If there's an alien race that's as advanced compared to us as we are compared to simple bacteria, then yes, I see no problem with them wiping us out without even thinking. As they re-shaped out planet in a microsecond in to exactly what they want, I doubt we'd even notice.
We all paid individually, not collectively. So, the landlord would get a deposit in their bank for $60.03 and be able to say "Okay, YttriumOxide has paid now", and get one for $60.04 and say "Okay, Joe Bloggs has paid now", etc.
I am WELL aware of how important the bacteria and other little organisms in my body are to my life. I'm also even well aware of how important Earth bacteria are to our entire ecosystem. However, Martian bacteria can all be blasted off the face their planet once we've studied them for all I care.
We are a conquering species, and we can "conquer" the bacteria of Mars and commit genocide if you want to look at it like that. I have no issues with this concept.
We, as a species, need to get out in the universe, and if we have to crush some bacteria in to non-existence to do it, that's fine. I only draw the line once I see creatures exhibiting intelligence (the natural "intelligent behaviour" of chemicals up to and including very complex multicellular life such as bacteria does NOT count in this case! But get much more complex than that (plants, dumb fish, etc) and at that point I wouldn't be fine with it)
(and yes, it IS an arbitrary line I'm drawing, and I'm comfortable with that too!)
Yep, that would be nice, but I'd say it should be the negative version of "Funny" from a karma perspective - stupid posts don't lose karma, just as funny posts don't gain it.
(but of course, it still affects the score, and you can set a preference for further score adjustment if you like)
One "share house" I lived in in my late teenage years, they managed "who has paid" by the extra cents. So, housemate #1 pays $60.01, housemate #2 pays $60.02, housemate #3 pays $60.03 etc.
Because the rental agreement said we all pay $60, when I moved out, they sent me cheque for the "cents" that had added up. Somehow though, they'd made a mistake, assumed I was another guy with a different "cent" amount and then two weeks later tried to kick the OTHER guy out for not paying rent anymore.
Horrible situation (for the other guy, didn't really affect me), but it would've got even more screwed up had any of us tried your plan!
Most of my work is on services, however I pretty much always do a "pretty" config tool to go along with it. Which, while hardly complex, still sort of fits the bill of a "fat client" app.
Were I doing something much more complicated, I'd be more comfortable doing it in C++ without.NET, but C#/.NET also wouldn't bother me too much.
I just don't find it very compelling, for much the same reason that Java wasn't very compelling.
Can you elaborate a bit on this? I personally REALLY dislike Java for any kind of front end thing, but the two biggest reasons are performance and UI inconsistencies. I haven't experienced either of these being an issue with.NET. (sure, the UI is scary if I take one of my "written for Windows" apps (using System.Windows.Forms) and run it under Mono on my Ubuntu box, but if I want a "Mono version", I'll just cut the UI and replace it with a more native looking one - in any well coded app, this is a trivial operation since the UI is pretty well separated from the main code)
And to think I gave up the opportunity to mod you a troll to explain something so basic.
Modding him troll would have been wrong, and an abuse of mod points. Clearly, it was a VERY dumb question, showing a COMPLETE lack of knowledge about the topic at hand, but it appeared to be a genuine question. It certainly didn't deserve any up-mods, but the down-mods would be equally as inappropriate.
I've heard comments from people (not claiming you Mr AC!) that "if we find life on Mars, even bacterial, then we should leave it alone"
This is actually something I have a pretty big problem with... In the name of science, I'm quite happy to wait a while to DISCOVER what is and was around on Mars, but regardless of the results, I think we should colonise when we are reasonably able to do so (starting with the "simple" controlled habitat of scientists, going through "Mars hotels", and then finally (probably hundreds of years at LEAST from now) get in to the terraforming side of it.
I don't care if we kill the Martian bacteria - once we've studied them, it's no longer humanity's concern to preserve them. Intelligent life (even as intelligent as a very stupid fish) should be preserved, but not bacteria.
Criminals probably aren't such a good idea, since if they're on death row already, they're probably not the kind of people you can trust.
I've often thought that offering the chance of a "one way trip" to suitably qualified people would still bring in a lot of volunteers. Some might be perfectly healthy and fine, but I expect a lot of the volunteers would be people who don't really expect to be alive much longer anyway.
Right now, personally, I wouldn't take it... but if, for example, I found out tomorrow that I have a terminal disease with only 5 years to live TOPS (but sufficiently close to 100% chance of survival within 3 years), I'd happily take a research job on Mars to live out the end of my days doing research in the most amazingly DIFFERENT place that I can imagine.
The contract could even say that when someone is too sick to work, you simply chuck them out the airlock (what's the point in prolonging their life at that point anyway)
I trained as a Private Inquiries Agent (in a country/state that requires licensing to do that as a job). The "Mountain Dew Bottle" was covered pretty much in the first day of the six month course. It's required learning, and if you forget "empty bottle" when they ask you about required items for a surveillance operation, you won't be passing that test!
(although procedure is to keep it, then dispose of it correctly later - not throw it out the window)
I find it interesting that you only mention web technologies in a discussion about.NET. I work as a developer, where my primary environment is.NET (due to an SDK that I am required to use), and I "don't do webapps".
