That's not true, the Pope goes there and totally disagrees with Krauss, Francis strongly condemns birth control and abortion.
I would withhold judgement on that. I have a feeling that Pope Francis is going to lend some of the Church's authority behind the upcoming United Nations goal for zero population growth.
Say what you will, the pope is not an idiot. He realizes that if you're going to head off disaster, you have to somehow limit population growth. My guess is that he's aware that very large families are an artifact of economic inequality and suggest that the best way to keep families small is to make sure women (and men) get good educations. Not sex education, mind you, but just plain old education. That seems to be a more certain way of keeping families small than any other and it doesn't violate church teachings.
We haven't seen the last surprise out of this pope. I get the feeling he's just getting started. I'm gratified that all the devout Catholics on the political Right are shitting themselves in fury over practically everything this pope has done. It's a sign that he's on the right track.
Notice how everybody who proposes ways of addressing climate change agrees that people need to be coerced to live differently
Marketing is the science of coercing people to live differently. Is it OK when it's done in the name of corporate profits, but somehow bad when it's in the name of trying to head off probable disaster?
Notice how everybody who proposes ways of addressing climate change agrees that people need to be coerced to live differently, but that only their own approach is selfless and benign while everybody else acts out of greed and self-interest.
Please tell us how people addressing climate change are acting out of "greed and self interest". And if you bring up Al Gore's private jet, you have to spend 10 minutes in the Fox News penalty box.
I've been thinking about the cost of anonymity. I think it's an often necessary element of political speech, but it's not free. It requires a sacrifice on the part of the person who chooses anonymity.
There is a reason society is suspicious of people who cover their faces.
A blanket expectation of anonymity in all things is unreasonable if you want to participate fully in society. If everyone were completely anonymous, I believe that would likely be an impediment to free speech. Because at some point, credibility is required.
I'd have to wonder why you'd subscribe to an ebook lending service if you weren't going to read any of the books, but you could try arguing this with them I suppose.
I see what you're saying, but people subscribe to the ebook lending service because the lending service has a certain number of books available. Even if you only read six books a year, you probably wouldn't subscribe to an ebook lending service that only had six books available, even if they were the six books you wanted to read. So all those other books have value to the lending service, even if only for advertising purposes. And that's worth something to the authors, isn't it?
And as I said before, not all books are meant to be (or need to be) read from cover to cover.
Or you could come in the middle of the night covering your face and put up signs and posters saying the same and come morning it will be there.
As I said, you can have anonymity in the public square, but you have to make sacrifices. Wearing a hood or ski mask tends to raise suspicion in the people around you, and for good reason. There's a trade-off. Sometimes, the trade-off is worth it, but there is always a cost. And despite the bitcoin wishes, the Internet is not a magical place where laws and social norms do not apply.
Being anonymous is different from being anonymous and participating fully in society. If you have to cover your face, it limits your options quite a bit.
Of course my porch was skipped. I have a couple very large dogs and signs saying "trespassers will be violated" and "hidden fence, dogs run loose on property".
You make my point. You don't send out your dogs anonymously. You clearly state, on signs on a property with an address, that dogs are protecting your house. You're house. This way people know which house you don't go trespassing around. It gives you peace of mind and it informs the people around you.
I can stand up in any public square the US and give my opinion of whatever topic I want to. I don't have to provide my name to do so.I don't have to show my papers.
None of that has anything to do with "anonymity".
If you come into the public square and start to holler about how black people need to die because they're raping all the white women and taking over the country, people will remember your face, I guarantee. And when you come back tomorrow, someone will recognize you as the Dylann Roof-acting motherfucker. They don't need to know your name, or see your papers to know who you are.
Unless you have a hood over your face, of course, which I suppose is possible in certain parts of the US.
See, facial recognition has been around for as long as people have been around. Your anonymity in the public square goes as far as the extent of peoples' ability to remember your face.
And, most relevant of all, public squares are places where it's perfectly acceptable to remain anonymous through the use of any pseudonym you can dream up.
Except in the public square you are identifiable by your face unless you're wearing a ski mask.
