"For instance, I could start a small computer business where I will build a computer for you and install Windows on it. As long as I buy a new copy of Windows from Microsoft for every computer that I install it on, there's no copyright infringement."
But you CANNOT buy one copy of Windows, modify it, and then start selling your modified version for profit. Well not without ending up in court, that is.
"I don't know... does the great firewall block openoffice.org ? "
Does openoffice.org offer a localized Chinese (or other non-english) language version(s) (I'm honestly asking)? If not, this may be a limiting factor for adoption in foreign language markets.
"And what would happen to make that opinion (or "feeling") change? How much conservation is enough? What evidence would you have to see to decide we need to switch gears and just make more energy available?
How do we know when we've sacrificed enough of our wealth and wellbeing to meet your standards?"
Turning the lights out when I leave my office or my home does not decrease my supposed wealth. If anything it helps increase my monetary resources as they are not being spent on wasted electricity. Certainly it is important to generate the energy that we need, however, increasing capacity to accommodate wasteful excess is what I am speaking against. My main point is just not to be wasteful and as we increase our capacity we need to adjust our thinking about how we grow and how we use what we already have.
I strongly doubt that any of the things I believe that we can do be more efficient would cause you to have to give up any of your creature comforts. If everyone makes small adjustments then big change can be realized. Everyone who lives on Earth shares a bit of the burden of keeping this a place where we (and future generations) can sustainably live.
It's a small shift in thinking, from me to we. Remember that there are many more people on this planet than just you, and many many of them live far below your quality of life. Asking you to turn off a couple of lights or maybe not run the thermostat at 80 degrees seems like a small thing to ask to ensure that there are enough energy-producing resources to go around. If you deserve all of your comforts and wealth, than doesn't everyone else deserve it to? Food for thought, YMMV.
"People already do the things that will "save themselves significant money for a very small effort".
Why not just make more? It's easy and we know how and it's cheap and people are happy to buy it because they want their lives to be lives of plenty instead of lives of desperate want."
I disagree. I think many people are becoming more energy conscious, but there is still a ton of room to improve. Many people are still very wasteful in their energy consumption (leaving the tv on all hours of the day, not turning out lights - home or office - when they leave, etc.). Just make more is a really short-sighted way to handle the issue. Making more generally involves using more non-renewable resources and creating waste that we have no good way of dealing with, or generating more toxic pollution. Increasing our capacity of renewable sources of energy is the way to go on the "make more" front, but reducing our consumption makes using renewable sources all the more sustainable.
I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing, but I just feel that making a few changes in our lives to reduce our energy usage is quite different from "desperate want". We don't all need to be fat, bloated, over-consumers to have all that we need and much of what we want.
There's a difference between citizen's rights (voting, welfare) and human rights which are universally applicable (free speech, etc).
Someone needs to inform China about these "universally applicable" rights.
This is an important point I want to address. The US is happy to point the finger at others countries and condemn "human rights violations" yet somehow when we are the culprit there are suddenly excuses for why it is okay. Everyone deserves to be treated ethically, whether by your own government or someone elses. Only when the US can claim no guilt in this regard can we go around using that as a banner for interfering in other countries' governments.
I remember a time when the university my mom works at started telling everyone to leave their computers ON to save power. The issue (this was many a year ago so certainly some things have changed) then was that booting up took more power.
I think another thing to consider is the enormous strain on the grid at 8am when everyone shows up for work and starts booting up their computers. Leaving computers on, but turning off the monitor and turning out the overhead lights would make a difference, as well as keeping machines that are rarely used powered down (as well as their power strip, if possible) until they are needed.
The point was not that the poster needed to indicate sarcasm, but that there is a lack of moderation options for giving a bump for "good use of satire."
You are comparing apples and oranges. Limewire isn't a bittorrent client. Limewire can be the most widely used P2P client in use, and Azureus can still be the most widely used by those who are downloading torrents.
This thread has become convoluted by comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare GM to something, then compare it to NON-GM foods. Organic is intended to mean that it is not grown with pesticides or treated with artificial hormones, etc. It is true that many "organic" products are also non-GM. You can have non-GM food that is not organically grown.