I have to agree it's about the best thing Microsoft have done in years (I'd be hard pressed to think of anything else they've done in the last 15 years that I actually liked)
Does anyone else think it seems really LAZY to create a Wikipedia page with no links to it? Every time I've made a new article (or even made substantial changes to an existing one), I've checked the "What Links Here", and then gone to pages NOT in that list that I think really probably could do with a link to it. (I'll still only add it if appropriate though - I'm not the type to spam up Wikipedia with useless links)
I didn't think the orthography was really a problem, or perhaps I don't think the word means what it really means... As far as I know, the writing is pretty straightforward, and that link only really points out that there's 3 main ways of spelling (all within the same orthography). I believe the most difficult part of Cornish is determining whether you're reviving a "dialect" or the "main branch", and how much mingling you're getting between them (or even just "making up" - leading to a brand new "dialect"). Much of the arguments revolve around what is really "correct" Cornish grammar and how much "late Cornish" should be considered as much of it was influenced by Middle English anyway (itself a horrid mess of an old Germanic dialect mixed with middle French). People who think that "Late Cornish" should be mostly discarded actually often have a slightly easier time of it, since there are actually MORE references for the older varieties of the language than there are for the later ones (primarily due to the rapidly shrinking number of people that spoke it I'd imagine)
All of that in mind, you'd probably be surprised though at how much you can mangle almost any Indo-European language (which includes the Celtic / Brythonic group) and still keep it comprehensible.
Isa in-take this English worse for grasping is, wrong grammar, words, n all has with, than otherwisings in Cornish types! Iff'n you this can grasp (n sure's you can) sure's also ya one Cornish type speak, n grasp ya in Cornish others otherwisings sure fine!
(And if that made ABSOLUTELY no sense to you, then I failed... and yes, I did just "make that up" on the spot, it's not supposed to be representative of any particular English dialect, although some aspects of it were taken from some dialects I'm more familiar with)
And lastly: No, I don't know that much about Cornish specifically - I'm just a linguistics geek with a passion for the more curious branches of the Indo-European family tree, and the "odd ones out" in the main branches (e.g. Did you know "Pizza" is of Germanic origin, and is more closely related to the English word "bite" than ANY word in Italian? Don't tell a hot blooded Italian that though;) (for reference, the "zz" making a "tz" sound comes from the High Germanic consonant shift that moved the "t" in what became Low Germanic to an "s" sound (English "water", German "Wasser" or English "street", German "Strasse" (also compare Dutch (a low Germanic language like English) "water" and "straat")) and then further in some sub-groupings of High German to a "tz" sound - where it was promptly picked up at the Italian border. It goes roughly "Bitto" > "Bisso" > "Pisso" > "Piszo" (Pitzo) > "Pizza" (Pitza) (although the "o" to "a" ending is a bit more complex - I won't go in to that though since this is getting WAY off topic))
Thinking about it... yep, you're right that my "walking around naked" example was not the best illustration of my point.
The first question you asked of me started with:
How can you not see a massive difference between...
and I just realised that I didn't really answer that.
Actually, I DO see a massive difference between the "right to live" and the "right to healthcare". The first is FAR more important at an individual level (there's nothing I value higher than my own life!)
What I was primarily arguing in favour of was more or less from earlier in the thread, where another poster was trying to tell me that there is an "inherent" right to life as a kind of "state of the universe" (from my interpretation of his statements, I could be misinterpreting though). My point was that despite the fact that it is the most basic and important of any right that one has, it is still societally granted "just like" healthcare (although on the scale of "importance" the two aren't even really comparable).
So, in the context of the original discussion, my question stands, and I'd love for someone to answer, but I guess based on what you're arguing for, it's not really yours to answer (unless you can do so, want to, and agree with the person I was originally answering).
To answer your point, I pretty much agree with you, except for:
it isn't a right if it impedes the rights of others
This, I can't agree with, because as I see it, all rights are granted only by the society in which you live (back on my original point there sorry), and therefore it's up to the society to determine what "is" and "isn't" a right. Quite often, a right MAY impede another right (for example: two people's "right to life" in a situation where one must die for the other to live), so I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that for something to be a right, it can not impede any others.
Or am I missing the point here? Sorry - English is my native language, but I don't use it nearly as regularly these days and it's also been a LONG work day for me, so I've got this nagging feeling that I'm totally misunderstanding you.:(
I do hope you agree that may be because they're nasty PEOPLE, not because they're religious!
Yes, but not always... The "may be" in your sentence is well placed.
An atheist that is nasty, is almost certainly nasty because they're simply a nasty person. However, a religious person that's nasty could either be nasty because they believe it's the right thing from their religion's viewpoint, OR they're just a nasty person.
So, from a pure "percentage game", assuming that "general nastiness" is evenly spread, a religious person is more likely to commit nasty acts than an atheist.
I'll give a "religious" example of a "lesser" kind of nastiness: A good friend of mine has a VERY religious mother (to the point that she gives books to her youngest children showing humans and dinosaurs living together in the days before Noah's Ark). When my friend and I were still relatively young teenagers, she found some of my friend's comic books, and promptly destroyed them, claiming they were satanic because on the covers the characters depicted has no pupils (classic X-Men comics). She KNEW that my friend had saved his pocket money for MONTHS to buy those comics, and had never even expressly forbidden him from getting them. Quite simply, her actions were horrible, and can be attributed 100% to her religious convictions - had she not believed the comics to be satanic, she wouldn't have done that (oddly, I always found her to be a very pleasant woman as long as you were VERY careful about topics of conversation and behaviour when around her).
