I've seen several examples of what you describe in your second paragraph. Guys I hoped would learn some responsibility while in the military (because they hadn't gotten it anywhere else) but instead experienced what you said. "Big Brother" may be harsh but he takes care of their basic physical needs. It's been a different, and in some ways even harsher, world for them once they got out.
While I agree that "most people" may have that basic need, certainly not all do. Just as I do not feel the need to procreate, I don't really care about having a permanent home myself. I would like to have a long term relationship (more about having "someone on my team" than anything else. I think I'd probably be a good partner for someone who was busy and/or traveled a lot, as I could work from anywhere I have a computer and 'net connection.)
Anyway... the homeless way of life would suit some people. Certainly a minority, and almost definitely just in the short-term. I don't know if I'd want to do it or not, but if it were my best option at a particular point in time, I don't think any psychological barriers would get in the way.
In this case, I think it'd be a great idea to forget that any of that happened. The world is a different place than it was a century or two ago: we are international; people from all parts of the world travel to and live in all other parts, and folks from all races have contributed to what we have today. So yes, I think we could consider racism to be an antiquated concept, and one that would be very difficult to repeat if we really shifted our thinking to not let race influence how we see a person, or be the root of any prejudices. Let's treat it the same way we do other outdated ideas (like the telegraph machine, as an admittedly poor comparison, but the only thing I can think of at the moment, I'm at work)-- record it in the annals of history for the token remembrance, but don't let it actually play any part in our current day-to-day. That just holds us back from progressing.
No, sadly, I do not think this will actually ever happen.
Lilly's case is concerning gender discrimination, not racial. And that discrimination is no better, I may add. The fact that such a gap in pay existed is another case of exactly what I'm saying is a bad idea, ie, taking something like that (race, gender, etc) into consideration and treating someone differently based on it. Lilly is not the one at fault here, the company is. Why exactly are you making an insulting post towards me about it?
Your entire post, and the fact you posted as an AC, makes you seem more like the "ignoramus" here.
But this goes both ways too -- people should neither hate NOR grovel about the past. Just drop it. Don't deny someone their rights, but don't overdo it swinging the other direction too far either. Racism in both 'negative' (hate, denying people a job, etc) and 'positive' (slave reparations, affirmative action, etc) ways are still bad in that they take race into account at all. As long as people MAKE race an issue, it will be one. Saying someone is different because they are white or black or red or yellow is the same as saying my car is different from yours, or performs better, or is more reliable, because it's a different colour. It makes no sense.
But this line of thinking is where the viral "victim mentality" takes its root. "Oh, I was raised by a single mom and I grew up poor, there's no chance for me to be successful--I may as well just give up and stay here in my hole."
The first part of that sentence is true for me, by the way. The second part is not, because I am very smart and hardworking, and I plan to use that to become successful. Mind-bogglingly rich? I highly doubt it. But certainly comfortable.
That goes both ways unless Daddy is SO incredibly rich that the kid can be irresponsible and waste a lot of money, but still have plenty left to live on if he ever pulls his head out of his ass. That may be a valid exception, but it's not the rule. For the vast majority, your life is what you choose to make of it, and nobody else (read: the rest of society) should have to take on the responsibility of supporting you.
Good point. But we aren't maturing as a society right now... if anything, we are going the opposite direction. This would be ideal, though, because you're right--99% of the folks pointing accusing fingers at someone for a trivial offense knows good and well they have a similar story in their own past, or *something* they aren't proud of. Even without a huge incident that stands out, I wouldn't want to be judged now based on the person I was when I was 16 or 18.
We laugh at the idea of the legal name being changed, but really, the idea behind that is good. People do make stupid decisions when they are young, and when they mature, folks often claim to be "totally different people". Obviously, this would not apply to serious offenses like burglary, sex crimes, assault with a weapon, etc etc. But if it's nothing severe (as with most people--an embarrassing drunk photo or two, a fight you got into ONCE where nobody was seriously injured, etc) then it should be allowed to fade into obscurity, the way such incidents would have back before the internet.
That last sentence was my first thought--how long would a rental period be? I also am uncomfortable with renting software in the first place--just too many ways it could go wrong.
Also, I'm just waiting for the DRM to be cracked (you know, about a day after it's released) and then the bitch-and-moan fest begins. They're just setting themselves up for it at this point.
YES. I have so often wished for an option to directly send a voicemail, without actually calling... or sitting there hoping they don't answer so I can leave a message. It's just more convenient sometimes, for both parties involved.
