Another problem is that scientists often end up being pretty crappy at this too. So the less the legislation, the fewer opportunities of ANYONE screwing things up and the better off we ("we" being everyone except the politicians) end up. Wow! And I'm not even a libertarian -- or willing to debate what one actually is!
I love how slashdotters counter politicians use of unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact by further using unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact. I also love how slashdotters always manage to include at least one member of the the current American executive branch in any post, whether practically related or not. And I further love how other slashdotters mod the other slashdotters' posts up. And my final love, at least for this post, is that other slashdotters may continue posting about how they love, in sarcastic terms, the manner in which I've posted. All that to say, it's all a bunch of theory anyway.
So if my Porsche (which I admittedly don't have yet...or even want) gets a flat out in the middle of boofoo, I have to call someone to come and snip something that welded the wheels onto the axle? And after replacing the tire, if they don't re-weld, then the car won't even start?
True, my sarcasm and passive aggressiveness may be annoying here, but you've gotta see my point.
Most of the middle-class in any western country *can* affort to spend $12K for any damn thing they please. If it's worth it is another matter entirely. For 99% of the population that's gonna be a no.
I agree with your focus on value/worth.
But I'm not sure of your definition of middle-class. Like in the US, even if you used the higher mean income from 2004, rather than the median income, it's still "only" around 60 grand a year (note: pre-tax). So for someone to drop 1/5 of their income on an uber TV, especially when they're already paying another 15% - 30% on a mortgage, plus any car payments, plus stupid credit card debt from other purchases they *can* afford, plus taxes and medical and day-to-day expenses, plus saving for retirement and maybe a little bit for your children's future, it'd seem like the only reason they *can* do it is because they don't consider not having enough money to afford something as an actual deterrent to buying it.
"What competitor? There's a competitor? You mean satellite? Wait, you live in an apartment, right? Good luck getting that dish approved by your landlord."
Because captchas are used for more than registrations first of all. If I have to provide references to post a comment about something or other somewhere, I'm not going to post a comment. Or if I have to provide references to search a forum (like Spring support forums if you're not logged in), I'm going to be pretty frustrated. Also I hate sharing information with sites as it is. Now I'd also have to share more information with them -- about the other sites with which I am registered? And I'm not even a tinfoil-hatted slashdotter!
At risk of tooting my own horn, so to speak, I was a semi-popular, get-along-with-almost-everyone kid in school. I was a 3-sport athlete and I got average-to-good grades. I liked computers and writing and music. The only things I didn't particularly enjoy were art classes and industrial arts, mostly because I sucked at them. No one bullied me. No one mocked me or told me my creative writing stories were ridiculously stupid (which they were). My parents were/are great. My friends supported me. Many times I was greatly challenged in academic, athletic and social manners. And yet, somehow, some way, I too got terribly depressed in school, even though I had a lot going for me.
I strongly believe that most of it had to do with the fact that I, like all other 16-year-olds, had an unbelievable cocktail of completely natural chemicals (aka hormones) raging through my body, as well as the fact that I had the emotional and mental maturity of a...16 year-old. My circumstances were considerably different than yours, and yet I wasn't exempt from being depressed. Was I just crazy? Perhaps. I suppose the only difference is that when I did stupid things, like when I drove the car through the garage, I just dealt with the consequences and didn't try to blame it on the educational system failing me. I know that makes me sound like a total jerk -- and I thought a lot before writing it because I am not trying to insult you. I just think everyone gets depressed in life, not just those who are dealt a crappier hand than others.
Simple message: if you are designing a site; make sure it works fine without the scripts. Otherwise you will lose viewers who just don't care enough.
The problem is that it's a complex issue, for which a simple message won't suffice. I think you'd have to do some analysis on how many viewers you lose by using scripts versus how many you gain by having (cool) features that utilize scripts. If I can make a gazillion dollars by purposely alienating those who, for whatever reason, refuse to allow scripts, the choice is simple. And vice versa. Your simple message is one based on principle or personal-preference, but if you're serious about pumping up viewership, the simple message has to be "If you are designing a site for which you want a lot of viewers, make sure it caters to the majority." Because there are more people in the majority than the minority.
