which they spring. Generations (of human lives) go into creating something as unique as a specialized dog (or bull, or chicken), so ways to put them on ice for later revival once a viral or other threat has been understood (or a vaccine developed) could be very compelling.
I'd say all the same things about humans, but I'd be very Politically Incorrect at that point, so of course I won't.
That's some great momentum coming from skandinavia
Well, yeah, but the last time there was a lot of momentum from Scandinavia that impacted multi-national business habits, they were called Vikings. I mean, how many longboats can you actually fit in Puget Sound? And, do you take the Panama Canal on the way, or what?
In my neighborhood, we've got physical buried cable from Comcast (providing cable and data), physical buried cable from RCN (providing cable, data, and voice), and Verizon's traditional voice cable (with DSL running over it), and newly buried Verizon FIOS for super high-speed optical service. All of these people have yard-pods and buried conduit running up and down the streets (nothing on poles). And, of course, there are dishes sprouting from several rooftops.
We've got all sorts of competition heating up, including the local power utility talking about AC-carrier broadband. Cool.
because kitchen knives fall under the betamax decision, if you will. the primary purpose of a kitchen knife is to cut up food, i.e. something that's already dead, a legal use. not to kill people, an illegal use.
No, the primary purpose of a cutting tool is to cut. To (no matter how surgically or violently) separate one thing from another. But let's think this through a little bit. We'll use Britain as an example, since they've pretty much completely outlawed guns for public ownership. People there who want to arm themselves to hurt people turn instead to knives and machetes, among other things. Now, I own a machete. I use it to cut brush when I'm out in the field - it's an excellent tool. But in the UK, they're looking at banning stores from selling them because bad guys use them to hurt people. Some people might think that's reasonable, but once that ball got rolling, that got activists in the UK looking to ban the sale of "long, pointy" kitchen knives. You get the idea. As goes the UK, frequently goes some of the loopier sectors of US society (I'll put my mondy on, say, somewhere on the west coast).
All of these discussions focus on the tool, and not on the behavior of the person using it. When school children in Scotland where killed by a loon with a gun, they took that tool away from everyone. But we have a recent example of school children in Japan being slashed and killed by a crazy guy, but no call for the removal of that tool from public ownership, because the fundamental foolishness of it is plain to everyone. Australia has plenty of outdoorsy-people with large knives and machetes, but their violent crime and murder rates didn't spike until after they banned guns from private ownership.
I know I don't need to expand on this, because any rational person will already get it, and anyone already making some moral distinction between one hand tool and another won't be listening anyway.
but I do recall that years ago there were several cases where the government and/or large special interest groups brought exactly this type of liability case against the major gun manufacturers. As I recall there was some serious concern that Smith&Wesson would be forced out of business if they lost (which they fortunately didn't).
It hasn't been done, per se, it's been tried. Sweeping suits to ruin gun manufacturers fail every time because they (the people bringing the suits) are unable to show intent to act against the law. A lot of cities or organizations were inspired by the multi-billion dollar tobacco settlements to try the same thing against any industry they thought was politically incorrect - and for some people, gun manufacturers are one of those. The problem is, there's no parallel there. The suits aren't about the gun being faulty, or the gun not doing what the maker says it's going to do. The suits were just trying to blame the maker for the bad acts of the user. The plaintiffs were hoping that they would be able to demonize gun makers by chosing juries that would someone mentally separate guns (an inanimate tool) from, say, knives, axes, or gasoline cans (also dangerous when used incorrectly).
Those suits were appropriately thrown out. But the prospect of having to spend millions of dollars defending against them was scaring the manufacturers. That's another thing most people don't realize - most gun manufacturers are much, much smaller companies than you'd think. Even some very popular companies (like Ruger, or Colt) would be in real financial trouble even after winning cases like that, because of the costs. The opponents were banking on that impact, knowing that even if they couldn't win on the merits, they could still injure the companies.
Ironically, of course, these people don't think about the fact that companies just like those also make and sell products to police, security, and military forces. Lots of them. Ruining domestic companies who also happen to sell them to target shooters, hunters, and people who buy for self defense also means killing off the companies that have contracts with your local police department. That means that those people would have to turn to overseas manufacturers (in Europe, mostly) to buy the very same type of product.
First, you're going to be a lot more convincing if you communicate a little more clearly. Come on, do you have to put in a quarter or something to use the apostrophe and backspace keys on your machine?
Regardless:
Sony never advertised their product as a way to break the law. That's completely different than what Grokster was doing, and everyone (no matter how clueless they seem, based on their typing) knows that.
