As technology improves, things only get easier and enter more hands. Every technology has evil uses. You can't realistically ever stop them from being used in any given way. Even if you keep your knowledge secret, anything you can invent, someone else can too. As each new layer of invention piles on the next, the idea that we can ever prevent evil is the most ridiculous pipe dream.
Not at all.... without prohibition there is no need for a "prescription" except for insurance purposes. If there was no law against people using drugs recreationally, why would they lie to get drugs? Nobody lies to get alcohol or nicotine except the people prohibited from getting it. Everyone else just goes and buys them.
> Full stop. That's the issue. People are not honest. Sure, I am and you are, but your neighbor Bob isn't. Or his neighbor Sally.
I think you make a mistake to say we are honest and they are not. I have little need to be dishonest. Hell, I smoke pot. Its decriminalised here. I face all of a $100 civil fine for possession. I don't need to lie about it, unless I have more than an oz, and guess what....if I did...I would, and I wouldn't even feel bad about it.
We are not talking about honest in some abstract sense. We are talking about people doing what they feel they need to do in the situation they are in. People who decided that they want something already made their decision. They know what they want and what their reasons are. If you setup a situation where they need to lie to get what they feel they need or want, guess what they are going to do? Its not a matter of honesty as a principle, people are not principled like that. This is true....so don't make them be.
In fact, thats what I advocate.... don't make them be. Accept that they make their decisions, accept those decisions and.... ALLOW THEM TO BE HONEST. Most people will be honest when they feel its safe to do so, they only lie to avoid consequences.... so.... simple solution.... value truth over judgement.
Have you ever done cocaine? If so did you like it? Did it do anything for you?
The thing is, these drugs don't act on people who are being medicated by them quite the same as other people. I tried coke, and I should probably be looking into an ADD diagnosis and adderal script. The thing is, I didn't like coke, it didn't do much for me. It did little more than coffee does to me. I tried it...and then didn't do it again.
Now look at what these drugs do, and some of the models of ADD and this makes sense. Normal people take coke, or speed, and it sends their dopamine/norepinephrine systems soaring high. Ours, according to the model, are already depressed/low functioning so the addition of these drugs doesn't send us soaring so much as bring us up to a more normal level.
I suspect there are some large feedback componenets that fuel many addictions that you don't experience due to the fact that the dose is much lower for you than for others since you are overcoming an initial deficit that recreational users may not be...and you probably don't take extra doses, or particularly higher doses.
Well if it wasn't for the DEA, those customers wouldn't need to pass phoney prescriptions, nor would doctors give out massive ones. In a climate where drug use can be above board and people can be honest, its not clear that any of the real problems with meth, or any other drugs, are actually major issues....and even less evidence that prohibition and regulation to stop drug use does anything positive.
Generally the DEA has created a climate where violent gangs thrive, legitimate patients are often under medicated for pain (do you have any idea how many people will spend the rest of their lives in daily chronic pain for no other reason than their doctor can't give them heroin? or high enough levels of other pain meds?) and desperate people are preyed upon.
The alternative? Some doctors give some drugs to addicts? Oh my god what a horror! Above board drug use? Where it can be monitored and people can seek out help without stigma? Oh no! How terrible!
DO you have any idea how much I don't want to be a Ron Paul Supporter. I mean... the gold standard? Seriously?
Or the whole not using the bathroom of homosexuals thing.... or his statements on abortion but... in the end... hes the only one saying anything sane on drug policy, which is a bigger issue than all of them. He is the only one who says anything sane about wars, and how silly it is that we keep having them.
I so don't want to support that crazy old coot but.... when he is the most sane one out there....
Well thats scary.... but it doesn't make him less right on this issue. The DEA makes no sense. We have ample evidence that amphetamine use is not terribly harmful and its addiction can be managed and even beneficial for many people. Similarly to coffee.
Look at all the problems with meth addiction and...please....show me them before its prohibition. Meth was around for a LONG TIME. Meth addiction in this climate of expensive drugs and addicts being driven underground sucks for the addicts, and sucks for everyone else who has to deal with the results. All problems that didn't exist before prohibition.... when it was mostly regulated by doctors and use was above board.
Congress and their DEA lap dogs made every problem that they touched worst. They made the lives of addicts worst, they made the supply more dangerous, they drove people to do business with violent criminals, and created an atmosphere for violent criminal gangs to thrive. Its THEIR FAULT WE ARE IN THIS MESS!
This research has been fascinating me for a while too. Amazing what they did with such crude techniques... but it isn't hard to imagine how you could setup evolutionary courses to evolve the phages that are needed to combat some nasty bacteria. That said, the problem they tend to have is specificity....they tend to be overly specific to the point of not having general utility even against what we would otherwise call similar infections.
