The norse mythology is radically gender-equal compared to most other ancient mythologies, especially among the western ones. It has plenty of strong female characters to offer.
Taking a historic Superhero character and making it a woman is a good thing.
No, it's ridiculous, stupid and if I were a feminist, I'd probably hate it. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.
Turning a male character into a woman is probably the most idiotic non-solution you could come up with.
Did you know Thor was the god of fertility, healing? Did you also now they aren't changing the Myth, just a comic character?
That is what makes it doubly stupid. If this were a pure comic book character, the dissonance would be much less.
You can wish the moon was made of cheese, and you can announce it is, but it won't make it so.
Thor is a male norse god, no matter how you try to retcon it. The new character will not be Thor, period. It'll be a female character called Thor.
I don't know why they did this, because it's completely stupid. The norse mythology is rich with strong women, equal in power to their male counterparts. They could have easily built up any of them into a major character.
You are, indeed, trying very hard to miss the point.
The parliament is specifically elected for the purpose of passing laws in the name of the people. When it passes a law, it does what it is supposed to do. If you don't like the law, you could've elected a different parliament, and you can elect one that changes the law the next time.
Last I checked, the official job description of the president did not include a section on his sex life. He's not elected in order to fuck (or abstain from it) his staff. His job is to run the executive, and if it weren't for America and its strange fascination with gossip, celebrity and sex, nobody would give a fuck what he does with his private part.
You basically set out to find the only thing that the two have in common and then think that because tomatoes and fire engines are both red, they're absolutely the same thing.
The fact that you can survive sprinting through a minefield and you know someone who did it does not mean that it's a good idea or that we shouldn't clear them.
...completely fabricated. This is not about data that the company can't access (legally, or technically), it's about data it could produce at the push of a button, if only it wanted to.
The government is actually right. Without a ruling into this direction, corporations can easily hide any and all data they own from any and all legal consequences.
Firstly, they could simply keep it somewhere with almost no laws and compute it on-demand. Secondly, it is easy to split it up into chunks so that each individual chunk contains no data. Again, re-combine only when needed. Thirdly, in the near future (today it's too computationally expensive) it will be possible to do computations without actually assembling the data. We already know how to do computation with encrypted data without decrypting it (and without knowing its content even during computation).
Irrespective of this particular case, unless we really want to live in a cyperpunk world, there has to be a point where a multinational corporation answers to the law, its guilt or innocence determined in a court, without playing tricks like this.
So Clinton wasn't democratically elected because the house and senate didn't confirm him?
Are you intentionally trying very hard to miss the point or did I switch on the chinese keyboard by accident?
Clinton's private life is neither here nor there. But even if you want to bring it on, it was an individual action, not a law passed in parliament. The thing we are talking about here, however, is.
Quite frankly, comparing the passing of a law with a private sex adventure is borderline crazy.
That's why I'm confused as to your assertion that the law is the morality. The law is the law, no more.
I didn't claim the law is the morality. I do claim that it is the expression of the will of society, more or less (i.e. taking imperfections in the system into account). The corporate policies of a multinational corporation, on the other hand, are not.
So then sex with Monica Lewinsky has been decided to be a good thing because Clinton was elected?
Last I checked, neither the House nor the Senate had made a vote asking Clinton to fuck her, so no.
Not every action by an elected government is the will of the people or the "right thing". And given that people are arguing here that it isn't even protectionism, makes me think that it isn't as settled as you assert.
First point: Of course not, but until we have a perfect liquid democracy, it is the closest thing we have, and for the moment, like it or not, it is the modus operandi of our western societies. So taking into account the realities of our lives, it has been decided.
Second point: Of course there will always be discussion in a multi-valued society. In every democratic decision, there's also a minority whose opinion did not win the day, and we allow them to continue voicing it.
Shop at the store to find what you want then order it online for $1 less is a fantasy you made up.
Not at all. I know both customers who do this and shops that had this problem and went belly up (very likely not just because of it, but it contributed).
Your examples are bad examples and they miss the point. We're talking about small, personal book stores, and you come with Best Buy and Fry.
I love cash. You can have it when you pry it from my col... wait... not quite. But for me to stop using cash, you have to make electronic cash work first. That means three things that are absolute requirements and I will not ever negotiate:
It is anonymous and untraceable, at least for any practical purposes.