Now, please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying all (or even most, or even many) religious people are like this. Most that I've met are very nice people and lead very good lives helping others and generally being wonderful. But that doesn't change the fact that some people aren't so nice, and it can be totally attributed to their religious beliefs.
(I avoided the "heavier" topic of religious fanaticism as an example, but that's basically the same thing, only at a MUCH higher scale)
Note also that one does not have to be religious to believe in a Greater Good that is worth dying for. See Stalinism, Maoism, etc. for examples of ideologies that have inspired ordinary people to commit terrible acts under an explicitly atheist banner. You could almost describe them as "atheistic religions"...;)
True - unfortunately. That level of fanaticism is dangerous no matter what banner is flying though. At the "lesser end" like my example above, the problem only seems to be there in the case of the religious. (I've never heard of an atheist parent destroying a bible when they found their child with one - they're more likely to discuss it. I HAVE heard of (but only third party) a copy of "Origin of Species" being destroyed by a devout "Universe created in seven literal days" believer in the Christian faith.)
It's unfortunately true that this country (Germany) is WAY too sensitive about some of its history, but at least it's pretty clearly spelled out what I can and can not do here rather than the nebulous "try it and find out" from Australia.
As far as the "feeling" of freedom goes, I feel at LEAST as free here as any other Western country I've been to (and most especially compared to the US, where when I've visited, I've felt FAR less free (most especially after an incident of almost being arrested in New York for having a CONVERSATION)). Here in Germany, I can light fireworks at New Years (illegal in Australia), go naked at the beach (illegal in Australia except at specific beaches), drive my car at high speeds on the autobahn (max speed 110km/h in Australia) and much more.
Yep - that's the one. But, as usual for "The Age" unfortunately, the reporting isn't too accurate. It's completely true that the guy did pretty much run "Drink or Die", but (other than his guilty plea, which was later) there was no actual evidence of any activity that is criminal in Australia. There was no evidence that he personally was involved with distributing copyright material (although it's fairly obvious he was). The ONLY evidence they had on him was that he had cracked the software. Cracking your software on your own computer is NOT illegal in Australia no matter how much the authorities try to make you believe that it is (Australia is one of those places where EULAs really aren't worth the paper they're written on - you bought it, you put it on your computer, you can do whatever you want with it - just don't distribute it further, because that's copyright infringement (same rules apply for reverse engineering, although that gets a little more complicated with other "related" laws)). Had it gone to trial in Australia, it's pretty certain he'd be a free man.
Now, I'm led to believe that in the US, cracking software is illegal. So, there was definitely NOT enough evidence against him to convict him of any crimes in Australia, but that same evidence WAS enough to convict in the US. "Let's make it easy" the governments thought, and sent him off to the US to face the proverbial firing squad.
(under the former Prime Minister of Australia, the US would say "jump" and the whole country would be ordered to do so without even so much as daring to ask how high - I don't know how it is now under the new guy)
Thanks for the offer (and I do mean that), but talking about it and supports groups and that sort of thing REALLY just aren't for me. I have a very cynical (some might say "nasty") streak to my sense of humour and it gets a bit anxious to come out in that kind of situation.
I'll be making an appointment with a doctor for this coming Saturday to get something prescribed and I'll see how I go with that. I'm fully aware that even with medication, it won't be easy, but it'll give me enough help to be able to do the rest - I do consider myself a very strong willed person, just without (medical) help, I don't think I'm stronger than the addiction.
Yeh, Japan's a pretty tough one. I speak some Japanese and I've been there MANY times (as I said, I work for an international company - which in this case, happens to be HQ'd in Japan). I'd be cautious about wanting to move there though - it's a VERY different kind of life than you'd be used to in Illinois! If you do manage it, I'd recommend somewhere outside of Tokyo - it's not as easy to find a job outside Tokyo I'll admit, but the pace of life in that area might just make you flee in terror and never want to move again after that.
What kind of work are you looking for? I've got quite a few contacts there (both within the company I work for and otherwise), so if you like we can take this off Slashdot and you can drop me a mail - MySlashdotUsername MinusTheLastThreeChars (at) GooglesMailService
Germany DOES have an extradition treaty... but if I do something while I am here in Germany which is not a crime here in Germany, there's no way they'd hand me over to the US authorities. The purpose of an extradition treaty is for if I committed a crime in the US and then "fled" to Germany, the US could drag me back for trial/punishment.
The case in question in Australia - the guy had NEVER been to US, had no plans to ever go to the US and wasn't particularly interested in how his activities had anything to do with the US. The fact that the Australian government just happily handed him over sickened me (and the few others who actually noticed and paid attention to the TINY amount of news coverage that it got)
Biggest hint: "just do it". It's scary as hell the first time, but in all honesty it's not actually that hard.