If you are going to argue about these topics, please at least know what you are arguing about. Organic foods versus non-organic is a different discussion than GM versus non-GM. Questions of health and safety between these two topics are not the same. Do pesticides have unhealthy side effects or cause development issues in children? Different question than "Do foods that contain spliced in genes from organisms in entirely different families (or even kingdoms - like the fish genes in strawberries) have any long-term or undiscovered ill effects on those who consume them?"
"If you are so concerned about fairness, you ought to be downright outraged at the fact that millions of children in the United States are taking these drugs -- surely these students are unfairly outcompeting their peers in school. Right?"
Wrong, I think. The idea behind why these drugs are prescribed is to help those with extreme attention disorders (won't get into the politics of ADD here) catch up to their peers - a.k.a. have the same opportunity to succeed by being able to focus. It is not about giving the patient an advantage, but to level the playing field by bringing them up to par. At least that is theory behind why these drugs are on the market. That is different from someone who is capable on their own of focusing, but just want a "boost".
I am not even going to touch on the controversy regarding the issue of whether or not doctors are over-prescribing Ritilin (and its relatives) to children. That is a whole different controversy.
So "name of the product" versus "marketing brand name" is different how? The GP referred to the *technology* as being called SharePoint, which is false - Sharepoint isn't a technology, it is a product that integrates various technologies.
I think the main point is not that people cannot choose to be treated and extend their life, but that if your quality of life is so low due to age or disease or what have you, then it may a person's personal preference to forgo treatment and maybe have increased enjoyment of their last years, months, and/or days.
Their stock tanked because they announced that they have lowered their projections for next quarter. So while they are seeing good profits at the moment, they expect them to be weaker in the coming months.
Slashdot Mirror
"For instance, I could start a small computer business where I will build a computer for you and install Windows on it. As long as I buy a new copy of Windows from Microsoft for every computer that I install it on, there's no copyright infringement."
But you CANNOT buy one copy of Windows, modify it, and then start selling your modified version for profit. Well not without ending up in court, that is.
I'd be more worried about the fact that "things" are judging you...
White trust fund kids with dreadlocks = trustafarians
My favorite are the fake Jamaican accents and the belief that smoking a lot of pot makes you a Rastafarian.
A case of beer should do it. ;-)
You need to close it with a semicolon ( ; ).
Oh, and get off his lawn!
Very cool - thanks for the info! :-)
"I don't know... does the great firewall block openoffice.org ? "
Does openoffice.org offer a localized Chinese (or other non-english) language version(s) (I'm honestly asking)? If not, this may be a limiting factor for adoption in foreign language markets.
"And what would happen to make that opinion (or "feeling") change? How much conservation is enough? What evidence would you have to see to decide we need to switch gears and just make more energy available?
How do we know when we've sacrificed enough of our wealth and wellbeing to meet your standards?"
Turning the lights out when I leave my office or my home does not decrease my supposed wealth. If anything it helps increase my monetary resources as they are not being spent on wasted electricity. Certainly it is important to generate the energy that we need, however, increasing capacity to accommodate wasteful excess is what I am speaking against. My main point is just not to be wasteful and as we increase our capacity we need to adjust our thinking about how we grow and how we use what we already have.
I strongly doubt that any of the things I believe that we can do be more efficient would cause you to have to give up any of your creature comforts. If everyone makes small adjustments then big change can be realized. Everyone who lives on Earth shares a bit of the burden of keeping this a place where we (and future generations) can sustainably live.
It's a small shift in thinking, from me to we. Remember that there are many more people on this planet than just you, and many many of them live far below your quality of life. Asking you to turn off a couple of lights or maybe not run the thermostat at 80 degrees seems like a small thing to ask to ensure that there are enough energy-producing resources to go around. If you deserve all of your comforts and wealth, than doesn't everyone else deserve it to? Food for thought, YMMV.
"People already do the things that will "save themselves significant money for a very small effort".
Why not just make more? It's easy and we know how and it's cheap and people are happy to buy it because they want their lives to be lives of plenty instead of lives of desperate want."