It is as fast and easy to use as taking a bill from my wallet. If your e-cash solution takes more than about 5-10 seconds for a simple payment, it is too slow. I'm talking start-to-finish, including everything I have to do, the recipient has to do, and your system has to do.
It works between two private individuals who meet in the middle of nowhere and don't have Internet at that moment.
As long as even one of these conditions is not met, I will have to carry cash around me anyways, and if I have cash with me, I will use it wherever I can.
simply shrinking the market doesn't radically change things,
The market doesn't shrink. The market is the number of exchanged goods. The market doesn't care if there are 200 merchants or 250 merchants. What changes is the distribution of goods and merchants, and when the number of merchants is very low and their concentration of market power high, we get into situations (oligopoly, monopoly) that we do not want because we know they are bad.
If you want a book that isn't in the bestsellers list, then in your local town there's probably only one or two book shops that stock it at best and most likely none.
For the past 20 years, when I go to a bookstore and I want a book they don't have, they could almost always order it and have it for me the next day.
while it'd be nice to have geographically distributed demand for labour, in practice this has not been true since the invention of cities.
I'm not talking about a perfect equilibrium. I'm talking about the simple fact that if your country has one region with 50% unemployment rates and one region where employers can't find workers, your whole country will destabilze.
Of course there will always be differences. But if they get too extreme, the consequences are much higher and much more expensive then the costs of some small interventions.
What's more once you decide that lots of people deserve to be protected from changing times,
I never said anything like that and my arguments are completely unrelated to technical or other progress. So please burn the strawman somewhere else.
small local bookshops are inherently worth protecting. Why is that?
Because you need many, many competitors in a market for it to actually be a market. The amount of large corporations any market can support is limited and fairly low, general business wisdom has it that it is around 3-5 with the first 3 being profitable and two or so more being able to just barely make it.
If you want many participants in a market, most of them will be small. That is why small shops are worthy of protection.
You also want to have employment in your country be fairly even, and not have some areas with high demand and low supply and some with low demand and many unemployed, which is why local shops are worthy of protection.
Really, you just need to use your brain a little more and it's all very simple.
Perhaps the space the bookshops used up can be replaced by coffee shops
Maybe, but this is not at all about bookshops being replaced by something else, it's about small competitors being driven out by large competitors, so put the strawman away again.
And sometimes it is needed. The whole "free market über alles" philosophy makes assumptions that are not true in the real world, such as perfect transparency. To come even close to working as it should, the free market needs to be guided. Among other things, protecting small competitors guarantees that it remains a free market and doesn't turn into an oligopol or a monopol.
The ones that actually provide value to the customer will stay due to people actually visiting them.
Unfortunately, they will not. Too many people will use the cozy atmosphere and the good service to make their selection, and then order it online because it costs a dollar less.
Yes, poor buggy whip makers will be out of jobs in the short term, but we can't all be riding carriages into the future...
Except that Amazon has not invented the car. The buggy whip makers are not going to be out of jobs, they are going to be replaced by minimum-wage buggy whip warehouse slaves.
I think the mini-tablet will ultimately reign supreme
Let me guess: You are female, yes?
Us males, we have trouser pockets. My iPhone fits all the pockets on all my trousers perfectly. Something that is bigger by just a few centimeters would be uncomfortable or even impossible to put into some of them.
* Displace smart phones/dedicated GPSes used for turn-by-turn directions (visual and audio) while driving. It's going to be great for motorcycle users. I'm not sure yet whether it will be legal for this use. * It will make the policeman's job more difficult by allowing drivers to check their emails/texts while driving without it being obvious to an observer.
Having the stuff on your wrist in a way that may often require you to turn your hand is quite probably no less dangerous than having a phone in your hand.
* Provide quick updates to stock/commodity traders who are on the go or not near a desktop/laptop.
They're already being replaced by fully-automated trading systems, in a few years we'll wonder why humans ever even did the job in the first place.
* Allow joggers to skip songs without carrying their smartphones in their hands.
Earphone pieces already allow for this. Those from Apple, for example, let you stop, start, skip forward and backward. And it only requires one arm to do it, not both, which is more important in running than having a cute gadget.