That is a phage that kills your MRSA infection, may not kill mine. However, that may be just a matter of further evolutionary pressures?
Actually, I used to really like bitcoin and never thought most of the arguments against it held much water, since they mostly ignore that all the fiction in bitcoin is the same fiction in other currency. All currency is fake, because its all an abstraction. Nothing wrong with that.
However, the more I learned about it and dove into it...the more convinced I came of this simple fact... a currency wants deflation because currency isn't intended to be a savings instrument. People hoard gold. People hoarded bitcoins. Hell, I gave in to that temptation, even as I started to see the reall folly in it.
Inflation serves a purpose though...I am very much with the bitcoiners still in not trusting governments to be the arbiters. Worst though, allowing a few private hands to do it. I don't trust the fed as far as I can afford to pay someone to throw them
I still ove bitcoin for trying. It was a good attempt, just like some of the good attempts before it...I hope there will be more...and the community will keep trying until something wins out.
Anonymous isn't exactly a crack tactical team. More an amorphous general-purpose psy-ops.
Symbolic victory is all they really ever need. As long as public perception remains that they caused a real headache, then it was a win.
As long as they inspire someone to take up the mantle in the future, they win. Its all about hearts and minds. Every time some random person puts on the mask and stands on a street corner, they win.
I was thinking about an argument I had with someone a long time ago, what it was about wasn't important but.... answering which version of events was true was only going to be settled by the word of a third party....who was still sleeping. I remember coming to the realisation that only one thing would solve our dispute... I remember waiting for that person to show up with the truth....
I wonder now how maddening it must be. Every time I read of these things I think of that.... weeks here, a month there, predictions already made, arguments carefully laid down. All that is left to do is fire up the collide. How many of those firings are already set.... just waiting on the technicians and engineers to be ready.
Sure, they can keep running over simulations and equations, trying to refine predictions, look for some obvious problem, but, in the end.... its just a matter of waiting for it to wake up, and show up with some new truth.
I can't disagree though, I put more of the blame on the editor who allowed it to be posted.
Oh and I also recomend looking at the state unemployment website (from my experience in MA anyway). Here anyway they keep a list of places I think they call "Career Centres". Basically non-profit run centres that offer free classes on resume writting, interviewing and general job hunting. I found them useful when I was last out of work, and recomend them to anyone who is inexperienced at getting professional jobs.
> Immature: He bailed on a job in this economy with only the vaguest of handwaves about "FUD."
Several people have said this... nowhere in the question does it say he bailed on the job, it says he is seeking employment elsewhere.
Generally, there are several reasons not to leave a job before securing the next. Needing to eat is one of them... but... people with jobs are seen as more valuable.
Aside from that, I can't disagree too much with the assesment but... at the same time I think, immature and inexperienced, often translates into young. No need to go hard on the kid, hes asking for advice.,... is that such a crime? A lot of people are not really familiar with the job hunting process, especially for professional jobs.
It can be daunting especially when most jobs are never posted publicly. Word of mouth, friends of friends, drinking buddies....still how jobs tend to be found by many. In fact, some studies have shown that people who drink socially (but are not alcoholics) actually make more money on average than those who don't.
That doesn't always make for the easiest scene to break into...especially if your experience is mostly from hitting newspapers and job sites.
Oh, and there are worst things than talking to a head hunter. I have interviewed with a few. Never actually got a job through one, but, doesn't hurt to get your foot in a new door if you don't know where to find other options.
Actually, he said he would seek employment elsewhere. That doesn't mean just up and quit, that usually means you keep working, and send out resumes, take a few days off to interview. That sort of thing. Normal shit that any professional should be doing from time to time anyway, unless he is at a place that he intends to make a career and stay for the retirement package.
Its the best way to make more money and....if the company is going in a direction that you don't want to go...by all means...why not leave? No job is a lifetime commitment. If the work isn't what he wants to do....FOR ANY REASON... then he absolutely should seek other employment.
Also, forget open source, few, if any, companies are bought into any ideology. Be willing to work with other Unix environments, and there are plenty of jobs to go around, in fact, right now there is a glut of trained technical people and those getting a lot of these jobs are not that competent. So its an excellent time, if you have the chops, or a great time to get them if you don't.
Though, market matters. Out where I am, shit, the past couple of months I have had recruiters calling me again, and friends of mine trying to recruit me off to their companies. The market is definitely picking up in some places. I have heard more activity on that in the past 2-3 months than in the past 2-3 years.
That was my thought exactly. There was a story just the other day about a thief who stole a couple of cell phones from a car. He found child porn on the phones, and turned himself in. The judge gave him 1 month in jail... because he neither wanted to encourage theft nor discourage reporting child porn, and the guy also had stolen a car previously....