I assume you're in the US from the phrasing about moving out of state (other countries have states also, but I've noticed the way US people phrase things about them is a little different - forgive me if I'm wrong!). I'd say you've got two choices: The "safe" way or the "risky" way. I've done both, and I have to say that the "risky" way has usually worked for me, but it's more a thing for the young - I wouldn't want to try it now.
The "safe" way is:
1) Pick a country
2) Visit their embassy and ask about requirements for work visas. They'll most likely tell you that to get one, you need a job with a company in the country. Don't worry YET about this requirement (that's the next step), but pay attention to any others and if they're a problem go back to step 1.
3) Look for a job in that country - internet websites are helpful, and many countries even have job agencies for people that don't speak the language (and not always just the crappy jobs either - for example, my boss here in Germany doesn't speak a word of German - we're an international company and are the European HQ, so we cover all of Europe and English is the "defacto" language of the workplace)
4) If you can't find a job, go back to step 1.
5) Apply for the job, take a holiday to the country for an interview if necessary and within your budget.
6) Didn't get the job? Go back to step 3. Can't find a job after many attempts? go back to step 1.
7) Once you get the job, ask the company about moving expenses and "setting you up" temporarily while you "find your feet". Most companies are happy to help with that if you're in an even half-way decent job (I'm just a "lowly programmer" and they did it for me)
8) Move!
The "risky" way is much easier, but not for the faint of heart:
1) Pick a country
2) Visit their embassy and ask about requirements for work visas. They'll most likely tell you that to get one, you need a job with a company in the country. If they do, go back to step 1
3) Move!
4) Look for a job and HOPE you find one, otherwise you're dead;)
My first ever country move was with my family, so we'll skip that one... my second country move was a short hop across the Tasman sea from New Zealand to Australia. I took the risky method (New Zealander's don't need work visas in Australia). I arrived in Sydney Airport with $120 in my pocket, a backpack full of clothes and a wide eyed expression. I was only just 17 years old. I moved in to a backpackers hostel, and paid half my money for a bed for a week (this was not a particularly nice hostel!). They had a job board for "crappy jobs" so I got one for 3 days, which paid for a few more days living. Eventually, I got a permanent job, and then a better one and so on and so on.
My most recent move was the "safe" kind. I'm actually still working for the same company as before I moved, but it wasn't a "transfer" within the company (this company doesn't do that) - I actually quit my old job and was re-employed here in Germany.
As for the language - no, I didn't really speak it before I moved here. A few phrases, and I already spoke a related language (Dutch) from another move in my past, but languages and linguistics is actually my hobby, so it hasn't been a problem at all to pick it up. For your first move, I might suggest that an English speaking country is a good idea though - then, if you get the "country hopping bug" like me, you can be more adventurous next time!
Good luck, and I really hope you do seriously consider it. It's a lifestyle I wouldn't give up for the world. (no pun intended)
Quite clearly, you have never been addicted to anything in your life.
Let's replace your words with "food" and "eating":
Nobody is forcing you to go to the store, open your wallet, take out money, and ask the person behind the counter for food. Nobody is forcing you to place food to your mouth, chew it and swallow. The idea that you "simply continue to do it because you can't not do it" is hilarious to me. If you still eat, you honestly can't be as fearful as you claim to be, otherwise you wouldn't go through the steps of procuring the food in the first place. I think it's admirable that you're seeking help quitting, and I wish you the best of luck, but the notion that you have no control over your actions is ridiculous. You choose to do the things you do out of desperation. Throw away all of your food, take a week vacation, and just stay home. Start working on that project you've been meaning to do. Read books. Play games. Learn languages. Have a family member hold on to all of your money and credit/debit cards if you have to. If it's impossible for you to eat, you'll have no choice but not to do so. If you're truly fearful for your life, you'll do whatever it takes. But don't pretend that you're somehow a victim of anything but your own actions.
Now, I'm sure you see how silly that sounds. Believe me that the addiction to nicotine is MUCH stronger than the natural desire to eat. So, saying I'm a victim of my own actions and implying I really do have the "choice" is like saying you have the "choice" to eat or not.
It's true that not eating will kill you, whereas eating (usually) will not. And it's also true that smoking will (most likely) kill me, and quitting smoking will (hopefully) help me lead a longer and better life. But all of that means nothing to the craving in my brain that destroys my ability to think rationally. I can RATIONALLY decide that I should not smoke, but once I am no longer RATIONAL, that goes straight out the window.
THAT is why I need, and will get, medical assistance.
And THAT is why I do not think I honestly have free will in the matter. Were I to attempt the "stay at home for a week" thing (simply going cold-turkey), it's quite possible I'd gouge my own eyeballs out with my fingers just to try and change the focus away from the cravings.
What right do you have to force others to provide for you?
Inherently? None, but I also don't think there is any "inherent" right to life either. I consider them equally as "granted by society".
I completely understand your point about the "action" vs "inaction", but that can't be the only requirement. There are many possible things that do not require anyone to do anything but wouldn't be grouped as "inherent rights" (e.g. I hereby claim I have the right to walk naked through town - that requires no action on behalf of others, but I can guarantee you that the law (in most countries) wouldn't take kindly to it!)
So, other than the action/inaction point, what ELSE makes "life" more of an inherent right than a societal right?