If it is actually "smart" in any appreciable sense, I'm interested.
Right now, I see nothing on the market that even approaches anything that would justify using that term. The best that these watches have to offer at this moment is that they're about 3 seconds faster to look at than the smartphone in your pocket. Maybe if you're a lady and keep your smartphone dug in deep in your bag of holding and it takes you a minute of searching to find it that's interesting, but for most people I don't see any actual practical value (not that that would stop a million or so customers from buying it simply because it's new and flashy and advertisement budgets have convinced them it's the second coming).
I can't say what a watch would need to be interesting. If I could, I wouldn't post it here, I would sell it very expensively to Apple. So I'm looking for what everyone announces, maybe someone is smarter than me and I'll say "I didn't think of that, it's really cool". But so far, that hasn't happened.
That's total bullshit. We've had insurance and employment coupled here in my country for almost a century now and none of these clusterfucks have happened. The thing that causes the clusterfuck is a country that can't decide whether it wants to be religious or secular.
as activists are all too aware, false copyright claims can can knock legitimate content offline.
As not only activists but almost everyone aware of the rampant abuse going on has been claiming for years, it is high time that the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA claims is actually enforced. Mistakes can happen, nobody is perfect, but some companies have been taking down large amounts of content for years, repeatedly and with not even a slap on the wrist.
(or is it discovered inside the human mind? I'll let you figure that one out).
There's not even an argument there. Current scientific knowledge indicates strongly that our brains are wired for language processes, but not for a specific language.
What you're referring to as the creation of an algorithm is simply the creation of the description of the algorithm which is a different thing to the creation/discovery of the algorithm.
No. You are trying to introduce some kind of strange sideways category. Or maybe it is the word "algorithm" that's causing the confusion here. I've described my view, how about you describe yours?
Car dealership, you're so cute. The CIA was heavily involved in drug and weapons dealing. I'm not certain if they still are, but that they were is in public records. And not in a small way, either.
Slashdot Mirror
You are using archaic myths to justify misogyny.
Are you for real?
The norse mythology is radically gender-equal compared to most other ancient mythologies, especially among the western ones. It has plenty of strong female characters to offer.
Taking a historic Superhero character and making it a woman is a good thing.
No, it's ridiculous, stupid and if I were a feminist, I'd probably hate it. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.
Turning a male character into a woman is probably the most idiotic non-solution you could come up with.
Did you know Thor was the god of fertility, healing? Did you also now they aren't changing the Myth, just a comic character?
That is what makes it doubly stupid. If this were a pure comic book character, the dissonance would be much less.
You can wish the moon was made of cheese, and you can announce it is, but it won't make it so.
Thor is a male norse god, no matter how you try to retcon it. The new character will not be Thor, period. It'll be a female character called Thor.
I don't know why they did this, because it's completely stupid. The norse mythology is rich with strong women, equal in power to their male counterparts. They could have easily built up any of them into a major character.
You are, indeed, trying very hard to miss the point.
The parliament is specifically elected for the purpose of passing laws in the name of the people. When it passes a law, it does what it is supposed to do. If you don't like the law, you could've elected a different parliament, and you can elect one that changes the law the next time.
Last I checked, the official job description of the president did not include a section on his sex life. He's not elected in order to fuck (or abstain from it) his staff. His job is to run the executive, and if it weren't for America and its strange fascination with gossip, celebrity and sex, nobody would give a fuck what he does with his private part.
You basically set out to find the only thing that the two have in common and then think that because tomatoes and fire engines are both red, they're absolutely the same thing.
What a stupid strawman.
The fact that you can survive sprinting through a minefield and you know someone who did it does not mean that it's a good idea or that we shouldn't clear them.
The huge MASSIVE problem with that position is
...completely fabricated. This is not about data that the company can't access (legally, or technically), it's about data it could produce at the push of a button, if only it wanted to.
The government is actually right. Without a ruling into this direction, corporations can easily hide any and all data they own from any and all legal consequences.
Firstly, they could simply keep it somewhere with almost no laws and compute it on-demand. Secondly, it is easy to split it up into chunks so that each individual chunk contains no data. Again, re-combine only when needed. Thirdly, in the near future (today it's too computationally expensive) it will be possible to do computations without actually assembling the data. We already know how to do computation with encrypted data without decrypting it (and without knowing its content even during computation).
