"we could arrest and imprison someone for their own safety if they decide not to wear a seatbelt"
I'm all for freedom and personal responsibility, but I think requiring the wearing of seat-belts is a good idea. Dunno about your straw-man of imprisoning non-seatbelt-wearers tho...
1) a nerd 2) a drunk 3) virginal 4) ignorant 5) bald 6) overweight 7) lonely 8) lazy 9) middle-aged 10) a stained-shirt wearer 11) have an inferiority complex 12) TV obsessed 13) a nerd (did I say that already?) 14) somewhat OCD
but hey! it's just a list;-)
(ps. I'm just taking the piss - please take this in the spirit in which it is intended.)
While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy.
"your words are literally true when spoken un-ironically":-) I meant them without irony..
Look, I think our positions are actually not so different on this. Maybe I'm a bit more likely to open my mouth and have a whinge about what are really fairly minor transgressions on our freedom. I want to keep them that way - any encroachment on our freedom needs to be nipped in the bud.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who, despite what they say, don't actually support freedom of speech for those with whom they disagree (to one degree or another). These people are dangerous.
You presume wrong. I wasn't referring to a particular country. To me it seemed like that part of the comment could refer to almost any Western country (sure, some bits more than others) and this struck me as rather sad.
"The term you're looking for is "irony", as in when you freely criticize the country that you claim does not allow free criticism." Take it easy there. I don't think there are any countries on Earth that are so perfect that they are above criticism. Is that what you're trying to say?
Look, living in the West is great. Freedom and democracy are wonderful. However, if we're not vigilant with them, we'll lose them. If someone criticizes a country, they're not necessarily saying 'everything about that country is crap,' but maybe they're pointing out that things could be better.
As for the mods who modded me 'troll' - that's about as close to censorship as we get in the West. Well done - keep up the good fight for freedom!
"Yes, when choosing a free service it is important to get your money's worth."
You are very clever - well done.
Skype and Gizmo both have paid services. As does google. As do academic journals. Users of facebook, while not paying cash directly, are paying with their privacy.
"Free the political prisoners. Free the press. Allow criticism of the state. Allow the existance of other political parties. Hold free elections. Until these acts happen,"
funnily enough, I read this much of your post without knowing which country you were talking about...
Hmm. It sounds like you're trying to be a smart-ass. I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say, but I'll attempt to clarify myself:
I've got no problem with companies making money out of user-generated data/effort/networking/etc. Jamendo, Google, MySpace are good examples. But.. I think it's really important that standards and sites are open. eBay/facebook/skype lock-in are (I think) bad for consumers, and those companies are leveraging their position/lockin to remain on top and stifle competition.
For example, compare skype to gizmo. Gizmo uses SIP (hence is open and operates with any other SIP phone. Skype operates with... Skype. I think consumers should consider inter-operability more when making their spending decisions.
Nice post. However, I disagree with this: "there's no reason why commercial and personal uses are in opposition to each other"
if a user values privacy, and it's profitable to sell/market users' data (as is generally the case now), then there's a fundamental opposition here. At minimum, it is not in most companys' interest to invest large sums of money protecting users' data...
Also, I think there's a vast difference between targeted ads, and taking user generated content, packaging it, locking it down, and selling it back to everyone. It seems to me that the main point of value in sites like eBay, MySpace and facebook is simply that everyone uses them! It's not like the services they provide are that great. The same is true with academic journals. Academics write (and nowdays often render) the articles, other academics review the articles. What exactly are the journals even doing? Printing the damn thing - that's all. And institutions pay thousands of dollars per year to read the articles. What a racket!
To say it again - it's _only_ the users that give these companies value. They're on a total gravy-train, and they know it.
I'd love to see the top 10 music downloads from TPB in the last month - I'd be willing to bet they're all forgettable and no one will give a shit about them in 10 or 20 years......aren't we culturally superior?
I guess if an artist has only 5 years to make a profit, than any copyright infringement in that period is a much more serious offense. Capital punishment perhaps?
Interestingly, I recently listened to a podcast where an (I think) civil engineer advocated the installation of such generators for (among other things) extra protection from storms! Essentially, his point was that putting up concrete barriers didn't work, because they didn't 'give' whereas turbines, etc, allowed the energy to pass, but dissipated it somewhat.
"Your point that we never really know if all concluded Causation is just an illusion is a bit trite and easily overruled by Occam's Razor."
