Ahh - sorry. I was talking about individual hypocrisy. I think it's different for a government, who should (in theory) be more morally robust (if that makes sense). I completely agree with your post.:-)
I'd tell them I think they're wrong: I think China deserves criticism for some of the things they do. I think the US deserves criticism for some of the things they do. etc. To so blindly follow one's country that you consider them above criticism is stupid in my opinion - remember, a government is just made of people.
I think it's impossible to take a moral stance on _anything_ without being hypocritical. If I fail to achieve my own moral standards, that's ok: I'm only human.
"Better a hypocrite than a slave to tyrants." Amen. You can only really be a hypocrite if you have freedom.
Not to argue with you, but I think you'd find that those who most loudly criticise China about Tibet (ie. those disrupting the torch relay) are the same people who vocally criticised the war in Iraq (protested, etc). Seems not so inconsistent to me.
But yeah, you'd make a pretty good case that most Western nations have blood on their hands too...
--------------- "Prevent Osteoporosis - Drink new supa-koffee -- with the authentic ground-up bones of African children!"
Meh. I doubt there's a person on the planet who agrees with every passage in the bible. According to your logic, there are _no_ Christians. Let's face it, what is regarded as 'mainstream' Christianity has changed much over the years, and will probably continue to do so. The Anglican church is now allowing women in positions of authority, and are debating the formal acknowledgement of homosexuality as part of the diversity of humanity. Like any large organisation, there's a lot of controversy and inertia...
(I'm athiest myself, but hell - I support progressive Christians. Go team!)
You gotta be careful tho - cause even though the objects may be weightless, they still have the same inertia (ie. you can be crushed by a weightless object, if it's moving).
"Until Linux will run all the apps I want (or even just most, that's certainly not asking too much) transparently, with no hassle,"
Hell, Windows doesn't meet those criteria! In my experience, using Linux is MUCH less hassle than using Windows. It's true, not every Windows app runs under Linux, but there's this thing called a 'trade-off' - I believe that the relative ease of installation, use and maintenance of Linux much more than compensates for a couple of missing apps*.
*things like certain pro-audio apps, high-end graphics packages - y'know, those apps that everyone likes to have a hot copy, but 99.99% of people don't even know how to open (let alone use). People used to collect stamps - now they collect warez...
"remember that 1GB of the 4GB address space is already reserved for system code sharing"
It's worth emphasising that this is a limitation of Windows only, and does not apply to other operating systems. (at least, that's my understanding...)
You are mistaken. Informed voting is a _responsibility_ for those who live in democracies. You can argue that it is a right _as_well_, but I'd argue that it's a right that if you do not exercise properly will be taken away from you.
(I guess you can argue that voting is a privilege too - since our ancestors fought and died for our right/responsibility to vote)
"One of the things that always pissed me off about academia is the sense of entitlement the professors have. "
I think you've got it wrong. It's not a professor's job to educate you, it's (a small part of) their job to lecture you. You are not the professor's customer. If that was true, the professor would likely be earning 3x their salary (hence you'd be paying a lot more), because they'd be employed on the open market.
Just because there are lots of people/posers who don't understand modern art, and there is lots of 'bad' modern art, does not mean modern art is rubbish. I've been moved to tears by modern art that was nothing more than a scribble of paint on a page, and I'm pretty sure I understood exactly what the painter was thinking.
The fact is, most art (drawings, paintings, music, poetry) is shite - the problem with modern art is that there is a lot of it, and we haven't yet had time to weed out the dross. Even with this handicap, there's a lot of good stuff out there. Don't be so damn close-minded and arrogant.
I hated the first two (of five) years of my double engineering/science degree, and seriously considered changing courses after both. But I loved third year, and forth year, and fifth year. I decided to do a PhD following my undergrad studies (which was a load of fun as well, though being hard work), and I have recently finished that. I now have the most awesome job. I love going to work, and I get paid well. I've moved country to work (though I didn't have to), and every day is a pleasure - new puzzles to solve, great people to work with, cool toys to play with... working life as an engineer is fantastic.
Engineering gets bad press, but it totally rocks. There are few jobs with the variety, challenges and rewards of engineering. Yeah, there's a lot to learn, and you never really stop learning - but really, what intelligent person doesn't want to always be learning new things?
Yeah. Unfortunately, most people base their actions on selfishness, and try to justify them later by moralising...