Slashdot Mirror
If there's an alien race that's as advanced compared to us as we are compared to simple bacteria, then yes, I see no problem with them wiping us out without even thinking. As they re-shaped out planet in a microsecond in to exactly what they want, I doubt we'd even notice.
We all paid individually, not collectively. So, the landlord would get a deposit in their bank for $60.03 and be able to say "Okay, YttriumOxide has paid now", and get one for $60.04 and say "Okay, Joe Bloggs has paid now", etc.
Then... "sucks to be me", but that's a risk I'd happily take.
I am WELL aware of how important the bacteria and other little organisms in my body are to my life. I'm also even well aware of how important Earth bacteria are to our entire ecosystem. However, Martian bacteria can all be blasted off the face their planet once we've studied them for all I care.
We are a conquering species, and we can "conquer" the bacteria of Mars and commit genocide if you want to look at it like that. I have no issues with this concept.
We, as a species, need to get out in the universe, and if we have to crush some bacteria in to non-existence to do it, that's fine. I only draw the line once I see creatures exhibiting intelligence (the natural "intelligent behaviour" of chemicals up to and including very complex multicellular life such as bacteria does NOT count in this case! But get much more complex than that (plants, dumb fish, etc) and at that point I wouldn't be fine with it)
(and yes, it IS an arbitrary line I'm drawing, and I'm comfortable with that too!)
Yep, that would be nice, but I'd say it should be the negative version of "Funny" from a karma perspective - stupid posts don't lose karma, just as funny posts don't gain it.
(but of course, it still affects the score, and you can set a preference for further score adjustment if you like)
One "share house" I lived in in my late teenage years, they managed "who has paid" by the extra cents. So, housemate #1 pays $60.01, housemate #2 pays $60.02, housemate #3 pays $60.03 etc.
Because the rental agreement said we all pay $60, when I moved out, they sent me cheque for the "cents" that had added up. Somehow though, they'd made a mistake, assumed I was another guy with a different "cent" amount and then two weeks later tried to kick the OTHER guy out for not paying rent anymore.
Horrible situation (for the other guy, didn't really affect me), but it would've got even more screwed up had any of us tried your plan!
Most of my work is on services, however I pretty much always do a "pretty" config tool to go along with it. Which, while hardly complex, still sort of fits the bill of a "fat client" app.
Were I doing something much more complicated, I'd be more comfortable doing it in C++ without .NET, but C#/.NET also wouldn't bother me too much.
I just don't find it very compelling, for much the same reason that Java wasn't very compelling.Can you elaborate a bit on this? I personally REALLY dislike Java for any kind of front end thing, but the two biggest reasons are performance and UI inconsistencies. I haven't experienced either of these being an issue with .NET. (sure, the UI is scary if I take one of my "written for Windows" apps (using System.Windows.Forms) and run it under Mono on my Ubuntu box, but if I want a "Mono version", I'll just cut the UI and replace it with a more native looking one - in any well coded app, this is a trivial operation since the UI is pretty well separated from the main code)
Modding him troll would have been wrong, and an abuse of mod points. Clearly, it was a VERY dumb question, showing a COMPLETE lack of knowledge about the topic at hand, but it appeared to be a genuine question. It certainly didn't deserve any up-mods, but the down-mods would be equally as inappropriate.
If so, it's gonna be pretty pissed off when it gets a drill poked in its back...
I've heard comments from people (not claiming you Mr AC!) that "if we find life on Mars, even bacterial, then we should leave it alone"
This is actually something I have a pretty big problem with... In the name of science, I'm quite happy to wait a while to DISCOVER what is and was around on Mars, but regardless of the results, I think we should colonise when we are reasonably able to do so (starting with the "simple" controlled habitat of scientists, going through "Mars hotels", and then finally (probably hundreds of years at LEAST from now) get in to the terraforming side of it.
I don't care if we kill the Martian bacteria - once we've studied them, it's no longer humanity's concern to preserve them. Intelligent life (even as intelligent as a very stupid fish) should be preserved, but not bacteria.
Criminals probably aren't such a good idea, since if they're on death row already, they're probably not the kind of people you can trust.
I've often thought that offering the chance of a "one way trip" to suitably qualified people would still bring in a lot of volunteers. Some might be perfectly healthy and fine, but I expect a lot of the volunteers would be people who don't really expect to be alive much longer anyway.
Right now, personally, I wouldn't take it... but if, for example, I found out tomorrow that I have a terminal disease with only 5 years to live TOPS (but sufficiently close to 100% chance of survival within 3 years), I'd happily take a research job on Mars to live out the end of my days doing research in the most amazingly DIFFERENT place that I can imagine.
The contract could even say that when someone is too sick to work, you simply chuck them out the airlock (what's the point in prolonging their life at that point anyway)
I trained as a Private Inquiries Agent (in a country/state that requires licensing to do that as a job). The "Mountain Dew Bottle" was covered pretty much in the first day of the six month course. It's required learning, and if you forget "empty bottle" when they ask you about required items for a surveillance operation, you won't be passing that test!
(although procedure is to keep it, then dispose of it correctly later - not throw it out the window)
I find it interesting that you only mention web technologies in a discussion about .NET. I work as a developer, where my primary environment is .NET (due to an SDK that I am required to use), and I "don't do webapps".