I basically agree with your comment, thanks;-)
However, I guess what I was trying to say was more along the lines that there is a truth that we can never know - we only get closer and closer asymptotically. It's very easy to forget this fact, and delude ourselves that what we know now is the be-all-and-end-all.
But yes, the "are we a brain in a box" question has been pretty well chewed over;-)
Well, climate change is an important contemporary issue in science, no matter what your opinion. I think injecting a bit more science into the whole thing would only be a good idea. Then again, judging from some of the comments regarding climate change, it seems to me that science education in general needs to be addressed.
The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is that (otherwise intelligent) people seem to have been suckered by marketing. For example, companies that advertise about C02 being a harmless gas are simultaneously investing in arctic oil exploration (on the assumption that the arctic ice is melting). Maybe the biggest thing that needs to be taught in science is objective reasoning - something that seems fairly thin on the ground..
Here's something I often read on/. written though it were gospel: "correlation != causation" - true, but I'd challenge anyone to name a single scientific "law" we _know_ to be caused, and don't "merely" observe correlation.
The other thing that amazes me are the number of people who believe really weird things about climate change research. For example, I've read comments alleging that climate scientists "tweak" their models to fit known weather patterns, but never verify those models on other data. This is such a patently ridiculous allegation that in any other field it would be laughed off the stage, but for some reason there is a group of people who are desperate to dis-believe in climate change no matter what the evidence.
Then why can't I just make a site that mirrors Joe Bloggs' personalised aggregator and slap advertising on it? Oh sorry - it's ok for him to use other peoples' work, but not ok for me to use his? (I realise that was not your implication, but my question is really "where does it end"?)
Slashdot Mirror
"we could arrest and imprison someone for their own safety if they decide not to wear a seatbelt"
I'm all for freedom and personal responsibility, but I think requiring the wearing of seat-belts is a good idea. Dunno about your straw-man of imprisoning non-seatbelt-wearers tho...
Based upon your list, I'd conclude that you're
;-)
1) a nerd
2) a drunk
3) virginal
4) ignorant
5) bald
6) overweight
7) lonely
8) lazy
9) middle-aged
10) a stained-shirt wearer
11) have an inferiority complex
12) TV obsessed
13) a nerd (did I say that already?)
14) somewhat OCD
but hey! it's just a list
(ps. I'm just taking the piss - please take this in the spirit in which it is intended.)
What about emails he writes? What if an email got circulated? or a friend posted an email discussion on their blog?
While I don't agree with the GP that the GIMP is a Photoshop replacement, I think you're being pretty harsh. It's a damn powerful piece of software, and the fact that it doesn't do _everything_ does NOT make it a toy.
Didn't you know everything sounds more sophisticated in French?
;-)
Je suis un cheval.
I rest my case
I reckon if you're going to try and do that kind of thing anywhere, you should put regenerative braking on your car
Simple - just make the weights fall faster :-)
:-P
4 hours / 1000 = 15 seconds...
"Anything else makes me want to obliterate humanity." god that made me laugh ;-)
Another comment says that the wikipedia article refers to NASA for their claim that the solar system is 1000 LY across. I meant that page.
:-)
"....as far as I know." - nice
...and which article will be sooner updated to reflect our new understanding - Wikipedia, or Britannica?
Hell, Wikipedia will probably be updated sooner than NASA!
"your words are literally true when spoken un-ironically" :-) I meant them without irony..
;-)
Look, I think our positions are actually not so different on this. Maybe I'm a bit more likely to open my mouth and have a whinge about what are really fairly minor transgressions on our freedom. I want to keep them that way - any encroachment on our freedom needs to be nipped in the bud.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who, despite what they say, don't actually support freedom of speech for those with whom they disagree (to one degree or another). These people are dangerous.
Anyway, vive la libre! (or however it's said
"Presuming you're referring to America"
You presume wrong. I wasn't referring to a particular country. To me it seemed like that part of the comment could refer to almost any Western country (sure, some bits more than others) and this struck me as rather sad.
"The term you're looking for is "irony", as in when you freely criticize the country that you claim does not allow free criticism."
Take it easy there. I don't think there are any countries on Earth that are so perfect that they are above criticism. Is that what you're trying to say?
Look, living in the West is great. Freedom and democracy are wonderful. However, if we're not vigilant with them, we'll lose them. If someone criticizes a country, they're not necessarily saying 'everything about that country is crap,' but maybe they're pointing out that things could be better.
As for the mods who modded me 'troll' - that's about as close to censorship as we get in the West. Well done - keep up the good fight for freedom!