First the States rights are trampled in the Med Marijuana case, then the individual rights are trampled in the "Takings" case
Come on, now. Federal laws (like those related to controlled substances) trump local ones. Done. As for the Connecticut zoning/emminent domain issue... that was a ruling in support of states' rights. The court didn't even weigh in on the long standing issue of emminent domain, they simply ruled the people in the city/state in question were in a better position to decide what "public use/good" means in the local context. Mind you, I'd expect that the Connecticut voters would and should toss those local politicians right out of their jobs for making the decision they did, but the Supreme Court opted to let the locals act on their interpretation of a long standing legal mechanism. There is no equivalent on the marijuana issue, since it's just plain illegal - explicity banned - and there's no wiggle room for the court to even talk about it (until the law changes). If you don't like either situation, it's something to bring up in congress, rather than in a somewhat half-baked slashdot rant.
now online rights are trashed in the Grokster case
No, no one has ever had the "online right" to violate copyrights. That's not new, so a ruling that allows a suit in the case where someone is acting deliberately to infringe on copyrights is just buiness as usual - no different than busting someone for selling pirated DVDs out of their trunk. There are no "online rights"... there are just rights. Illegal things are illegal things, and companies that form their entire business model around an illegal activity shouldn't be very shocked when someone calls them on it.
Or they are looking at triggereing a second American revolution.
You mean, like a revolution based on artists having to work for free for everyone else? Sort of a whole slavery thing? You'll recall how the real Second Revolution (remember the Civil War?) finished up... with the people who wanted to get other people to work for them for free losing the argument. People who insist on being entertained for free by people who would rather be paid are pretty much in the same philosophical camp, whether they're willing to admit it or not.
If 90% of my customers buy guns only to commit a crime, then I'd be quite surprised if I didn't get into some sort of trouble over it. It would seem quite likely that I was deliberately selling guns to criminals.
And indeed, gun dealers that knowingly participate in straw purchases get themselves put in jail. The BATF is really, really serious about that sort of thing. There are very thorough databases that track guns used in crimes back to their originating dealers, and when a serious pattern shows up the FBI, BATF, and local LEOs are all over it. Most dealers know they're looking at hard time if they don't play ball, so that's just not generally a vector for arrests and suits. There have been some, no question. But compared to the thousands of legit dealers and millions of transactions every year, it's probably way, way less common than, say, a drug store that's knowingly selling meth components to teenagers, or used car dealerships selling vehicles to known drug runners every week. Never mind the diamond trade, where the proceeds often wind up in the hands of some real death-dealing punks (say, terrorist networks), or any number of other similar types of economic activity that (in terms of the overall direct impact on enabling criminals) that completely eclipse what happens over the counter of a heavily regulated gun store.
To the contrary. The manufacturers mention, non-stop, that guns can kill, and that only people that understand their safe and legal use should own and use them. They already do this, a lot, which is why courts generally find them not to be responsible when some idiot commits a crime with one. Now, why the makers of kitchen knives don't have to do the same thing is actually sort of a head-scratcher.
Now that would be a fantastic case to bring to the courts.
It would be fantastic because it would clearly demonstrate that a produce (like a gun) that is made and sold legally, and is done so by an industry that falls all over itself to stress the safe and legal use of its products, would be finally free from frivalous lawsuits. The court seems to be acting pretty rational lately, and most higher courts have consistently found that the makers aren't liable for mis-use (just like Ford isn't liable for criminals using their vehicles as bank robbery getaway cars). The difference, with Grokster, is the actual promotion of the service as a way to violate copyrights.
Somewhere in those hundreds of books are a lot of them that are worth reading, and that would surely improve one's functionality within Western Civilization. Coughing up all that money up front sort of obliges one to actually pull at least some of them off the shelf and read them.
I'm much more likely to finally digest Gilgamesh or some dreaded Faulkner if I already own them, and can easily transport them to the bathroom. If I say, though, "Gee, it's time I finally read some Gilgamesh..." and then have to order or go out and buy a copy... it's not going to happen. Sort of like bench presses. So, it's the literary gym membership you have to use in order to justify, after-the-fact, having spent the money.
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party
Which is exactly why the more conservative (in that smaller-government sense of the meaning) judges were ones opposed to the finding. The more liberal end of the bench found that while a private company (the developer) was perhaps a hold-your-nose aspect to the outcome, it was the city's interests in boosting development and taxes that was the issue. A private developer is usually an needed part of that recipe, since the city is not a developer of business properties, per se.