I have to agree it's about the best thing Microsoft have done in years (I'd be hard pressed to think of anything else they've done in the last 15 years that I actually liked)
Does anyone else think it seems really LAZY to create a Wikipedia page with no links to it? Every time I've made a new article (or even made substantial changes to an existing one), I've checked the "What Links Here", and then gone to pages NOT in that list that I think really probably could do with a link to it. (I'll still only add it if appropriate though - I'm not the type to spam up Wikipedia with useless links)
I didn't think the orthography was really a problem, or perhaps I don't think the word means what it really means... As far as I know, the writing is pretty straightforward, and that link only really points out that there's 3 main ways of spelling (all within the same orthography). I believe the most difficult part of Cornish is determining whether you're reviving a "dialect" or the "main branch", and how much mingling you're getting between them (or even just "making up" - leading to a brand new "dialect"). Much of the arguments revolve around what is really "correct" Cornish grammar and how much "late Cornish" should be considered as much of it was influenced by Middle English anyway (itself a horrid mess of an old Germanic dialect mixed with middle French). People who think that "Late Cornish" should be mostly discarded actually often have a slightly easier time of it, since there are actually MORE references for the older varieties of the language than there are for the later ones (primarily due to the rapidly shrinking number of people that spoke it I'd imagine)
All of that in mind, you'd probably be surprised though at how much you can mangle almost any Indo-European language (which includes the Celtic / Brythonic group) and still keep it comprehensible.
Isa in-take this English worse for grasping is, wrong grammar, words, n all has with, than otherwisings in Cornish types! Iff'n you this can grasp (n sure's you can) sure's also ya one Cornish type speak, n grasp ya in Cornish others otherwisings sure fine!
(And if that made ABSOLUTELY no sense to you, then I failed... and yes, I did just "make that up" on the spot, it's not supposed to be representative of any particular English dialect, although some aspects of it were taken from some dialects I'm more familiar with)
And lastly: No, I don't know that much about Cornish specifically - I'm just a linguistics geek with a passion for the more curious branches of the Indo-European family tree, and the "odd ones out" in the main branches (e.g. Did you know "Pizza" is of Germanic origin, and is more closely related to the English word "bite" than ANY word in Italian? Don't tell a hot blooded Italian that though ;) (for reference, the "zz" making a "tz" sound comes from the High Germanic consonant shift that moved the "t" in what became Low Germanic to an "s" sound (English "water", German "Wasser" or English "street", German "Strasse" (also compare Dutch (a low Germanic language like English) "water" and "straat")) and then further in some sub-groupings of High German to a "tz" sound - where it was promptly picked up at the Italian border. It goes roughly "Bitto" > "Bisso" > "Pisso" > "Piszo" (Pitzo) > "Pizza" (Pitza) (although the "o" to "a" ending is a bit more complex - I won't go in to that though since this is getting WAY off topic))
Thinking about it... yep, you're right that my "walking around naked" example was not the best illustration of my point.
The first question you asked of me started with:
How can you not see a massive difference between...and I just realised that I didn't really answer that.
Actually, I DO see a massive difference between the "right to live" and the "right to healthcare". The first is FAR more important at an individual level (there's nothing I value higher than my own life!)
What I was primarily arguing in favour of was more or less from earlier in the thread, where another poster was trying to tell me that there is an "inherent" right to life as a kind of "state of the universe" (from my interpretation of his statements, I could be misinterpreting though). My point was that despite the fact that it is the most basic and important of any right that one has, it is still societally granted "just like" healthcare (although on the scale of "importance" the two aren't even really comparable).
So, in the context of the original discussion, my question stands, and I'd love for someone to answer, but I guess based on what you're arguing for, it's not really yours to answer (unless you can do so, want to, and agree with the person I was originally answering).
To answer your point, I pretty much agree with you, except for:
it isn't a right if it impedes the rights of othersThis, I can't agree with, because as I see it, all rights are granted only by the society in which you live (back on my original point there sorry), and therefore it's up to the society to determine what "is" and "isn't" a right. Quite often, a right MAY impede another right (for example: two people's "right to life" in a situation where one must die for the other to live), so I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that for something to be a right, it can not impede any others.
Or am I missing the point here? Sorry - English is my native language, but I don't use it nearly as regularly these days and it's also been a LONG work day for me, so I've got this nagging feeling that I'm totally misunderstanding you. :(
Yes, but not always... The "may be" in your sentence is well placed.
An atheist that is nasty, is almost certainly nasty because they're simply a nasty person. However, a religious person that's nasty could either be nasty because they believe it's the right thing from their religion's viewpoint, OR they're just a nasty person.
So, from a pure "percentage game", assuming that "general nastiness" is evenly spread, a religious person is more likely to commit nasty acts than an atheist.