"Yes, when choosing a free service it is important to get your money's worth."
You are very clever - well done.
Skype and Gizmo both have paid services. As does google. As do academic journals.
Users of facebook, while not paying cash directly, are paying with their privacy.
"Free the political prisoners. Free the press. Allow criticism of the state. Allow the existance of other political parties. Hold free elections. Until these acts happen,"
funnily enough, I read this much of your post without knowing which country you were talking about...
good point - thanks. :-)
Hmm. It sounds like you're trying to be a smart-ass. I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say, but I'll attempt to clarify myself:
I've got no problem with companies making money out of user-generated data/effort/networking/etc. Jamendo, Google, MySpace are good examples. But.. I think it's really important that standards and sites are open. eBay/facebook/skype lock-in are (I think) bad for consumers, and those companies are leveraging their position/lockin to remain on top and stifle competition.
For example, compare skype to gizmo. Gizmo uses SIP (hence is open and operates with any other SIP phone. Skype operates with... Skype. I think consumers should consider inter-operability more when making their spending decisions.
Nice post. However, I disagree with this:
"there's no reason why commercial and personal uses are in opposition to each other"
if a user values privacy, and it's profitable to sell/market users' data (as is generally the case now), then there's a fundamental opposition here.
At minimum, it is not in most companys' interest to invest large sums of money protecting users' data...
Also, I think there's a vast difference between targeted ads, and taking user generated content, packaging it, locking it down, and selling it back to everyone. It seems to me that the main point of value in sites like eBay, MySpace and facebook is simply that everyone uses them! It's not like the services they provide are that great. The same is true with academic journals. Academics write (and nowdays often render) the articles, other academics review the articles. What exactly are the journals even doing? Printing the damn thing - that's all. And institutions pay thousands of dollars per year to read the articles. What a racket!
To say it again - it's _only_ the users that give these companies value. They're on a total gravy-train, and they know it.
Uhh... It's our spectrum - all we need to do is not sell it...
(privitisation is not always automatically a good thing)
Gosh mate - if you're gonna be all clever with a dictionary, at lease use an English dictionary!
I'd love to see the top 10 music downloads from TPB in the last month - I'd be willing to bet they're all forgettable and no one will give a shit about them in 10 or 20 years... ...aren't we culturally superior?
I guess if an artist has only 5 years to make a profit, than any copyright infringement in that period is a much more serious offense. Capital punishment perhaps?
Interestingly, I recently listened to a podcast where an (I think) civil engineer advocated the installation of such generators for (among other things) extra protection from storms! Essentially, his point was that putting up concrete barriers didn't work, because they didn't 'give' whereas turbines, etc, allowed the energy to pass, but dissipated it somewhat.
"Your point that we never really know if all concluded Causation is just an illusion is a bit trite and easily overruled by Occam's Razor."
;-)
;-)
I basically agree with your comment, thanks
However, I guess what I was trying to say was more along the lines that there is a truth that we can never know - we only get closer and closer asymptotically. It's very easy to forget this fact, and delude ourselves that what we know now is the be-all-and-end-all.
But yes, the "are we a brain in a box" question has been pretty well chewed over
Well, climate change is an important contemporary issue in science, no matter what your opinion. I think injecting a bit more science into the whole thing would only be a good idea. Then again, judging from some of the comments regarding climate change, it seems to me that science education in general needs to be addressed.
/. written though it were gospel:
The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is that (otherwise intelligent) people seem to have been suckered by marketing. For example, companies that advertise about C02 being a harmless gas are simultaneously investing in arctic oil exploration (on the assumption that the arctic ice is melting). Maybe the biggest thing that needs to be taught in science is objective reasoning - something that seems fairly thin on the ground..
Here's something I often read on
"correlation != causation" - true, but I'd challenge anyone to name a single scientific "law" we _know_ to be caused, and don't "merely" observe correlation.
The other thing that amazes me are the number of people who believe really weird things about climate change research. For example, I've read comments alleging that climate scientists "tweak" their models to fit known weather patterns, but never verify those models on other data. This is such a patently ridiculous allegation that in any other field it would be laughed off the stage, but for some reason there is a group of people who are desperate to dis-believe in climate change no matter what the evidence.
Then why can't I just make a site that mirrors Joe Bloggs' personalised aggregator and slap advertising on it? Oh sorry - it's ok for him to use other peoples' work, but not ok for me to use his? (I realise that was not your implication, but my question is really "where does it end"?)