And anyway, there is little evidence that porn is really more damaging for kids than e.g. the Bratz dolls.
You should probably provide some sort of evidence supporting this. I'm not a citation Nazi, but it really is a rather bold claim, especially given that it'd be tough to do a real study that involves exposing children to large amounts of pornography, just like it would be difficult to do a real study that involves exposing children to large amounts of radiation. Because of the potential for damage, you cannot set up an "experiment", per se, but only deal with situations that have already occurred, outside of any "control" you might have. For example, if a child's in the kind of environment where they've been exposed to unusual amounts of pornography, there are probably many other factors that are causing them trauma. This makes it rough on the sociologist or whomever is doing the study to really do anything other than find possible correlations. (I'm not a sociologist or particularly well-versed in study methodology, but I think you see my point).
Also, since this is, to some degree, a discussion regarding morality, you would need to be careful defining terms like "damaging". For example, if you're willing to agree that viewing pornography, especially over a long period of time, greatly increases visual fantasies and greatly changes attitudes towards women among men, you'd still have a hard time getting people to agree on whether or not this is damaging, especially if no criminal action resulted from those increased fantasies and changed attitudes. Another way to say it -- for some folks, it's not problematic if a man plays out graphic fantasies in his head all day long about everyone woman he looks at as long as no criminal action occurs (yes, yes -- respond if you must to get the funny mod). But to others, this would be a strong indicator that damage has indeed been done to that person by the change in their mental behavior.
There are now anthropologists who argue that modern man has been systematically eradicating the other hominids because of our peculiarly aggressive and expansionist nature, and we are now eradicating the other primate species. Is this something to be proud of? We won't even allow chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans a quite small range in which to survive.
Your comment sounds like the intention of the destruction of habitats by humans is to destroy certain species that depend on those habitats. I think most people would argue that this destruction is a result of our actions, and not the intention. For example, you use the word "systematic". What is the system and how does it involve specific targeting of primates? How does this system rationalize the destruction of other "non-competing" (or even beneficial) species that depend on the same habitats? If we wanted to destroy a species, human beings are very good at it, usually just by directly killing the species, like the American bison.
All I'm trying to say is that the intention of human beings is "expansion", which could be viewed in very simplistic terms as "self-preservation" or very complex terms as "greed" or "self-gratification", and that this expansion has the results of destruction. The intention is not destruction. There is no common, genetic driving force that makes us view primates as competition that must be eradicated. Humans just care more about themselves than anything else, which is why most of us don't care that we destroy the habitats of other species. The issue is further complicated in that a) there are some of us that, for whatever reasons we have, do NOT want to expand and destroy, and b) for some reason, we hold ourselves to a different standard than animals in that we place all kinds of restrictions on self-preservation (some people would call this "ethics", I suppose, but that's a whole other discussion!).
I like your comparison of rail travel against air travel, but I think another comparison shows rail travel, regardless of speed and quality, to be weaker. That is, comparing middle-distance (150 - 400 miles) rail travel against automobile travel. It may be easy to travel from Point A to Point B on a train, but there are far more logistics actually involved that make automobile travel more convenient and affordable.
For example, I live in the western suburbs of Chicago, IL, USA. I often travel to western Michigan. I live within 3 miles from a train station on a commuter line (Metra), so it's not completely out of reason to walk to that line, although it's a pain if you have luggage and there is tough weather (which I have done, but would obviously prefer not to). (There is a bus service (PACE) with limited service that could get me to a different train station on that line, which is not the closest station, nor would it be advantageous in terms of timing.) So from the front door, it's a little under an hour walk, maybe more if I have luggage and I pay ~$5 for the 35-45 minute ride into Chicago.