Not to mention, if we evolved from chimps or whatever, why would we have lost this very useful skill? Heck, I get lost any time I try to go somewhere new. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, this is kind of what I was going to post, but you said it better than I was planning to anyway. My knee-jerk reaction was something more like, "And in other shocking news, the sky is blue."
This happens entirely too frequently on a road where "getting out of the way" isn't an option, or requires something extreme like pulling over on the grass or turning down a side road you had no intention of going on. If the front person is going the speed limit or a bit over, as we usually do, there is no reason they should have to cave to some idiot's spoiled-child behaviour and go to such lengths to satisfy them. As the parent stated in their concluding paragraph, that would only reward their actions and teach them that it is acceptable and provides the desired result.
I think you're assuming that all women have material wealth and the choice is simply between spending that on a kid or herself.
Kids are expensive to raise. I work with people who make pretty much the same money I do (similar ages, tenures, etc, yes I'm assuming a bit but it's not too much of a stretch) and am amazed at how many have to go on welfare when they have a child. If you cannot afford to raise one, it's selfish to expect society to foot the bill so you can have your cute baby at home and fulfill whatever base biological desires you might have.
That was more my point. I feel fortunate that I do not wish to have children, because I wouldn't be able to afford one now. I would make the responsible decision either way, but I count my lucky stars that the choice is not as much of a sacrifice for me.
I wasn't referring to a single parents of either gender though--my statement was largely assuming both parents were in the picture. It's not a "maternal superiority complex", and I'm the last person in the world who'd have one of those in the first place. What I was referring to was mostly the tendency of the female brain to be able to juggle many tasks at once, and her physiological ability tolerate pain and stresses differently. Men are generally better suited to focusing more intently on a lesser number of things at once, making their "traditional" role of going out and hunting and planting (or managing and programming, for that matter) more ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, somebody didn't get enough hugs as a child...
I've seen several examples of what you describe in your second paragraph. Guys I hoped would learn some responsibility while in the military (because they hadn't gotten it anywhere else) but instead experienced what you said. "Big Brother" may be harsh but he takes care of their basic physical needs. It's been a different, and in some ways even harsher, world for them once they got out.
While I agree that "most people" may have that basic need, certainly not all do. Just as I do not feel the need to procreate, I don't really care about having a permanent home myself. I would like to have a long term relationship (more about having "someone on my team" than anything else. I think I'd probably be a good partner for someone who was busy and/or traveled a lot, as I could work from anywhere I have a computer and 'net connection.)
Anyway... the homeless way of life would suit some people. Certainly a minority, and almost definitely just in the short-term. I don't know if I'd want to do it or not, but if it were my best option at a particular point in time, I don't think any psychological barriers would get in the way.
Just my two cents, though.
Now THAT is a cool idea :D
Just what generation are you presuming I am from, exactly?
In this case, I think it'd be a great idea to forget that any of that happened. The world is a different place than it was a century or two ago: we are international; people from all parts of the world travel to and live in all other parts, and folks from all races have contributed to what we have today. So yes, I think we could consider racism to be an antiquated concept, and one that would be very difficult to repeat if we really shifted our thinking to not let race influence how we see a person, or be the root of any prejudices. Let's treat it the same way we do other outdated ideas (like the telegraph machine, as an admittedly poor comparison, but the only thing I can think of at the moment, I'm at work)-- record it in the annals of history for the token remembrance, but don't let it actually play any part in our current day-to-day. That just holds us back from progressing.
No, sadly, I do not think this will actually ever happen.
Lilly's case is concerning gender discrimination, not racial. And that discrimination is no better, I may add. The fact that such a gap in pay existed is another case of exactly what I'm saying is a bad idea, ie, taking something like that (race, gender, etc) into consideration and treating someone differently based on it. Lilly is not the one at fault here, the company is. Why exactly are you making an insulting post towards me about it?
Your entire post, and the fact you posted as an AC, makes you seem more like the "ignoramus" here.
But this goes both ways too -- people should neither hate NOR grovel about the past. Just drop it. Don't deny someone their rights, but don't overdo it swinging the other direction too far either. Racism in both 'negative' (hate, denying people a job, etc) and 'positive' (slave reparations, affirmative action, etc) ways are still bad in that they take race into account at all. As long as people MAKE race an issue, it will be one. Saying someone is different because they are white or black or red or yellow is the same as saying my car is different from yours, or performs better, or is more reliable, because it's a different colour. It makes no sense.