I'll give a "religious" example of a "lesser" kind of nastiness:
A good friend of mine has a VERY religious mother (to the point that she gives books to her youngest children showing humans and dinosaurs living together in the days before Noah's Ark). When my friend and I were still relatively young teenagers, she found some of my friend's comic books, and promptly destroyed them, claiming they were satanic because on the covers the characters depicted has no pupils (classic X-Men comics). She KNEW that my friend had saved his pocket money for MONTHS to buy those comics, and had never even expressly forbidden him from getting them. Quite simply, her actions were horrible, and can be attributed 100% to her religious convictions - had she not believed the comics to be satanic, she wouldn't have done that (oddly, I always found her to be a very pleasant woman as long as you were VERY careful about topics of conversation and behaviour when around her).
Now, please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying all (or even most, or even many) religious people are like this. Most that I've met are very nice people and lead very good lives helping others and generally being wonderful. But that doesn't change the fact that some people aren't so nice, and it can be totally attributed to their religious beliefs.
(I avoided the "heavier" topic of religious fanaticism as an example, but that's basically the same thing, only at a MUCH higher scale)
Note also that one does not have to be religious to believe in a Greater Good that is worth dying for. See Stalinism, Maoism, etc. for examples of ideologies that have inspired ordinary people to commit terrible acts under an explicitly atheist banner. You could almost describe them as "atheistic religions"...True - unfortunately. That level of fanaticism is dangerous no matter what banner is flying though. At the "lesser end" like my example above, the problem only seems to be there in the case of the religious. (I've never heard of an atheist parent destroying a bible when they found their child with one - they're more likely to discuss it. I HAVE heard of (but only third party) a copy of "Origin of Species" being destroyed by a devout "Universe created in seven literal days" believer in the Christian faith.)
It's unfortunately true that this country (Germany) is WAY too sensitive about some of its history, but at least it's pretty clearly spelled out what I can and can not do here rather than the nebulous "try it and find out" from Australia.
As far as the "feeling" of freedom goes, I feel at LEAST as free here as any other Western country I've been to (and most especially compared to the US, where when I've visited, I've felt FAR less free (most especially after an incident of almost being arrested in New York for having a CONVERSATION)). Here in Germany, I can light fireworks at New Years (illegal in Australia), go naked at the beach (illegal in Australia except at specific beaches), drive my car at high speeds on the autobahn (max speed 110km/h in Australia) and much more.
Yep - that's the one. But, as usual for "The Age" unfortunately, the reporting isn't too accurate. It's completely true that the guy did pretty much run "Drink or Die", but (other than his guilty plea, which was later) there was no actual evidence of any activity that is criminal in Australia. There was no evidence that he personally was involved with distributing copyright material (although it's fairly obvious he was). The ONLY evidence they had on him was that he had cracked the software. Cracking your software on your own computer is NOT illegal in Australia no matter how much the authorities try to make you believe that it is (Australia is one of those places where EULAs really aren't worth the paper they're written on - you bought it, you put it on your computer, you can do whatever you want with it - just don't distribute it further, because that's copyright infringement (same rules apply for reverse engineering, although that gets a little more complicated with other "related" laws)). Had it gone to trial in Australia, it's pretty certain he'd be a free man.
Now, I'm led to believe that in the US, cracking software is illegal. So, there was definitely NOT enough evidence against him to convict him of any crimes in Australia, but that same evidence WAS enough to convict in the US. "Let's make it easy" the governments thought, and sent him off to the US to face the proverbial firing squad.
(under the former Prime Minister of Australia, the US would say "jump" and the whole country would be ordered to do so without even so much as daring to ask how high - I don't know how it is now under the new guy)
Thanks for the offer (and I do mean that), but talking about it and supports groups and that sort of thing REALLY just aren't for me. I have a very cynical (some might say "nasty") streak to my sense of humour and it gets a bit anxious to come out in that kind of situation.
I'll be making an appointment with a doctor for this coming Saturday to get something prescribed and I'll see how I go with that. I'm fully aware that even with medication, it won't be easy, but it'll give me enough help to be able to do the rest - I do consider myself a very strong willed person, just without (medical) help, I don't think I'm stronger than the addiction.
Yeh, Japan's a pretty tough one. I speak some Japanese and I've been there MANY times (as I said, I work for an international company - which in this case, happens to be HQ'd in Japan). I'd be cautious about wanting to move there though - it's a VERY different kind of life than you'd be used to in Illinois!
If you do manage it, I'd recommend somewhere outside of Tokyo - it's not as easy to find a job outside Tokyo I'll admit, but the pace of life in that area might just make you flee in terror and never want to move again after that.
What kind of work are you looking for? I've got quite a few contacts there (both within the company I work for and otherwise), so if you like we can take this off Slashdot and you can drop me a mail - MySlashdotUsername MinusTheLastThreeChars (at) GooglesMailService
Germany DOES have an extradition treaty... but if I do something while I am here in Germany which is not a crime here in Germany, there's no way they'd hand me over to the US authorities. The purpose of an extradition treaty is for if I committed a crime in the US and then "fled" to Germany, the US could drag me back for trial/punishment.
The case in question in Australia - the guy had NEVER been to US, had no plans to ever go to the US and wasn't particularly interested in how his activities had anything to do with the US. The fact that the Australian government just happily handed him over sickened me (and the few others who actually noticed and paid attention to the TINY amount of news coverage that it got)
Biggest hint: "just do it". It's scary as hell the first time, but in all honesty it's not actually that hard.