The Metra line takes me into one train station in Chicago, from where I can walk to the other train station and board an Amtrak train with many Amish folk bound for Holland, MI (a stop on the way to Grand Rapids, MI). That ride varies greatly in its time (probably for many of the anti-Amtrak reasons voiced here), but is is almost always under 3 hours and runs ~$25.
So I'm sure I haven't gotten much sympathy in my plight to get to the commuter line, and then deal with Amtrak -- which is fine -- but what I am supposed to to once I've reached the station at my destination? My destination isn't the Holland, MI train station, it's many places all around that area of western Michigan. And without a car, it's either really slow going, or the costs really start to add up (renting a car, etc).
It's easier, and most of the time cheaper, for me to just hop on I294, then deal with the crap driving around the bottom of Lake Michigan where I80/94 is perpetually under construction, and finally shoot up to western Michigan, where I will arrive in the same amount of time or less than had I commuted, and be able to drive to other locations around my destination spot.
All that to say that, I am used to being called a fat and lazy, polluting American because I drive everywhere. I can deal with that. And I am used to everyone mindlessly promoting rail travel (especially commuter rail systems) as opposed to automobile travel, but when I lay out the expenses of time and money involved, it makes more sense for me to drive to many of the places I need to go. This would not be changed by an upgrade in service or quality from Amtrak or any company, nor would it be changed by any involvement by the government.
I think the problem with Amazon's deal isn't really any different than walking into a store, taking something to the cashier, having the cashier just put it in a bag and leaving without paying. Even if the cashier says "just go ahead and take it", that doesn't make it right.
It's most certainly different. Using your example, the cashier at the store refuses to communicate with you other than on his terms. So even though you're standing directly in front of him, it will take you at least 15 - 20 minutes, if not more, to ask him if he made a mistake when ringing up your purchase because you have to call a toll-free number and wait to get connected with him. Alternately, you can cancel the purchase and send him an email and wait to go back to the store until he responds.
Of course, if you DON'T care about doing the right thing and leave the store with your purchase, the cashier has still given you a printed receipt, not simply a verbal statement of "just go ahead and take it".
Basically, I agree with you about the whole morality thing, but it's not as easy to figure out as you're making it. Let's say the difference wasn't so large. Let's say a price was marked incorrectly and the person got 47 cents off a 341 dollar, 68 item purchase (like a grocery bill)? Does the store still have the right to collect that 47 cents after the receipt is issued? Or should a customer be responsible for checking each item to make sure it's priced properly? If not, what's the dollar amount cutoff for when a person has to check vs. when they don't? Does morality only apply when large, noticeable dollar amounts are involved? I'm not trying to be a jerk. Where do you draw the line?
That is indeed what you get when you use a free service. In terms of adviCe (noun v. verb) on using a free OS, I guess that would depend on the license that OS uses. However, the zinger you're trying to throw out there with your free OS question is based on an apples to oranges comparison. If some company decides they aren't going to support the OS they used to support, I can still salvage my data. And if their OS had some sort of strange licensing agreement about me logging into the OS to keep the OS active, well -- it'd be pretty dumb to use that OS, wouldn't it?
There are real technological solutions to the issues raised by increasing populations on a planet with finite resources. But how are they driven? Cost and convenience. If populations lower consumption in order to delay those resources from being completely consumed, the pain you promote wouldn't be sufficient to drive new technologies.
If you tell people in a closed environment that they're limited to 3, 20-oz. glasses of water a day until they come up with a better way to filter the water source, the people have limited reason to hurry. But if you tell the people that in 10 days the water will dry up, and then start charging $10/glass on the existing water, you might inspire some change.
Of course, there are other problems, too. Like some of the people that issue the timeline on the water expiration would have to be daft, arrogant pricks that just whine about how much water people use. Some could have vastly different estimates than others ("The water will actually run out in 5 days" or "We've got another 3 months till the water runs out"). Some would say that the government needs to step in and provide a water subsidy. And some would stockpile water and then try to sell it later on for 10 times the price. These are just a few silly examples to make a point.