I just want to know what precludes these disenfranchised workers from forming a company and competing with IBM and their new Indian hires.
Well, never mind the competitive issues for the moment. The real shock to "workers" who try to do that is that all of the sudden they're facing the same issues their bosses did. The fact that they need a management layer, for example. And the people who tend to be really talented in that area can also be wooed away to a better deal elsewhere... which means that the workers are going to have to sweeten the pot to keep around the sort of people that know how to swing investment deals, secure better insurance rates, negotiate mutli-million dollar office deals, talk with the lawyers, and so on.
You can purge the PHBs, but the space they occupy doesn't really go away. Companies populated entirely by engineers, no matter how talented, fail early and fail often. The more so when there doesn't seem to be enough money around to pay for their services (at leats, compared to people in India with the same certifications who will work for a quarter of the price and be thrilled to do so).
So, you attribute your success at keeping your highly paid job to the fact that you don't need idioms explained to you?
Well, there's a little more to it than that. I'm talking about staying valuable (to businesses that can afford to pay) by being able to do something that perhaps someone living in India can't do. Specifically, fly through a discussion of (as an odd example from a meeting yesterday) the subtleties of e-commerce as used by people in North Carolina shopping for NASCAR-related merchandise and services while they sit in their $100k mobile home, using their first-ever net-connected computer. Companies that are about to invest a couple hundred grand building out a web site and connected back office system to cater to that wacky demographic are going to want to get a little input from IT people that don't have to ask what NASCAR is, let alone what a strange intersection is has with rural North Carolina and strangely booming bubbles of tech users. I hope you get my point.
We're a country of almost 300 million people. I'm brushing up on my Spanish because I know that those idioms are rapidly changing. But they're changing into forms that will still be uniquely American, and which someone overseas is simply never going to get (any more than I'd be even remotely useful in helping a company in Bollywood sell things to their audience... I just don't get it!).
What happens when US idioms suddenly become passé?
They won't. They'll just be the new US idioms. I'd say we're many decades away from a cultural homoginization with Europe and/or Asia. That transition will involve huge amounts of IT work, and by the time there are no meaningul differences in how people live in the US vs. say, China or the Ukraine, then there won't be much of a difference in what talented IT people make in those countries, either.
i just wanted to say that your stupid, everything you think is stupid and pretty much your the reason why society sucks
First, you'll be a lot more credible in your complaints if you can figure on the difference between "your" and "you're." Calling someone stupid while communicating like a 5-year-old is just funny, not effective.
Theres nothing wrong with running drugs. Drugs should be legal.
Well, we didn't really talk about that, did we. But here's my take on it: I'm willing to say drugs should be legal, but only if I don't have to pay for healthcare when someone ODs on heroin, and I don't want to have to pay for unemployment when someone is too much of a crack addict to hold down a job. That's the problem with drugs - they definately erode life, but we don't have any real cultural willingness to say "sure - do what you want, but suffer the consequences." Instead, we say, "you really shouldn't do that" and then we spend $100k each treating prematurely born, crack-addicted babies. That $100k would be much better spend getting a kid through college with half of a clue so that he doesn't then raise more kids that think getting high is the only way to get through being a cranky adolescent.
my unwillingness to talk must mean im a criminal. further more, being a criminal of an unknown crime makes me deserve to be shot. Real sound logic there man.
Again, you'll have a better time sounding reasonable if you don't make up stuff that other people didn't say. If you run a red light in your car, it's reasonable to get pulled over. It's reasonable for the cop to ask you for your ID and proof that you're insured, etc. That's part of the privilege of driving on roads that we all pay for - you have to demonstrate that you're not endangering other people and not even insured if you run some little old lady down. But that's OK - when a cop asks for your license, why not just show it to him? Thousands of people do it every day, even if they're pissed that they got caught speeding. Those people don't get shot, beat up, or abused - they get a ticket. Now, if you're busy trying to run the cop over with your car, instead of showing him your license, what do you think he's supposed to do? He may not know your criminal history, but he knows what being run over looks like.
Artists produce art for other people. NOT FOR THEMSELVES. if they wanted to produce it for themselves they should keep it to themselves.
So, you're in charge of what artists can and should do? Most artists produce art because they want to, but the ones that want to do it full-time, all day, still have to eat and live somewhere. Some of them actually make art good enough that people are willing to pay for it. But why should you care? Should you be the one telling the artist, or the person who wants the artist's work how they should interact with each other? If the artist wants to sell their work, and someone else wants to buy it, you're going to step in and stop that because that's just too business-like for you? Eating, and having a house are too "corporate?" Some of the greatest artists of all time would not have had the time to produce their work if they had to hold down a day job mowing lawns.