While it makes sense to revise some of the ideas of copyright for internet distribution - I don't think it makes sense to advocate the wholesale destruction of 'Intellectual property' as a concept. I don't believe that cheapskates and freeloaders should define public policy.
While I have shared original music on Jamendo (for example), I also know that my day-job is dependent on the fact that I am creating value for my company by creating new ideas and writing software. These are not tangible, and in the absence of IP protection would be nearly valueless (in a monetary sense, to the company - I realise they would likely have some value to society as a whole. But then, isn't that the point of copyright - to reward those that contribute to society, and hence hopefully encourage more to contribute. If there were no IP laws, my company would likely not exist)
I've wondered about this before. Ever seen a dog lying down; only to get up, turn around in a circle, and lie down again... what makes it do this? Similarly, how much of what we say is simply a regurgitation of things we've heard said before? I don't think we're as original, sentient or smart as we think we are...
"However evil and corrupt corporations are, they don't have the right to bust down my door at 2am and kill me or (if I'm lucky) drag me away to spend the rest of my life in a small cement room."
If we were living in an anarcho-capitalistic society, and a corporation did that to you, to what higher power would you appeal to get it overturned?
(This isn't directed at the parent particularly, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this question)
"If you place no restriction on marketing and selling self-destruction to people, corporations are going to devise ways to most efficiently get people hooked on their product."
Furthermore, such behaviour is already occurring. If you think about cigarette and alcohol advertising you realise that corporations are doing exactly that.
Slashdot Mirror
"The hypocrisy on China's part..."
:-)
Ahh - sorry. I was talking about individual hypocrisy. I think it's different for a government, who should (in theory) be more morally robust (if that makes sense). I completely agree with your post.
"What would you tell them?"
I'd tell them I think they're wrong: I think China deserves criticism for some of the things they do. I think the US deserves criticism for some of the things they do. etc.
To so blindly follow one's country that you consider them above criticism is stupid in my opinion - remember, a government is just made of people.
"There's no individual right to keep and bear arms in China like there is in the west."
;-)
With all due respect, there's more to the "West" than the USA.
(I agree with the rest of your post, tho
I think it's impossible to take a moral stance on _anything_ without being hypocritical. If I fail to achieve my own moral standards, that's ok: I'm only human.
"Better a hypocrite than a slave to tyrants."
Amen. You can only really be a hypocrite if you have freedom.
Not to argue with you, but I think you'd find that those who most loudly criticise China about Tibet (ie. those disrupting the torch relay) are the same people who vocally criticised the war in Iraq (protested, etc). Seems not so inconsistent to me.
But yeah, you'd make a pretty good case that most Western nations have blood on their hands too...
---------------
"Prevent Osteoporosis - Drink new supa-koffee -- with the authentic ground-up bones of African children!"
"you are not a Christian"
Meh. I doubt there's a person on the planet who agrees with every passage in the bible. According to your logic, there are _no_ Christians. Let's face it, what is regarded as 'mainstream' Christianity has changed much over the years, and will probably continue to do so. The Anglican church is now allowing women in positions of authority, and are debating the formal acknowledgement of homosexuality as part of the diversity of humanity. Like any large organisation, there's a lot of controversy and inertia...
(I'm athiest myself, but hell - I support progressive Christians. Go team!)
You gotta be careful tho - cause even though the objects may be weightless, they still have the same inertia (ie. you can be crushed by a weightless object, if it's moving).
"Until Linux will run all the apps I want (or even just most, that's certainly not asking too much) transparently, with no hassle,"
Hell, Windows doesn't meet those criteria! In my experience, using Linux is MUCH less hassle than using Windows. It's true, not every Windows app runs under Linux, but there's this thing called a 'trade-off' - I believe that the relative ease of installation, use and maintenance of Linux much more than compensates for a couple of missing apps*.
*things like certain pro-audio apps, high-end graphics packages - y'know, those apps that everyone likes to have a hot copy, but 99.99% of people don't even know how to open (let alone use). People used to collect stamps - now they collect warez...
Can you please tell me what colour socks you wear when you do all this? I've never found the colour that makes it behave...
Or maybe I'm paying off the wrong witchdoctor.
"remember that 1GB of the 4GB address space is already reserved for system code sharing"
It's worth emphasising that this is a limitation of Windows only, and does not apply to other operating systems.
(at least, that's my understanding...)