Irrespective of this particular case, unless we really want to live in a cyperpunk world, there has to be a point where a multinational corporation answers to the law, its guilt or innocence determined in a court, without playing tricks like this.
So Clinton wasn't democratically elected because the house and senate didn't confirm him?
Are you intentionally trying very hard to miss the point or did I switch on the chinese keyboard by accident?
Clinton's private life is neither here nor there. But even if you want to bring it on, it was an individual action, not a law passed in parliament. The thing we are talking about here, however, is.
Quite frankly, comparing the passing of a law with a private sex adventure is borderline crazy.
That's why I'm confused as to your assertion that the law is the morality. The law is the law, no more.
I didn't claim the law is the morality. I do claim that it is the expression of the will of society, more or less (i.e. taking imperfections in the system into account). The corporate policies of a multinational corporation, on the other hand, are not.
So then sex with Monica Lewinsky has been decided to be a good thing because Clinton was elected?
Last I checked, neither the House nor the Senate had made a vote asking Clinton to fuck her, so no.
Not every action by an elected government is the will of the people or the "right thing". And given that people are arguing here that it isn't even protectionism, makes me think that it isn't as settled as you assert.
First point: Of course not, but until we have a perfect liquid democracy, it is the closest thing we have, and for the moment, like it or not, it is the modus operandi of our western societies. So taking into account the realities of our lives, it has been decided.
Second point: Of course there will always be discussion in a multi-valued society. In every democratic decision, there's also a minority whose opinion did not win the day, and we allow them to continue voicing it.
Shop at the store to find what you want then order it online for $1 less is a fantasy you made up.
Not at all. I know both customers who do this and shops that had this problem and went belly up (very likely not just because of it, but it contributed).
Your examples are bad examples and they miss the point. We're talking about small, personal book stores, and you come with Best Buy and Fry.
I love cash. You can have it when you pry it from my col... wait... not quite. But for me to stop using cash, you have to make electronic cash work first. That means three things that are absolute requirements and I will not ever negotiate:
As long as even one of these conditions is not met, I will have to carry cash around me anyways, and if I have cash with me, I will use it wherever I can.
But the idea that it's a [good, bad] thing should be agreed first,
It has been. The french government is democratically elected.
simply shrinking the market doesn't radically change things,
The market doesn't shrink. The market is the number of exchanged goods. The market doesn't care if there are 200 merchants or 250 merchants. What changes is the distribution of goods and merchants, and when the number of merchants is very low and their concentration of market power high, we get into situations (oligopoly, monopoly) that we do not want because we know they are bad.
If you want a book that isn't in the bestsellers list, then in your local town there's probably only one or two book shops that stock it at best and most likely none.
For the past 20 years, when I go to a bookstore and I want a book they don't have, they could almost always order it and have it for me the next day.
while it'd be nice to have geographically distributed demand for labour, in practice this has not been true since the invention of cities.
I'm not talking about a perfect equilibrium. I'm talking about the simple fact that if your country has one region with 50% unemployment rates and one region where employers can't find workers, your whole country will destabilze.
Of course there will always be differences. But if they get too extreme, the consequences are much higher and much more expensive then the costs of some small interventions.
What's more once you decide that lots of people deserve to be protected from changing times,
I never said anything like that and my arguments are completely unrelated to technical or other progress. So please burn the strawman somewhere else.
small local bookshops are inherently worth protecting. Why is that?
Because you need many, many competitors in a market for it to actually be a market. The amount of large corporations any market can support is limited and fairly low, general business wisdom has it that it is around 3-5 with the first 3 being profitable and two or so more being able to just barely make it.
If you want many participants in a market, most of them will be small. That is why small shops are worthy of protection.
You also want to have employment in your country be fairly even, and not have some areas with high demand and low supply and some with low demand and many unemployed, which is why local shops are worthy of protection.
Really, you just need to use your brain a little more and it's all very simple.
Perhaps the space the bookshops used up can be replaced by coffee shops
Maybe, but this is not at all about bookshops being replaced by something else, it's about small competitors being driven out by large competitors, so put the strawman away again.