If you broadcast something on all known media channels, dont be surprised if people listen to it.
Well, isn't that the point? You record some music, and if you think you've got a sound or other quality that more people will like, you stop mowing lawns, and you become a full time musician. If you don't want to play at weddings or bars your whole life, you might even seek out a deal where some of your music can be more widely appreciated by a paying audience. You might even turn to a company that does that professionally (like a record label!) to help you. And then you make arrangements for widely used media to compensate you for your work when their large audiences tune in for their entertainment. And, if you don't want to approach it as a way to make a
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Greenpeace is gonna Love this!!
Specifically, Greenpeace (real quote), said: " At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project"
You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.
thank god I still have access to Tech Support services in India
Actually, according to TFA, they will have to take down one of India's major pipes for a couple of hours in order to fix the power supply problem.
Having a single pipe feeding an entire country is pretty damn stupid.
Actually, some of their larger users have been routed around to satellite backups, but the load is way, way too much and it pretty much unusable according to TFA.
Surely the last think the middle east needed after 9/11 was the creation of more terrorists
... they'll tell you that they hate it. But they recognize that it's not some noble struggle against Yankee Crusaders. It's leftover Baathists and their supporters from Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that have a vested interest in crushing democracy movements. The people there know that. Everybody involved knows it. The people in Lebannon who have just shrugged off a Syrian military occupation without firing a shot knew it, too.
No, actually. I'm saying the last thing the middle east needed was for the poor bastards that live there to be perpetually ruled by mysoginistic, medieval-minded, brutal, theocratic thugs. And the more that people like the Taliban became fashionable, the more that aggressive regimes like Saddam's were going to increase their traffic with them. Taking him out and allowing the people that live there to build their own democracy is a huge step towards more of the same throughout the region.
Ask the average Iraqi what they think of the out-of-towners that are blowing up their police cadets, restaurants, and so on
They wanted a foothold in the Middle East so they could eventually control the whole area
Right, just like we wanted to control German, Japan, Kuwait, Bosnia... boy, the US empire just runs people lives in places like that!
but his intention of ousting Saddam Hussein predates 9/11
The policy predates him. The Clinton administration's policy was also, explicitly, "regime change in Iraq." It's a good thing no matter who was CINC at the time. But the larger middle east needed some changes following 9/11, and that happened right after Bush got the job.
But doesn't all that selective breeding lead to decreased genetic variation and all of the problems that entails? I've always wondered about that.
Well, selective is the key word, here. Horrible genetic problems usually result from lazy (read: convenient) breeding. Meaning, people who don't care will breed dogs to other geographically (or genetically) nearby dogs. It's cheap, it's easy, and it results in ugly, stupid, poorly structured, short-lived, ill-tempered, disease-ridden dogs. Serious breeders "outcross" with great care to mix the elements of more far-flung populations. This, combined with some "line" breeding (where you reinforce some of your own line a generation or two down) makes for some good results if you choose carefully.
As silly as dog shows seem, they are opportunities to meet other breeders, look for dogs in your breed that are ideal examples (relative to the formal breed standard), and the shows filter out the poorly formed dogs.
For a popular breed (in my case, say German Shorthaired Pointers), there are enough quality breeders, and the occasional introduction of some DNA from similar dogs (say, English Pointers) to keep the breed genetically diverse and healthy. But it's only as good as the breed organization/club and the serious breeders who truly dedicate their lives to it.
Many breeds have been almost completely ruined by puppy mills producing litters to sell on the cheap. Their DNA pools are highly isolated, or too shallow. It's painful.
The worst part is that an orbital shield to save us from ourselves will result in truly awful sequels to great B movies.
Yeah, there's even more heartache for all of the not-so-perfectly-bred animals who die in animal shelters because people buy animals from breeders. Personally, I don't think that breeding of cats and dogs should be allowed until there are no unwanted animals in shelters.
For this, I blame idiots. Idiot would-be owners that can't think beyond the immediate pleasure of picking up that puppy at the best price they can find, and (much worse) idiot factory-scale breeders who should know better than to produce dogs for cheap sale to prospective owners who clearly shouldn't have them.
The only way we get healthy, well-tempered dogs free of inbred congenital problems is through careful breeding. My breeder either finds a good home for every dog, or keeps and loves any that aren't placed. But people stand in line (for months) for those dogs because of their stellar talents, health, and brain power. Many of these owners also adopt sub-par rescue dogs from shelters.