You may despise the builders of those off-the-grid megahomes, but they do just as much (or as little, depending on your perspective) as a "green" guy with less money in terms of driving innovation. Conservation only delays, innovation has the potential to completely change. But nothing is going to drive innovation until people suffer not by their own choice, but because they have no other choice.
Of course, I have to talk out of both sides of my mouth here, too. In some cases, this resource "endangerment" or "extinction" is a situation I want to occur (I don't mind if gas goes up 5 fold in price because I know it will drive more innovation). In others, it's not (I don't want certain types of fish I love to be gone before I'm forced to try a new kind of fish).
I can't speak to the poster's ignorance level; however, terrorists generally don't bother with small arms in this country because it takes too much time to inflict a high level of damage with them. By the time you'd kill a few dozen people, if you could even kill that many, you'd be dead yourself. The death ceiling for explosives is much higher.
It depends on your definition of "hunting rifle", I guess. My understanding is that Chicago outlaws "assault weapons" as well; however, I can't find documentation of that anywhere. I guess I didn't mean or want to start a debate about "gun control". I just wanted to say that the government's violation of Constitutional rights isn't restricted to the context of defeating terrorism, but everyone seems to get the most worked up about those scenarios. The ridiculous Supreme Court ruling re: personal property is another example (Kelo v. New London?). But I am sure that has already been debated many times here.
Governments do plenty of things that infringe on people's rights in order to try and curb the rate of murder. For example, the city of Chicago, Illinois, USA doesn't allow handguns. Even if you interpret the US Constitution as not allowing each individual person to own guns (as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union do) the Illinois State Constitution http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm/ explicitly provides for that, leaving little if any room for such interpretation. That seems like a way the government is screwing with people's constitutionally-provided rights -- but it's just not the federal government doing it.
I suppose you could say that the right to have a gun isn't as popular with some people, so fewer people care about that right being infringed, but it's still a constitutionally-stated right
Re:Are we sure it comes from work?
on
Understanding Burnout
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What GP is saying that he doesn't bother to discuss things that are totally abstract, irrelevant, and inapplicable to their everyday life
And what TP (this poster) is saying is that such a robotic, anti-social (yes, I think constant, emotionless and shallow interaction with others is eventually anti-social) existence would cause the very burnout that we all want trying to avoid. Perhaps another way of saying it would be that one cause of burnout (among many) is the removal of honest self-expression from one's life.
You can't actually expect me to read and respond to all of this, no? I am not saying this in a mean way, but rather a practical one. I wish I had the time to discuss the issues with you, but you've written a book here!
Re:Are we sure it comes from work?
on
Understanding Burnout
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't discuss business or politics or religion with my real friends and family
Why would you want to do that? Those are the people you're SUPPOSED to discuss those things with. Your points about the financial aspects of our lives (aka accumulating "things") are well-taken and, IMO 100% correct; however, in my experience discussing business and politics and religion with people I care about and love and respect does far more for me than, say, either bottling these feelings up completely or letting them spew to faceless, nameless beings on the Internet.
If we lose our freedom, our openness, our ability to accept and assimilate immigrants, we will cease to be the country that we once were, and never become what we were meant to be.
Some of the ability to accept and assimilate immigrants is not dependent on "us" (as you say), but rather the immigrants. But part of being a free country is allowing people not assimilate if they choose not to assimilate, which, of course, raises the potential for a scenario where there is no longer an "us", but rather many "us"s -- a nation that is no longer the nation it once was and a nation lacking the unity to become what it was meant to be. So the truth is that we're screwed whichever way the pedulum swings; the key is to take a balanced approach, which is sorely lacking from these types of discussions.