A right to be anonymous is not the same as a right to be anonymous AND participate fully in society. People who have used anonymity to spread speech that challenges power have to watch their asses, which means that they make a sacrifice. You can still have anonymity, but you're going to have to sacrifice.
The new system would reward authors that produced "page turners" and penalize those that didn't.
First of all, not all books are novels. Books of poetry, textbooks, how-to books, recipe books, reference books, books of short stories, sports books, bathroom reading, books of quotes, economics books, music texts, books of dirty jokes, and the novels of Marcel Proust are not "page turners".
Then again, were we really reading the "great" books in the first place?
I don't know where you come from, but yeah, you're fucking-A right we've been reading the great books. Though we're moving in that direction, there are still pockets of people throughout the world who are not imbeciles.
In the middle of that "background" we have had tidal shield volcanism, planet-killer asteroid strikes, the utter destruction of the global ecology by graminoids, and the nearly complete extinction of all anerobic life by cyanobacteria.
I'm free most weekends to do any necessary deciding.
Next thing you knew, it would be "anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy", etc.
Don't think it can't happen... Obama and friends have been trying to make it happen for quite a while.
Please give us an example of Obama saying that anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy. Otherwise, you're just talking shit, pardon my Italiano.
I don't give a single fuck if they retracted it. When you send someone some kind of threatening legal letter, and it turns out to be completely bogus, you better be ready to come kiss my ass on top of any retraction. And I mean literally put your lips on my ass and keep them there for like five seconds. And smile when you're done.
Fuck IMAX and their retraction. I want to see the head of the in-house lawyer to thought the threat was a good idea in the first place. And I don't mean I want him fired. I want to see his head up on a pole in front of IMAX headquarters.
I just took an enormous IMAX and had to use the plunger to get it to go down. My house still smells of IMAX, so I opened the window.
And my 13" Sony black & white TV from 1970 is like an IMAX that rests on my belly when I'm watching Wheel of Fortune. Except I have to hold the antenna or I get fuzz.
Slashdot Mirror
Just finished it. Where does he call for population growth?
I would withhold judgement on that. I have a feeling that Pope Francis is going to lend some of the Church's authority behind the upcoming United Nations goal for zero population growth.
Say what you will, the pope is not an idiot. He realizes that if you're going to head off disaster, you have to somehow limit population growth. My guess is that he's aware that very large families are an artifact of economic inequality and suggest that the best way to keep families small is to make sure women (and men) get good educations. Not sex education, mind you, but just plain old education. That seems to be a more certain way of keeping families small than any other and it doesn't violate church teachings.
We haven't seen the last surprise out of this pope. I get the feeling he's just getting started. I'm gratified that all the devout Catholics on the political Right are shitting themselves in fury over practically everything this pope has done. It's a sign that he's on the right track.
Marketing is the science of coercing people to live differently. Is it OK when it's done in the name of corporate profits, but somehow bad when it's in the name of trying to head off probable disaster?
Please tell us how people addressing climate change are acting out of "greed and self interest". And if you bring up Al Gore's private jet, you have to spend 10 minutes in the Fox News penalty box.
You're joking. Have you taken a look at people lately?
I've been thinking about the cost of anonymity. I think it's an often necessary element of political speech, but it's not free. It requires a sacrifice on the part of the person who chooses anonymity.
There is a reason society is suspicious of people who cover their faces.
A blanket expectation of anonymity in all things is unreasonable if you want to participate fully in society. If everyone were completely anonymous, I believe that would likely be an impediment to free speech. Because at some point, credibility is required.
I see what you're saying, but people subscribe to the ebook lending service because the lending service has a certain number of books available. Even if you only read six books a year, you probably wouldn't subscribe to an ebook lending service that only had six books available, even if they were the six books you wanted to read. So all those other books have value to the lending service, even if only for advertising purposes. And that's worth something to the authors, isn't it?
And as I said before, not all books are meant to be (or need to be) read from cover to cover.