Honest, ethical breeders are not part of the problem you describe.
For your example, couldn't you just freeze some sperm and eggs and such and accomplish the same thing more easily?
You sure could, and many breeders already do exactly that. More with the stud's sperm than the bitch's eggs, though. For the males, they call it being "collected," and that way a breeder can have his recipe available at a moment's notice when the prospective dam is shown to be ovulating. This avoids flying dogs all of the country, or just having bad luck with doing it The Old Fashioned Way (which, with dogs, is actually rather rough on everybody involved, and not even a drink in advance).
But the funny thing about breeding mammals (most critters, no doubt) is that even repeat breedings of the same two dogs can produce wildly different litters. The odds of particular dominant and recessive genes expressing themselves (in color, for example) are the same for any give puppy, but the actual output (of say, 4 to 10 puppies) can produce some surprising trends towards or away from the statistical expectations.
Believe me, breeders that have produced a real gem are seriously thinking about cloning. But right now, if you've got a great dog, you're better off repeating a breeding of that dog's parents than you are breeding that dog in hopes of having another just like it. It's a pretty fascinating world, and the people who are way into are both a little bit nuts, and amazingly patient at the same time. A lot of heartache goes hand in hand with the process, and hence you get people who shift their devotion to the breed and away from a particular animal. It's too hard, otherwise.
But the flaw is that the movie industry promotes and advertises illegal gun use. say what you will, violence crimes have eseclated in the last 30 years.
But how does the Hollywood portrayal of violence, which shows the clearly illegal use of weapons (when it's not military, cops, self defense, etc) make it appropriate to sue the manufacturers of the guns? There are some famous gun brands represented in the movies (say, James Bond's famous Walther PPK), but a specific make/model is usually limited to the "good guys" in these portrayals, or it shows people using fully automatic weapons - and those are very difficult to buy in the private sector (you invite plenty of annual federal scrutiny). I don't believe we have any record at all of a legally, privately owned full auto weapon being used in a crime in the U.S. since the prohibition/gangster days.
You're absolutely right about the parents, though. The need to get their kids' heads screwed on straight about violence (not just about guns, but about all violence) so that they know the difference between fantasy/entertainment and real life (and death).
In my family, we've done that by hunting. Believe me, nothing makes a more sober impression on a kid than watching a 150-pound deer get shot, and then having to personally deal with the actual blood and guts as you reduce the carcass to a freezer full of gourmet meat. Seeing mortality, up close, and seeing what damage a modern firearm can do to the torso of a mammal that's just about the same size as you... that puts guns (and safety) in very clear perspective for most kids. It also takes away the mystery, and kids immediately begin to see the nonsense in the movies as being just that - nonsense.
You'd have to really know a dog well (and observe its sensory and motor skills, note its emotional stability, and have a sense of its habits) before subjecting it to this sort of process. And then you'd have to pursue the dog's regular activities afterwards and note the changes. Anyone who has lived with a bright, energetic dog can tell you instantly if the animal is "off" in some way. Just like you'd notice it in your child. Now, longer-term issues, who knows. Like, would some degenerative, trauma-induced thing (something Alzheimers-ish) kick in later? No way to know. But no matter how good your brain scans or other imaging techniques may be, these are complex animals, and long-time handler/owner could tell you if you'd dropped a couple of circuits along the way.
Why would you want to freeze someone indefinately? Let's go for a Sci-Fi answer since we're dealing with a near-Sci-Fi topic. Let's say that you've got the aging examples of some really prize breedings from a particular bloodline (I'm talking dogs here). And then, something ugly not unlike hoof-and-mouth, or bird flu starts turning in a species-specific pandemic. If I were a breeder that had been perfecting a bloodline for 50 years, I'd seriously consider taking a couple of those dogs and letting them have A Big Nap.
For a lot of breeders, they love the individual dogs, but their truly beloved "pet" is the bloodline out of which they spring. Generations (of human lives) go into creating something as unique as a specialized dog (or bull, or chicken), so ways to put them on ice for later revival once a viral or other threat has been understood (or a vaccine developed) could be very compelling.
I'd say all the same things about humans, but I'd be very Politically Incorrect at that point, so of course I won't.
That's some great momentum coming from skandinavia
Well, yeah, but the last time there was a lot of momentum from Scandinavia that impacted multi-national business habits, they were called Vikings. I mean, how many longboats can you actually fit in Puget Sound? And, do you take the Panama Canal on the way, or what?