I disagree. I think many people are becoming more energy conscious, but there is still a ton of room to improve. Many people are still very wasteful in their energy consumption (leaving the tv on all hours of the day, not turning out lights - home or office - when they leave, etc.). Just make more is a really short-sighted way to handle the issue. Making more generally involves using more non-renewable resources and creating waste that we have no good way of dealing with, or generating more toxic pollution. Increasing our capacity of renewable sources of energy is the way to go on the "make more" front, but reducing our consumption makes using renewable sources all the more sustainable.
I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing, but I just feel that making a few changes in our lives to reduce our energy usage is quite different from "desperate want". We don't all need to be fat, bloated, over-consumers to have all that we need and much of what we want.
This is an important point I want to address. The US is happy to point the finger at others countries and condemn "human rights violations" yet somehow when we are the culprit there are suddenly excuses for why it is okay. Everyone deserves to be treated ethically, whether by your own government or someone elses. Only when the US can claim no guilt in this regard can we go around using that as a banner for interfering in other countries' governments.
I remember a time when the university my mom works at started telling everyone to leave their computers ON to save power. The issue (this was many a year ago so certainly some things have changed) then was that booting up took more power.
I think another thing to consider is the enormous strain on the grid at 8am when everyone shows up for work and starts booting up their computers. Leaving computers on, but turning off the monitor and turning out the overhead lights would make a difference, as well as keeping machines that are rarely used powered down (as well as their power strip, if possible) until they are needed.
Wouldn't BOOBLE be more appropriate?
The point was not that the poster needed to indicate sarcasm, but that there is a lack of moderation options for giving a bump for "good use of satire."
Attempted to give the post a boost, only to realize it was a waste of a point. They are now at +5. Thus this post - I want my damn point back!
If by "embrace" you mean "grab by the throat and squeeeeeeeze..."
Now we just need someone to call "fish out of water"! LOL
You are comparing apples and oranges. Limewire isn't a bittorrent client. Limewire can be the most widely used P2P client in use, and Azureus can still be the most widely used by those who are downloading torrents.
Polo!
This thread has become convoluted by comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare GM to something, then compare it to NON-GM foods. Organic is intended to mean that it is not grown with pesticides or treated with artificial hormones, etc. It is true that many "organic" products are also non-GM. You can have non-GM food that is not organically grown.
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
and
USDA Certification
If you are going to argue about these topics, please at least know what you are arguing about. Organic foods versus non-organic is a different discussion than GM versus non-GM. Questions of health and safety between these two topics are not the same. Do pesticides have unhealthy side effects or cause development issues in children? Different question than "Do foods that contain spliced in genes from organisms in entirely different families (or even kingdoms - like the fish genes in strawberries) have any long-term or undiscovered ill effects on those who consume them?"
"If you are so concerned about fairness, you ought to be downright outraged at the fact that millions of children in the United States are taking these drugs -- surely these students are unfairly outcompeting their peers in school. Right?"
Wrong, I think. The idea behind why these drugs are prescribed is to help those with extreme attention disorders (won't get into the politics of ADD here) catch up to their peers - a.k.a. have the same opportunity to succeed by being able to focus. It is not about giving the patient an advantage, but to level the playing field by bringing them up to par. At least that is theory behind why these drugs are on the market. That is different from someone who is capable on their own of focusing, but just want a "boost".
I am not even going to touch on the controversy regarding the issue of whether or not doctors are over-prescribing Ritilin (and its relatives) to children. That is a whole different controversy.
So "name of the product" versus "marketing brand name" is different how? The GP referred to the *technology* as being called SharePoint, which is false - Sharepoint isn't a technology, it is a product that integrates various technologies.
To see a list of brands owned by Johnson & Johnson: http://www.jnj.com/product/brands/index.htm
Chances are you have heard of at least some of these products (e.g. Tylenol, KY, Rolaids... the list is long).
I think the main point is not that people cannot choose to be treated and extend their life, but that if your quality of life is so low due to age or disease or what have you, then it may a person's personal preference to forgo treatment and maybe have increased enjoyment of their last years, months, and/or days.
Their stock tanked because they announced that they have lowered their projections for next quarter. So while they are seeing good profits at the moment, they expect them to be weaker in the coming months.