But this line of thinking is where the viral "victim mentality" takes its root. "Oh, I was raised by a single mom and I grew up poor, there's no chance for me to be successful--I may as well just give up and stay here in my hole."
The first part of that sentence is true for me, by the way. The second part is not, because I am very smart and hardworking, and I plan to use that to become successful. Mind-bogglingly rich? I highly doubt it. But certainly comfortable.
That goes both ways unless Daddy is SO incredibly rich that the kid can be irresponsible and waste a lot of money, but still have plenty left to live on if he ever pulls his head out of his ass. That may be a valid exception, but it's not the rule. For the vast majority, your life is what you choose to make of it, and nobody else (read: the rest of society) should have to take on the responsibility of supporting you.
Good point. But we aren't maturing as a society right now... if anything, we are going the opposite direction. This would be ideal, though, because you're right--99% of the folks pointing accusing fingers at someone for a trivial offense knows good and well they have a similar story in their own past, or *something* they aren't proud of. Even without a huge incident that stands out, I wouldn't want to be judged now based on the person I was when I was 16 or 18.
We laugh at the idea of the legal name being changed, but really, the idea behind that is good. People do make stupid decisions when they are young, and when they mature, folks often claim to be "totally different people". Obviously, this would not apply to serious offenses like burglary, sex crimes, assault with a weapon, etc etc. But if it's nothing severe (as with most people--an embarrassing drunk photo or two, a fight you got into ONCE where nobody was seriously injured, etc) then it should be allowed to fade into obscurity, the way such incidents would have back before the internet.
That last sentence was my first thought--how long would a rental period be? I also am uncomfortable with renting software in the first place--just too many ways it could go wrong.
Also, I'm just waiting for the DRM to be cracked (you know, about a day after it's released) and then the bitch-and-moan fest begins. They're just setting themselves up for it at this point.
YES. I have so often wished for an option to directly send a voicemail, without actually calling... or sitting there hoping they don't answer so I can leave a message. It's just more convenient sometimes, for both parties involved.
Possibly, but no examples have been spotted by reliable witnesses.
Not to mention, if we evolved from chimps or whatever, why would we have lost this very useful skill? Heck, I get lost any time I try to go somewhere new. It's ridiculous.
;)
Well, until I bought a GPS.
Ah, you beat me to it. ;)
I've jokingly used the word "penii" for years, I think it makes perfect sense.
Mod parent up... I have been confused about this myself for quite some time.
Is this true? In school I was told it *only* detected a #2 pencil. (Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me either.)
We've been lied to all these years!
[/sarcasm]
Yeah, this is kind of what I was going to post, but you said it better than I was planning to anyway. My knee-jerk reaction was something more like, "And in other shocking news, the sky is blue."
This happens entirely too frequently on a road where "getting out of the way" isn't an option, or requires something extreme like pulling over on the grass or turning down a side road you had no intention of going on. If the front person is going the speed limit or a bit over, as we usually do, there is no reason they should have to cave to some idiot's spoiled-child behaviour and go to such lengths to satisfy them. As the parent stated in their concluding paragraph, that would only reward their actions and teach them that it is acceptable and provides the desired result.
"Traitor!"
Then it takes ages to respawn. Been there, done that. (Not on purpose, though. I'm not one of those douchebags who does it intentionally for kicks.)
Obviously everybody is different, and there are always exceptions. Throw me a bone here.
:)
Please see this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1161185&cid=27201693
for my reasoning. And do a Google search if you'd like more information about it, sources, etc.
I think you're assuming that all women have material wealth and the choice is simply between spending that on a kid or herself.
Kids are expensive to raise. I work with people who make pretty much the same money I do (similar ages, tenures, etc, yes I'm assuming a bit but it's not too much of a stretch) and am amazed at how many have to go on welfare when they have a child. If you cannot afford to raise one, it's selfish to expect society to foot the bill so you can have your cute baby at home and fulfill whatever base biological desires you might have.
That was more my point. I feel fortunate that I do not wish to have children, because I wouldn't be able to afford one now. I would make the responsible decision either way, but I count my lucky stars that the choice is not as much of a sacrifice for me.
I wasn't referring to a single parents of either gender though--my statement was largely assuming both parents were in the picture. It's not a "maternal superiority complex", and I'm the last person in the world who'd have one of those in the first place. What I was referring to was mostly the tendency of the female brain to be able to juggle many tasks at once, and her physiological ability tolerate pain and stresses differently. Men are generally better suited to focusing more intently on a lesser number of things at once, making their "traditional" role of going out and hunting and planting (or managing and programming, for that matter) more ideal.