There might not be competition right now
In my neighborhood, we've got physical buried cable from Comcast (providing cable and data), physical buried cable from RCN (providing cable, data, and voice), and Verizon's traditional voice cable (with DSL running over it), and newly buried Verizon FIOS for super high-speed optical service. All of these people have yard-pods and buried conduit running up and down the streets (nothing on poles). And, of course, there are dishes sprouting from several rooftops.
We've got all sorts of competition heating up, including the local power utility talking about AC-carrier broadband. Cool.
because kitchen knives fall under the betamax decision, if you will. the primary purpose of a kitchen knife is to cut up food, i.e. something that's already dead, a legal use. not to kill people, an illegal use.
No, the primary purpose of a cutting tool is to cut. To (no matter how surgically or violently) separate one thing from another. But let's think this through a little bit. We'll use Britain as an example, since they've pretty much completely outlawed guns for public ownership. People there who want to arm themselves to hurt people turn instead to knives and machetes, among other things. Now, I own a machete. I use it to cut brush when I'm out in the field - it's an excellent tool. But in the UK, they're looking at banning stores from selling them because bad guys use them to hurt people. Some people might think that's reasonable, but once that ball got rolling, that got activists in the UK looking to ban the sale of "long, pointy" kitchen knives. You get the idea. As goes the UK, frequently goes some of the loopier sectors of US society (I'll put my mondy on, say, somewhere on the west coast).
All of these discussions focus on the tool, and not on the behavior of the person using it. When school children in Scotland where killed by a loon with a gun, they took that tool away from everyone. But we have a recent example of school children in Japan being slashed and killed by a crazy guy, but no call for the removal of that tool from public ownership, because the fundamental foolishness of it is plain to everyone. Australia has plenty of outdoorsy-people with large knives and machetes, but their violent crime and murder rates didn't spike until after they banned guns from private ownership.
I know I don't need to expand on this, because any rational person will already get it, and anyone already making some moral distinction between one hand tool and another won't be listening anyway.
but I do recall that years ago there were several cases where the government and/or large special interest groups brought exactly this type of liability case against the major gun manufacturers. As I recall there was some serious concern that Smith&Wesson would be forced out of business if they lost (which they fortunately didn't).
It hasn't been done, per se, it's been tried. Sweeping suits to ruin gun manufacturers fail every time because they (the people bringing the suits) are unable to show intent to act against the law. A lot of cities or organizations were inspired by the multi-billion dollar tobacco settlements to try the same thing against any industry they thought was politically incorrect - and for some people, gun manufacturers are one of those. The problem is, there's no parallel there. The suits aren't about the gun being faulty, or the gun not doing what the maker says it's going to do. The suits were just trying to blame the maker for the bad acts of the user. The plaintiffs were hoping that they would be able to demonize gun makers by chosing juries that would someone mentally separate guns (an inanimate tool) from, say, knives, axes, or gasoline cans (also dangerous when used incorrectly).
Those suits were appropriately thrown out. But the prospect of having to spend millions of dollars defending against them was scaring the manufacturers. That's another thing most people don't realize - most gun manufacturers are much, much smaller companies than you'd think. Even some very popular companies (like Ruger, or Colt) would be in real financial trouble even after winning cases like that, because of the costs. The opponents were banking on that impact, knowing that even if they couldn't win on the merits, they could still injure the companies.
Ironically, of course, these people don't think about the fact that companies just like those also make and sell products to police, security, and military forces. Lots of them. Ruining domestic companies who also happen to sell them to target shooters, hunters, and people who buy for self defense also means killing off the companies that have contracts with your local police department. That means that those people would have to turn to overseas manufacturers (in Europe, mostly) to buy the very same type of product.
First, you're going to be a lot more convincing if you communicate a little more clearly. Come on, do you have to put in a quarter or something to use the apostrophe and backspace keys on your machine?
Regardless:
Sony never advertised their product as a way to break the law. That's completely different than what Grokster was doing, and everyone (no matter how clueless they seem, based on their typing) knows that.
First the States rights are trampled in the Med Marijuana case, then the individual rights are trampled in the "Takings" case
Come on, now. Federal laws (like those related to controlled substances) trump local ones. Done. As for the Connecticut zoning/emminent domain issue... that was a ruling in support of states' rights. The court didn't even weigh in on the long standing issue of emminent domain, they simply ruled the people in the city/state in question were in a better position to decide what "public use/good" means in the local context. Mind you, I'd expect that the Connecticut voters would and should toss those local politicians right out of their jobs for making the decision they did, but the Supreme Court opted to let the locals act on their interpretation of a long standing legal mechanism. There is no equivalent on the marijuana issue, since it's just plain illegal - explicity banned - and there's no wiggle room for the court to even talk about it (until the law changes). If you don't like either situation, it's something to bring up in congress, rather than in a somewhat half-baked slashdot rant.
now online rights are trashed in the Grokster case
No, no one has ever had the "online right" to violate copyrights. That's not new, so a ruling that allows a suit in the case where someone is acting deliberately to infringe on copyrights is just buiness as usual - no different than busting someone for selling pirated DVDs out of their trunk. There are no "online rights"... there are just rights. Illegal things are illegal things, and companies that form their entire business model around an illegal activity shouldn't be very shocked when someone calls them on it.