I'm sure your intent was comedic, but I can't resist being a literalist. Anyhow - I remember traveling in Germany in the very early 90's following the whole wall-tearing-down thing. As you traveled from West to East, you could almost see a line of dirtiness in terms of the buildings and structures as you approached the East. Also - I was amazed (granted I was a teenager, so amazement is a relative term) at the number of residences and businesses that used coal for heating. You'd see it out in the street prior to it being shoveled down into the basements/cellars. So, although I'm sure you understand this and were just out for a laugh, those communists nations actually did quite a poor job of building clean machines and maintaining clean air.
[negativeKarmarifficSpellingTroll]
I recognize that not everyone deems spelling to be of the utmost importance. But when you rip another group for pushing ignorance and preventing education in a post that provides (or perhaps only potentially provides) evidence of your own lack of edumacation, you're giving someone an alley-oop.
[/negativeKarmarifficSpellingTroll]
Anyhoo, you might get more buy-in if your statements painted with less of a broad brush.
Slashdot Mirror
Another problem is that scientists often end up being pretty crappy at this too. So the less the legislation, the fewer opportunities of ANYONE screwing things up and the better off we ("we" being everyone except the politicians) end up. Wow! And I'm not even a libertarian -- or willing to debate what one actually is!
I love how slashdotters counter politicians use of unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact by further using unsupported theories of criminal etiology to the level of fact. I also love how slashdotters always manage to include at least one member of the the current American executive branch in any post, whether practically related or not. And I further love how other slashdotters mod the other slashdotters' posts up. And my final love, at least for this post, is that other slashdotters may continue posting about how they love, in sarcastic terms, the manner in which I've posted. All that to say, it's all a bunch of theory anyway.
So if my Porsche (which I admittedly don't have yet...or even want) gets a flat out in the middle of boofoo, I have to call someone to come and snip something that welded the wheels onto the axle? And after replacing the tire, if they don't re-weld, then the car won't even start?
True, my sarcasm and passive aggressiveness may be annoying here, but you've gotta see my point.
Most of the middle-class in any western country *can* affort to spend $12K for any damn thing they please. If it's worth it is another matter entirely. For 99% of the population that's gonna be a no.
I agree with your focus on value/worth.
But I'm not sure of your definition of middle-class. Like in the US, even if you used the higher mean income from 2004, rather than the median income, it's still "only" around 60 grand a year (note: pre-tax). So for someone to drop 1/5 of their income on an uber TV, especially when they're already paying another 15% - 30% on a mortgage, plus any car payments, plus stupid credit card debt from other purchases they *can* afford, plus taxes and medical and day-to-day expenses, plus saving for retirement and maybe a little bit for your children's future, it'd seem like the only reason they *can* do it is because they don't consider not having enough money to afford something as an actual deterrent to buying it.
"What competitor? There's a competitor? You mean satellite? Wait, you live in an apartment, right? Good luck getting that dish approved by your landlord."
Your forgot to end with...
"MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Because captchas are used for more than registrations first of all. If I have to provide references to post a comment about something or other somewhere, I'm not going to post a comment. Or if I have to provide references to search a forum (like Spring support forums if you're not logged in), I'm going to be pretty frustrated. Also I hate sharing information with sites as it is. Now I'd also have to share more information with them -- about the other sites with which I am registered? And I'm not even a tinfoil-hatted slashdotter!
No - not sales people.
At risk of tooting my own horn, so to speak, I was a semi-popular, get-along-with-almost-everyone kid in school. I was a 3-sport athlete and I got average-to-good grades. I liked computers and writing and music. The only things I didn't particularly enjoy were art classes and industrial arts, mostly because I sucked at them. No one bullied me. No one mocked me or told me my creative writing stories were ridiculously stupid (which they were). My parents were/are great. My friends supported me. Many times I was greatly challenged in academic, athletic and social manners. And yet, somehow, some way, I too got terribly depressed in school, even though I had a lot going for me.