Protectionism is protectionism,
And sometimes it is needed. The whole "free market über alles" philosophy makes assumptions that are not true in the real world, such as perfect transparency. To come even close to working as it should, the free market needs to be guided. Among other things, protecting small competitors guarantees that it remains a free market and doesn't turn into an oligopol or a monopol.
The ones that actually provide value to the customer will stay due to people actually visiting them.
Unfortunately, they will not. Too many people will use the cozy atmosphere and the good service to make their selection, and then order it online because it costs a dollar less.
Yes, poor buggy whip makers will be out of jobs in the short term, but we can't all be riding carriages into the future...
Except that Amazon has not invented the car. The buggy whip makers are not going to be out of jobs, they are going to be replaced by minimum-wage buggy whip warehouse slaves.
I think the mini-tablet will ultimately reign supreme
Let me guess: You are female, yes?
Us males, we have trouser pockets. My iPhone fits all the pockets on all my trousers perfectly. Something that is bigger by just a few centimeters would be uncomfortable or even impossible to put into some of them.
* Displace smart phones/dedicated GPSes used for turn-by-turn directions (visual and audio) while driving. It's going to be great for motorcycle users. I'm not sure yet whether it will be legal for this use.
* It will make the policeman's job more difficult by allowing drivers to check their emails/texts while driving without it being obvious to an observer.
Having the stuff on your wrist in a way that may often require you to turn your hand is quite probably no less dangerous than having a phone in your hand.
* Provide quick updates to stock/commodity traders who are on the go or not near a desktop/laptop.
They're already being replaced by fully-automated trading systems, in a few years we'll wonder why humans ever even did the job in the first place.
* Allow joggers to skip songs without carrying their smartphones in their hands.
Earphone pieces already allow for this. Those from Apple, for example, let you stop, start, skip forward and backward. And it only requires one arm to do it, not both, which is more important in running than having a cute gadget.
Have you guys paused to consider that there might be applications beyond your current imagination?
Yes, which is why I'm waiting for one that makes me say more then "yeah, cute idea, I would need it twice this century."
I don't want a watch as a status symbol,
And if you did, it would be a handmade analog clock from Switzerland, not a mass-produced electronic gadget from China.
If it is actually "smart" in any appreciable sense, I'm interested.
Right now, I see nothing on the market that even approaches anything that would justify using that term. The best that these watches have to offer at this moment is that they're about 3 seconds faster to look at than the smartphone in your pocket. Maybe if you're a lady and keep your smartphone dug in deep in your bag of holding and it takes you a minute of searching to find it that's interesting, but for most people I don't see any actual practical value (not that that would stop a million or so customers from buying it simply because it's new and flashy and advertisement budgets have convinced them it's the second coming).
I can't say what a watch would need to be interesting. If I could, I wouldn't post it here, I would sell it very expensively to Apple. So I'm looking for what everyone announces, maybe someone is smarter than me and I'll say "I didn't think of that, it's really cool". But so far, that hasn't happened.
That's total bullshit. We've had insurance and employment coupled here in my country for almost a century now and none of these clusterfucks have happened. The thing that causes the clusterfuck is a country that can't decide whether it wants to be religious or secular.
as activists are all too aware, false copyright claims can can knock legitimate content offline.
As not only activists but almost everyone aware of the rampant abuse going on has been claiming for years, it is high time that the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA claims is actually enforced. Mistakes can happen, nobody is perfect, but some companies have been taking down large amounts of content for years, repeatedly and with not even a slap on the wrist.
(or is it discovered inside the human mind? I'll let you figure that one out).
There's not even an argument there. Current scientific knowledge indicates strongly that our brains are wired for language processes, but not for a specific language.
What you're referring to as the creation of an algorithm is simply the creation of the description of the algorithm which is a different thing to the creation/discovery of the algorithm.
No. You are trying to introduce some kind of strange sideways category. Or maybe it is the word "algorithm" that's causing the confusion here. I've described my view, how about you describe yours?
It just might work. Money is more important than laws these days.
Car dealership, you're so cute. The CIA was heavily involved in drug and weapons dealing. I'm not certain if they still are, but that they were is in public records. And not in a small way, either.