As I said, you can have anonymity in the public square, but you have to make sacrifices. Wearing a hood or ski mask tends to raise suspicion in the people around you, and for good reason. There's a trade-off. Sometimes, the trade-off is worth it, but there is always a cost. And despite the bitcoin wishes, the Internet is not a magical place where laws and social norms do not apply.
Being anonymous is different from being anonymous and participating fully in society. If you have to cover your face, it limits your options quite a bit.
You make my point. You don't send out your dogs anonymously. You clearly state, on signs on a property with an address, that dogs are protecting your house. You're house. This way people know which house you don't go trespassing around. It gives you peace of mind and it informs the people around you.
My friend, you have come to the right place:
Herbie Versmels
Harry P. Ness (and his sister, Ima P. Ness)
Hugh Janus
Jenny Taylia
Mike Rotchburns
Phillip Oliver Krevises
Tara McClosof
Stu Pidass
None of that has anything to do with "anonymity".
If you come into the public square and start to holler about how black people need to die because they're raping all the white women and taking over the country, people will remember your face, I guarantee. And when you come back tomorrow, someone will recognize you as the Dylann Roof-acting motherfucker. They don't need to know your name, or see your papers to know who you are.
Unless you have a hood over your face, of course, which I suppose is possible in certain parts of the US.
See, facial recognition has been around for as long as people have been around. Your anonymity in the public square goes as far as the extent of peoples' ability to remember your face.
Except in the public square you are identifiable by your face unless you're wearing a ski mask.
A right to be anonymous is not the same as a right to be anonymous AND participate fully in society. People who have used anonymity to spread speech that challenges power have to watch their asses, which means that they make a sacrifice. You can still have anonymity, but you're going to have to sacrifice.
Nobody owes you anonymity.
My Facebook name is "Dick Gazinya" and it has been such since 2006. Please don't report me.
First of all, not all books are novels. Books of poetry, textbooks, how-to books, recipe books, reference books, books of short stories, sports books, bathroom reading, books of quotes, economics books, music texts, books of dirty jokes, and the novels of Marcel Proust are not "page turners".
I don't know where you come from, but yeah, you're fucking-A right we've been reading the great books. Though we're moving in that direction, there are still pockets of people throughout the world who are not imbeciles.
So, if Amazon isn't going to pay the author until each page is read, does that mean I don't have to pay Amazon unless I read each page?
Absolutely not, but it would be kind of nice to see parents start to take a little responsibility.
And don't forget the cancellation of Firefly.
By the time we have to worry about sentience, we'll have been extinct for over a century.
God damn. We better hope mice never develop the ability to use tools or we're all going to have our throats cut in our sleep.
I hear the guys over at 8chan have ordered several dozen of these robotic children and a 55-gallon drum of axle grease.
Do you think all that privacy stuff I've got installed like Blur and Privacy Badger is keeping me from seeing the new, improved Slashdot?
Leak finds you.
And we know that's something the Russians and Chinese would never do.
Let me know when you find that mythical "reasonable, rational person". He's probably out drinking with Diogenes' "one honest man".
Maybe it's my age, but people mainly seem to act like a bunch of bonobos on crystal meth. And it's the worst of them that believe they are rational.
I'm free most weekends to do any necessary deciding.
Please give us an example of Obama saying that anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy. Otherwise, you're just talking shit, pardon my Italiano.
I don't give a single fuck if they retracted it. When you send someone some kind of threatening legal letter, and it turns out to be completely bogus, you better be ready to come kiss my ass on top of any retraction. And I mean literally put your lips on my ass and keep them there for like five seconds. And smile when you're done.
Fuck IMAX and their retraction. I want to see the head of the in-house lawyer to thought the threat was a good idea in the first place. And I don't mean I want him fired. I want to see his head up on a pole in front of IMAX headquarters.
I just took an enormous IMAX and had to use the plunger to get it to go down. My house still smells of IMAX, so I opened the window.
And my 13" Sony black & white TV from 1970 is like an IMAX that rests on my belly when I'm watching Wheel of Fortune. Except I have to hold the antenna or I get fuzz.
Just like I have fuzz on my IMAX.