I strongly believe that most of it had to do with the fact that I, like all other 16-year-olds, had an unbelievable cocktail of completely natural chemicals (aka hormones) raging through my body, as well as the fact that I had the emotional and mental maturity of a...16 year-old. My circumstances were considerably different than yours, and yet I wasn't exempt from being depressed. Was I just crazy? Perhaps. I suppose the only difference is that when I did stupid things, like when I drove the car through the garage, I just dealt with the consequences and didn't try to blame it on the educational system failing me. I know that makes me sound like a total jerk -- and I thought a lot before writing it because I am not trying to insult you. I just think everyone gets depressed in life, not just those who are dealt a crappier hand than others.
The problem is that it's a complex issue, for which a simple message won't suffice. I think you'd have to do some analysis on how many viewers you lose by using scripts versus how many you gain by having (cool) features that utilize scripts. If I can make a gazillion dollars by purposely alienating those who, for whatever reason, refuse to allow scripts, the choice is simple. And vice versa. Your simple message is one based on principle or personal-preference, but if you're serious about pumping up viewership, the simple message has to be "If you are designing a site for which you want a lot of viewers, make sure it caters to the majority." Because there are more people in the majority than the minority.
You should probably provide some sort of evidence supporting this. I'm not a citation Nazi, but it really is a rather bold claim, especially given that it'd be tough to do a real study that involves exposing children to large amounts of pornography, just like it would be difficult to do a real study that involves exposing children to large amounts of radiation. Because of the potential for damage, you cannot set up an "experiment", per se, but only deal with situations that have already occurred, outside of any "control" you might have. For example, if a child's in the kind of environment where they've been exposed to unusual amounts of pornography, there are probably many other factors that are causing them trauma. This makes it rough on the sociologist or whomever is doing the study to really do anything other than find possible correlations. (I'm not a sociologist or particularly well-versed in study methodology, but I think you see my point).
Also, since this is, to some degree, a discussion regarding morality, you would need to be careful defining terms like "damaging". For example, if you're willing to agree that viewing pornography, especially over a long period of time, greatly increases visual fantasies and greatly changes attitudes towards women among men, you'd still have a hard time getting people to agree on whether or not this is damaging, especially if no criminal action resulted from those increased fantasies and changed attitudes. Another way to say it -- for some folks, it's not problematic if a man plays out graphic fantasies in his head all day long about everyone woman he looks at as long as no criminal action occurs (yes, yes -- respond if you must to get the funny mod). But to others, this would be a strong indicator that damage has indeed been done to that person by the change in their mental behavior.
Your comment sounds like the intention of the destruction of habitats by humans is to destroy certain species that depend on those habitats. I think most people would argue that this destruction is a result of our actions, and not the intention. For example, you use the word "systematic". What is the system and how does it involve specific targeting of primates? How does this system rationalize the destruction of other "non-competing" (or even beneficial) species that depend on the same habitats? If we wanted to destroy a species, human beings are very good at it, usually just by directly killing the species, like the American bison.
All I'm trying to say is that the intention of human beings is "expansion", which could be viewed in very simplistic terms as "self-preservation" or very complex terms as "greed" or "self-gratification", and that this expansion has the results of destruction. The intention is not destruction. There is no common, genetic driving force that makes us view primates as competition that must be eradicated. Humans just care more about themselves than anything else, which is why most of us don't care that we destroy the habitats of other species. The issue is further complicated in that a) there are some of us that, for whatever reasons we have, do NOT want to expand and destroy, and b) for some reason, we hold ourselves to a different standard than animals in that we place all kinds of restrictions on self-preservation (some people would call this "ethics", I suppose, but that's a whole other discussion!).
I like your comparison of rail travel against air travel, but I think another comparison shows rail travel, regardless of speed and quality, to be weaker. That is, comparing middle-distance (150 - 400 miles) rail travel against automobile travel. It may be easy to travel from Point A to Point B on a train, but there are far more logistics actually involved that make automobile travel more convenient and affordable.