I assume you're in the US from the phrasing about moving out of state (other countries have states also, but I've noticed the way US people phrase things about them is a little different - forgive me if I'm wrong!). I'd say you've got two choices: The "safe" way or the "risky" way. I've done both, and I have to say that the "risky" way has usually worked for me, but it's more a thing for the young - I wouldn't want to try it now.
The "safe" way is:
1) Pick a country
2) Visit their embassy and ask about requirements for work visas. They'll most likely tell you that to get one, you need a job with a company in the country. Don't worry YET about this requirement (that's the next step), but pay attention to any others and if they're a problem go back to step 1.
3) Look for a job in that country - internet websites are helpful, and many countries even have job agencies for people that don't speak the language (and not always just the crappy jobs either - for example, my boss here in Germany doesn't speak a word of German - we're an international company and are the European HQ, so we cover all of Europe and English is the "defacto" language of the workplace)
4) If you can't find a job, go back to step 1.
5) Apply for the job, take a holiday to the country for an interview if necessary and within your budget.
6) Didn't get the job? Go back to step 3. Can't find a job after many attempts? go back to step 1.
7) Once you get the job, ask the company about moving expenses and "setting you up" temporarily while you "find your feet". Most companies are happy to help with that if you're in an even half-way decent job (I'm just a "lowly programmer" and they did it for me)
8) Move!
The "risky" way is much easier, but not for the faint of heart: ;)
1) Pick a country
2) Visit their embassy and ask about requirements for work visas. They'll most likely tell you that to get one, you need a job with a company in the country. If they do, go back to step 1
3) Move!
4) Look for a job and HOPE you find one, otherwise you're dead
My first ever country move was with my family, so we'll skip that one... my second country move was a short hop across the Tasman sea from New Zealand to Australia. I took the risky method (New Zealander's don't need work visas in Australia). I arrived in Sydney Airport with $120 in my pocket, a backpack full of clothes and a wide eyed expression. I was only just 17 years old. I moved in to a backpackers hostel, and paid half my money for a bed for a week (this was not a particularly nice hostel!). They had a job board for "crappy jobs" so I got one for 3 days, which paid for a few more days living. Eventually, I got a permanent job, and then a better one and so on and so on.
My most recent move was the "safe" kind. I'm actually still working for the same company as before I moved, but it wasn't a "transfer" within the company (this company doesn't do that) - I actually quit my old job and was re-employed here in Germany.
As for the language - no, I didn't really speak it before I moved here. A few phrases, and I already spoke a related language (Dutch) from another move in my past, but languages and linguistics is actually my hobby, so it hasn't been a problem at all to pick it up. For your first move, I might suggest that an English speaking country is a good idea though - then, if you get the "country hopping bug" like me, you can be more adventurous next time!
Good luck, and I really hope you do seriously consider it. It's a lifestyle I wouldn't give up for the world. (no pun intended)
Quite clearly, you have never been addicted to anything in your life.
Let's replace your words with "food" and "eating":
Nobody is forcing you to go to the store, open your wallet, take out money, and ask the person behind the counter for food. Nobody is forcing you to place food to your mouth, chew it and swallow. The idea that you "simply continue to do it because you can't not do it" is hilarious to me. If you still eat, you honestly can't be as fearful as you claim to be, otherwise you wouldn't go through the steps of procuring the food in the first place.I think it's admirable that you're seeking help quitting, and I wish you the best of luck, but the notion that you have no control over your actions is ridiculous. You choose to do the things you do out of desperation.
Throw away all of your food, take a week vacation, and just stay home. Start working on that project you've been meaning to do. Read books. Play games. Learn languages. Have a family member hold on to all of your money and credit/debit cards if you have to. If it's impossible for you to eat, you'll have no choice but not to do so. If you're truly fearful for your life, you'll do whatever it takes. But don't pretend that you're somehow a victim of anything but your own actions.
Now, I'm sure you see how silly that sounds. Believe me that the addiction to nicotine is MUCH stronger than the natural desire to eat. So, saying I'm a victim of my own actions and implying I really do have the "choice" is like saying you have the "choice" to eat or not.
It's true that not eating will kill you, whereas eating (usually) will not. And it's also true that smoking will (most likely) kill me, and quitting smoking will (hopefully) help me lead a longer and better life. But all of that means nothing to the craving in my brain that destroys my ability to think rationally. I can RATIONALLY decide that I should not smoke, but once I am no longer RATIONAL, that goes straight out the window.
THAT is why I need, and will get, medical assistance.
And THAT is why I do not think I honestly have free will in the matter. Were I to attempt the "stay at home for a week" thing (simply going cold-turkey), it's quite possible I'd gouge my own eyeballs out with my fingers just to try and change the focus away from the cravings.
Not kidding - it IS that bad.
Inherently? None, but I also don't think there is any "inherent" right to life either. I consider them equally as "granted by society".
I completely understand your point about the "action" vs "inaction", but that can't be the only requirement. There are many possible things that do not require anyone to do anything but wouldn't be grouped as "inherent rights" (e.g. I hereby claim I have the right to walk naked through town - that requires no action on behalf of others, but I can guarantee you that the law (in most countries) wouldn't take kindly to it!)
So, other than the action/inaction point, what ELSE makes "life" more of an inherent right than a societal right?