>>Voting is a privilege, not a right
You are mistaken. Informed voting is a _responsibility_ for those who live in democracies. You can argue that it is a right _as_well_, but I'd argue that it's a right that if you do not exercise properly will be taken away from you.
(I guess you can argue that voting is a privilege too - since our ancestors fought and died for our right/responsibility to vote)
did you make up your username just for that comment?
"One of the things that always pissed me off about academia is the sense of entitlement the professors have. "
I think you've got it wrong. It's not a professor's job to educate you, it's (a small part of) their job to lecture you. You are not the professor's customer. If that was true, the professor would likely be earning 3x their salary (hence you'd be paying a lot more), because they'd be employed on the open market.
Just because there are lots of people/posers who don't understand modern art, and there is lots of 'bad' modern art, does not mean modern art is rubbish. I've been moved to tears by modern art that was nothing more than a scribble of paint on a page, and I'm pretty sure I understood exactly what the painter was thinking.
The fact is, most art (drawings, paintings, music, poetry) is shite - the problem with modern art is that there is a lot of it, and we haven't yet had time to weed out the dross. Even with this handicap, there's a lot of good stuff out there. Don't be so damn close-minded and arrogant.
"it prepares you for the boredom ahead of you."
That is so WRONG.
I hated the first two (of five) years of my double engineering/science degree, and seriously considered changing courses after both. But I loved third year, and forth year, and fifth year. I decided to do a PhD following my undergrad studies (which was a load of fun as well, though being hard work), and I have recently finished that. I now have the most awesome job. I love going to work, and I get paid well. I've moved country to work (though I didn't have to), and every day is a pleasure - new puzzles to solve, great people to work with, cool toys to play with... working life as an engineer is fantastic.
Engineering gets bad press, but it totally rocks. There are few jobs with the variety, challenges and rewards of engineering. Yeah, there's a lot to learn, and you never really stop learning - but really, what intelligent person doesn't want to always be learning new things?
Yeah. Unfortunately, most people base their actions on selfishness, and try to justify them later by moralising...
While it makes sense to revise some of the ideas of copyright for internet distribution - I don't think it makes sense to advocate the wholesale destruction of 'Intellectual property' as a concept. I don't believe that cheapskates and freeloaders should define public policy.
While I have shared original music on Jamendo (for example), I also know that my day-job is dependent on the fact that I am creating value for my company by creating new ideas and writing software. These are not tangible, and in the absence of IP protection would be nearly valueless (in a monetary sense, to the company - I realise they would likely have some value to society as a whole. But then, isn't that the point of copyright - to reward those that contribute to society, and hence hopefully encourage more to contribute. If there were no IP laws, my company would likely not exist)
Well, given that pretty much every Ars Technica article is referenced by /. I really don't see the difference...
/. sometimes even references it's own articles... unintentionally!)
(hell,
2011: The development of our Baysian modelling network allows _robust_ detection of terrorists - before they even become terrorists.
Go freedom!
I've wondered about this before. Ever seen a dog lying down; only to get up, turn around in a circle, and lie down again... what makes it do this?
Similarly, how much of what we say is simply a regurgitation of things we've heard said before? I don't think we're as original, sentient or smart as we think we are...
"if this was MS trying to lock people in, it would be Windows and IE only"
No. It would start out being cross-platform and ubiquitous. When it gained market-dominance, it would become Windows and IE only.
What's the saying?: "if there's one thing we can learn from history, it's that we don't learn from history"
"the new ad-laden comments section"
ad-laden?
(no I don't use safari - I use firefox with ad-block!)
"many people prefer echo chambers to debating tables."
lovely quote. I doff my hat to you.
"the prosecutor will be looking for those who can think and come to a reasonable decision based on the available evidence."
Actually, I thought the term was "beyond reasonable doubt"...
"However evil and corrupt corporations are, they don't have the right to bust down my door at 2am and kill me or (if I'm lucky) drag me away to spend the rest of my life in a small cement room."
If we were living in an anarcho-capitalistic society, and a corporation did that to you, to what higher power would you appeal to get it overturned?
(This isn't directed at the parent particularly, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this question)
"If you place no restriction on marketing and selling self-destruction to people, corporations are going to devise ways to most efficiently get people hooked on their product."
Furthermore, such behaviour is already occurring. If you think about cigarette and alcohol advertising you realise that corporations are doing exactly that.