For example, I live in the western suburbs of Chicago, IL, USA. I often travel to western Michigan. I live within 3 miles from a train station on a commuter line (Metra), so it's not completely out of reason to walk to that line, although it's a pain if you have luggage and there is tough weather (which I have done, but would obviously prefer not to). (There is a bus service (PACE) with limited service that could get me to a different train station on that line, which is not the closest station, nor would it be advantageous in terms of timing.) So from the front door, it's a little under an hour walk, maybe more if I have luggage and I pay ~$5 for the 35-45 minute ride into Chicago.
The Metra line takes me into one train station in Chicago, from where I can walk to the other train station and board an Amtrak train with many Amish folk bound for Holland, MI (a stop on the way to Grand Rapids, MI). That ride varies greatly in its time (probably for many of the anti-Amtrak reasons voiced here), but is is almost always under 3 hours and runs ~$25.
So I'm sure I haven't gotten much sympathy in my plight to get to the commuter line, and then deal with Amtrak -- which is fine -- but what I am supposed to to once I've reached the station at my destination? My destination isn't the Holland, MI train station, it's many places all around that area of western Michigan. And without a car, it's either really slow going, or the costs really start to add up (renting a car, etc).
It's easier, and most of the time cheaper, for me to just hop on I294, then deal with the crap driving around the bottom of Lake Michigan where I80/94 is perpetually under construction, and finally shoot up to western Michigan, where I will arrive in the same amount of time or less than had I commuted, and be able to drive to other locations around my destination spot.
All that to say that, I am used to being called a fat and lazy, polluting American because I drive everywhere. I can deal with that. And I am used to everyone mindlessly promoting rail travel (especially commuter rail systems) as opposed to automobile travel, but when I lay out the expenses of time and money involved, it makes more sense for me to drive to many of the places I need to go. This would not be changed by an upgrade in service or quality from Amtrak or any company, nor would it be changed by any involvement by the government.
It's most certainly different. Using your example, the cashier at the store refuses to communicate with you other than on his terms. So even though you're standing directly in front of him, it will take you at least 15 - 20 minutes, if not more, to ask him if he made a mistake when ringing up your purchase because you have to call a toll-free number and wait to get connected with him. Alternately, you can cancel the purchase and send him an email and wait to go back to the store until he responds.
Of course, if you DON'T care about doing the right thing and leave the store with your purchase, the cashier has still given you a printed receipt, not simply a verbal statement of "just go ahead and take it".
Basically, I agree with you about the whole morality thing, but it's not as easy to figure out as you're making it. Let's say the difference wasn't so large. Let's say a price was marked incorrectly and the person got 47 cents off a 341 dollar, 68 item purchase (like a grocery bill)? Does the store still have the right to collect that 47 cents after the receipt is issued? Or should a customer be responsible for checking each item to make sure it's priced properly? If not, what's the dollar amount cutoff for when a person has to check vs. when they don't? Does morality only apply when large, noticeable dollar amounts are involved? I'm not trying to be a jerk. Where do you draw the line?
That is indeed what you get when you use a free service. In terms of adviCe (noun v. verb) on using a free OS, I guess that would depend on the license that OS uses. However, the zinger you're trying to throw out there with your free OS question is based on an apples to oranges comparison. If some company decides they aren't going to support the OS they used to support, I can still salvage my data. And if their OS had some sort of strange licensing agreement about me logging into the OS to keep the OS active, well -- it'd be pretty dumb to use that OS, wouldn't it?
There are real technological solutions to the issues raised by increasing populations on a planet with finite resources. But how are they driven? Cost and convenience. If populations lower consumption in order to delay those resources from being completely consumed, the pain you promote wouldn't be sufficient to drive new technologies.
If you tell people in a closed environment that they're limited to 3, 20-oz. glasses of water a day until they come up with a better way to filter the water source, the people have limited reason to hurry. But if you tell the people that in 10 days the water will dry up, and then start charging $10/glass on the existing water, you might inspire some change.