Or they are looking at triggereing a second American revolution.
You mean, like a revolution based on artists having to work for free for everyone else? Sort of a whole slavery thing? You'll recall how the real Second Revolution (remember the Civil War?) finished up... with the people who wanted to get other people to work for them for free losing the argument. People who insist on being entertained for free by people who would rather be paid are pretty much in the same philosophical camp, whether they're willing to admit it or not.
If 90% of my customers buy guns only to commit a crime, then I'd be quite surprised if I didn't get into some sort of trouble over it. It would seem quite likely that I was deliberately selling guns to criminals.
And indeed, gun dealers that knowingly participate in straw purchases get themselves put in jail. The BATF is really, really serious about that sort of thing. There are very thorough databases that track guns used in crimes back to their originating dealers, and when a serious pattern shows up the FBI, BATF, and local LEOs are all over it. Most dealers know they're looking at hard time if they don't play ball, so that's just not generally a vector for arrests and suits. There have been some, no question. But compared to the thousands of legit dealers and millions of transactions every year, it's probably way, way less common than, say, a drug store that's knowingly selling meth components to teenagers, or used car dealerships selling vehicles to known drug runners every week. Never mind the diamond trade, where the proceeds often wind up in the hands of some real death-dealing punks (say, terrorist networks), or any number of other similar types of economic activity that (in terms of the overall direct impact on enabling criminals) that completely eclipse what happens over the counter of a heavily regulated gun store.
They just can't mention that guns can kill
To the contrary. The manufacturers mention, non-stop, that guns can kill, and that only people that understand their safe and legal use should own and use them. They already do this, a lot, which is why courts generally find them not to be responsible when some idiot commits a crime with one. Now, why the makers of kitchen knives don't have to do the same thing is actually sort of a head-scratcher.
Now that would be a fantastic case to bring to the courts.
It would be fantastic because it would clearly demonstrate that a produce (like a gun) that is made and sold legally, and is done so by an industry that falls all over itself to stress the safe and legal use of its products, would be finally free from frivalous lawsuits. The court seems to be acting pretty rational lately, and most higher courts have consistently found that the makers aren't liable for mis-use (just like Ford isn't liable for criminals using their vehicles as bank robbery getaway cars). The difference, with Grokster, is the actual promotion of the service as a way to violate copyrights.
Somewhere in those hundreds of books are a lot of them that are worth reading, and that would surely improve one's functionality within Western Civilization. Coughing up all that money up front sort of obliges one to actually pull at least some of them off the shelf and read them.
I'm much more likely to finally digest Gilgamesh or some dreaded Faulkner if I already own them, and can easily transport them to the bathroom. If I say, though, "Gee, it's time I finally read some Gilgamesh..." and then have to order or go out and buy a copy... it's not going to happen. Sort of like bench presses. So, it's the literary gym membership you have to use in order to justify, after-the-fact, having spent the money.
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party
Which is exactly why the more conservative (in that smaller-government sense of the meaning) judges were ones opposed to the finding. The more liberal end of the bench found that while a private company (the developer) was perhaps a hold-your-nose aspect to the outcome, it was the city's interests in boosting development and taxes that was the issue. A private developer is usually an needed part of that recipe, since the city is not a developer of business properties, per se.
I just want to know what precludes these disenfranchised workers from forming a company and competing with IBM and their new Indian hires.
Well, never mind the competitive issues for the moment. The real shock to "workers" who try to do that is that all of the sudden they're facing the same issues their bosses did. The fact that they need a management layer, for example. And the people who tend to be really talented in that area can also be wooed away to a better deal elsewhere... which means that the workers are going to have to sweeten the pot to keep around the sort of people that know how to swing investment deals, secure better insurance rates, negotiate mutli-million dollar office deals, talk with the lawyers, and so on.