Of course, there are other problems, too. Like some of the people that issue the timeline on the water expiration would have to be daft, arrogant pricks that just whine about how much water people use. Some could have vastly different estimates than others ("The water will actually run out in 5 days" or "We've got another 3 months till the water runs out"). Some would say that the government needs to step in and provide a water subsidy. And some would stockpile water and then try to sell it later on for 10 times the price. These are just a few silly examples to make a point.
You may despise the builders of those off-the-grid megahomes, but they do just as much (or as little, depending on your perspective) as a "green" guy with less money in terms of driving innovation. Conservation only delays, innovation has the potential to completely change. But nothing is going to drive innovation until people suffer not by their own choice, but because they have no other choice.
Of course, I have to talk out of both sides of my mouth here, too. In some cases, this resource "endangerment" or "extinction" is a situation I want to occur (I don't mind if gas goes up 5 fold in price because I know it will drive more innovation). In others, it's not (I don't want certain types of fish I love to be gone before I'm forced to try a new kind of fish).
I can't speak to the poster's ignorance level; however, terrorists generally don't bother with small arms in this country because it takes too much time to inflict a high level of damage with them. By the time you'd kill a few dozen people, if you could even kill that many, you'd be dead yourself. The death ceiling for explosives is much higher.
It depends on your definition of "hunting rifle", I guess. My understanding is that Chicago outlaws "assault weapons" as well; however, I can't find documentation of that anywhere. I guess I didn't mean or want to start a debate about "gun control". I just wanted to say that the government's violation of Constitutional rights isn't restricted to the context of defeating terrorism, but everyone seems to get the most worked up about those scenarios. The ridiculous Supreme Court ruling re: personal property is another example (Kelo v. New London?). But I am sure that has already been debated many times here.
Governments do plenty of things that infringe on people's rights in order to try and curb the rate of murder. For example, the city of Chicago, Illinois, USA doesn't allow handguns. Even if you interpret the US Constitution as not allowing each individual person to own guns (as groups like the American Civil Liberties Union do) the Illinois State Constitution http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm/ explicitly provides for that, leaving little if any room for such interpretation. That seems like a way the government is screwing with people's constitutionally-provided rights -- but it's just not the federal government doing it.
I suppose you could say that the right to have a gun isn't as popular with some people, so fewer people care about that right being infringed, but it's still a constitutionally-stated right
You can't actually expect me to read and respond to all of this, no? I am not saying this in a mean way, but rather a practical one. I wish I had the time to discuss the issues with you, but you've written a book here!
Some of the ability to accept and assimilate immigrants is not dependent on "us" (as you say), but rather the immigrants. But part of being a free country is allowing people not assimilate if they choose not to assimilate, which, of course, raises the potential for a scenario where there is no longer an "us", but rather many "us"s -- a nation that is no longer the nation it once was and a nation lacking the unity to become what it was meant to be. So the truth is that we're screwed whichever way the pedulum swings; the key is to take a balanced approach, which is sorely lacking from these types of discussions.
I'm sure your intent was comedic, but I can't resist being a literalist. Anyhow - I remember traveling in Germany in the very early 90's following the whole wall-tearing-down thing. As you traveled from West to East, you could almost see a line of dirtiness in terms of the buildings and structures as you approached the East. Also - I was amazed (granted I was a teenager, so amazement is a relative term) at the number of residences and businesses that used coal for heating. You'd see it out in the street prior to it being shoveled down into the basements/cellars. So, although I'm sure you understand this and were just out for a laugh, those communists nations actually did quite a poor job of building clean machines and maintaining clean air.
I'd like a citation or reference for the fish bone choking stat you provided. Are there other weird causes of deaths in that document?
[negativeKarmarifficSpellingTroll] I recognize that not everyone deems spelling to be of the utmost importance. But when you rip another group for pushing ignorance and preventing education in a post that provides (or perhaps only potentially provides) evidence of your own lack of edumacation, you're giving someone an alley-oop. [/negativeKarmarifficSpellingTroll]
Anyhoo, you might get more buy-in if your statements painted with less of a broad brush.