You can purge the PHBs, but the space they occupy doesn't really go away. Companies populated entirely by engineers, no matter how talented, fail early and fail often. The more so when there doesn't seem to be enough money around to pay for their services (at leats, compared to people in India with the same certifications who will work for a quarter of the price and be thrilled to do so).
So, you attribute your success at keeping your highly paid job to the fact that you don't need idioms explained to you?
Well, there's a little more to it than that. I'm talking about staying valuable (to businesses that can afford to pay) by being able to do something that perhaps someone living in India can't do. Specifically, fly through a discussion of (as an odd example from a meeting yesterday) the subtleties of e-commerce as used by people in North Carolina shopping for NASCAR-related merchandise and services while they sit in their $100k mobile home, using their first-ever net-connected computer. Companies that are about to invest a couple hundred grand building out a web site and connected back office system to cater to that wacky demographic are going to want to get a little input from IT people that don't have to ask what NASCAR is, let alone what a strange intersection is has with rural North Carolina and strangely booming bubbles of tech users. I hope you get my point.
We're a country of almost 300 million people. I'm brushing up on my Spanish because I know that those idioms are rapidly changing. But they're changing into forms that will still be uniquely American, and which someone overseas is simply never going to get (any more than I'd be even remotely useful in helping a company in Bollywood sell things to their audience... I just don't get it!).
What happens when US idioms suddenly become passé?
They won't. They'll just be the new US idioms. I'd say we're many decades away from a cultural homoginization with Europe and/or Asia. That transition will involve huge amounts of IT work, and by the time there are no meaningul differences in how people live in the US vs. say, China or the Ukraine, then there won't be much of a difference in what talented IT people make in those countries, either.
i just wanted to say that your stupid, everything you think is stupid and pretty much your the reason why society sucks
First, you'll be a lot more credible in your complaints if you can figure on the difference between "your" and "you're." Calling someone stupid while communicating like a 5-year-old is just funny, not effective.
Theres nothing wrong with running drugs. Drugs should be legal.
Well, we didn't really talk about that, did we. But here's my take on it: I'm willing to say drugs should be legal, but only if I don't have to pay for healthcare when someone ODs on heroin, and I don't want to have to pay for unemployment when someone is too much of a crack addict to hold down a job. That's the problem with drugs - they definately erode life, but we don't have any real cultural willingness to say "sure - do what you want, but suffer the consequences." Instead, we say, "you really shouldn't do that" and then we spend $100k each treating prematurely born, crack-addicted babies. That $100k would be much better spend getting a kid through college with half of a clue so that he doesn't then raise more kids that think getting high is the only way to get through being a cranky adolescent.
my unwillingness to talk must mean im a criminal. further more, being a criminal of an unknown crime makes me deserve to be shot. Real sound logic there man.
Again, you'll have a better time sounding reasonable if you don't make up stuff that other people didn't say. If you run a red light in your car, it's reasonable to get pulled over. It's reasonable for the cop to ask you for your ID and proof that you're insured, etc. That's part of the privilege of driving on roads that we all pay for - you have to demonstrate that you're not endangering other people and not even insured if you run some little old lady down. But that's OK - when a cop asks for your license, why not just show it to him? Thousands of people do it every day, even if they're pissed that they got caught speeding. Those people don't get shot, beat up, or abused - they get a ticket. Now, if you're busy trying to run the cop over with your car, instead of showing him your license, what do you think he's supposed to do? He may not know your criminal history, but he knows what being run over looks like.
Artists produce art for other people. NOT FOR THEMSELVES. if they wanted to produce it for themselves they should keep it to themselves.
So, you're in charge of what artists can and should do? Most artists produce art because they want to, but the ones that want to do it full-time, all day, still have to eat and live somewhere. Some of them actually make art good enough that people are willing to pay for it. But why should you care? Should you be the one telling the artist, or the person who wants the artist's work how they should interact with each other? If the artist wants to sell their work, and someone else wants to buy it, you're going to step in and stop that because that's just too business-like for you? Eating, and having a house are too "corporate?" Some of the greatest artists of all time would not have had the time to produce their work if they had to hold down a day job mowing lawns.
If you broadcast something on all known media channels, dont be surprised if people listen to it.
Well, isn't that the point? You record some music, and if you think you've got a sound or other quality that more people will like, you stop mowing lawns, and you become a full time musician. If you don't want to play at weddings or bars your whole life, you might even seek out a deal where some of your music can be more widely appreciated by a paying audience. You might even turn to a company that does that professionally (like a record label!) to help you. And then you make arrangements for widely used media to compensate you for your work when their large audiences tune in for their entertainment. And, if you don't want to approach it as a way to make a