In any case...my thought was...good thing he looked! Good for the kids obviously, but, him too. How much of a mess would that have been had he been picked up for his stolen car charge and THEN the police found the CP. Sure, they will know it was a stolen phone but, whether they would believe that the CP was the original owners or his.
I wouldn't take any chances with data like that. I might look over the drive to see if there was anything really problematic (might even let the original owner know if I identified him) but... since I can't trust my ability to find what may be hidden, the only safe move next is to wipe the whole drive.
I can only reply to the statements made. How else is one supposed to take the suggestion that one persons assesment of a lack of value is invalidated by someone else being willing to pay for it? Or, do you read that quote differently?
Um no, what I am saying is control is an illusion. Someone always could have laboriously reproduced some work, the printing press gave the ability to do it easily to very few. Very few can be regulated effectively. Now that power is in the hands of everyone. Its as sensible as asking people politely not to breath.
I think any sort of attempt to retain such control is doomed to utter failure, and thus, a pointless activity. I offer only recommendation that it be abandoned.
File sharing is here, its not going away. Any attempt to make it go away is just stupid when set against the backdrop of the internet and technology. Their BEST HOPE is to keep delaying things long enough to update their business model... which doesn't seem to be what they are trying too hard to do.
We are only going to get more bandwidth, more connected, and more able to share, and more secure in that ability, I expect this to be about as effective as sueing the clouds for bad weather. Or attempting to legislate away a glacier that's floating in an inconvenient place.
> the real problem is, quite simply, not that the work does not have the value being asked for (a view which is contradicted by the fact that some people are > willing to actually pay for the work), but that the person expressing that sentiment is just being cheap - whether that is because they genuinely cannot > afford the work or not.
Well value is relative, not absolute. Some people will pay market value for a house in a neighbourhood with a homeowners association. To me, that drops the value to a negative...negative because it would mean having to keep up with HA rules, which would be an ongoing expense. Other people make different assessments. You can't really call mine, or any other assesment wrong, because it is a personal value. To me, thats what they are worth.
Could I buy them and flip them and make money? Maybe...sure... there are ways to get value out of such things. However... thats not what I do, thats not the position I am in, they are not worth that to me. Someone else being willing to do that, does not invalidate my value assessment.
As for videos? The last video I downloaded was litterally just to test freenet as a medium for large file distribution. Last game? One I already originally had a purchased copy of, but the company went out of business and their online license server was gone so I couldn't play it without getting a cracked version. Why? Because I have amazon prime and cable, and a good job that allows me to afford the few things I watch.
Frankly....copyright was a great idea back when copies were hard to make and distribute and when they worked like physical objects. Now, technology has outstripped it and any restrictions are just sillyness and treated as such. A stupid law, by silly people, and not one that I recommend paying any mind to. Then again....I never had much respect for the law for its own sake.
I don't pirate...100% because its more easy for me not to.... just like most people who don't.
Well.... I think we should draw the distinction when it matters, and not when it doesn't. In the end labels are just labels. If application of a specific label does't male sense, or there isn't enough information to apply it, then don't.
However, when the distinction matters, and when there is enough information to make it....thats where I would tend to draw the lines.
Hmmm all true, i can't disagree.... I think in terms of organism though, I would call them a separate organism if the connection is servered. Otherwise, its all just one plant. A single fungus can kill both parts if its connected, a single bacteria. The parts can share nutes or signaling hormones...one plant.
Once its severed, and each part lives or dies of its own accord. then.... separate organisms.
So... all the Navel orange trees, despite being clones, are their own organism. However, a forest of bamboo....all a single plant.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it actually?
As technology improves, things only get easier and enter more hands. Every technology has evil uses. You can't realistically ever stop them from being used in any given way. Even if you keep your knowledge secret, anything you can invent, someone else can too. As each new layer of invention piles on the next, the idea that we can ever prevent evil is the most ridiculous pipe dream.
Not at all.... without prohibition there is no need for a "prescription" except for insurance purposes. If there was no law against people using drugs recreationally, why would they lie to get drugs? Nobody lies to get alcohol or nicotine except the people prohibited from getting it. Everyone else just goes and buys them.
Are there problems with addiction, sure but....
> Full stop. That's the issue. People are not honest. Sure, I am and you are, but your neighbor Bob isn't. Or his neighbor Sally.
I think you make a mistake to say we are honest and they are not. I have little need to be dishonest. Hell, I smoke pot. Its decriminalised here. I face all of a $100 civil fine for possession. I don't need to lie about it, unless I have more than an oz, and guess what....if I did...I would, and I wouldn't even feel bad about it.
We are not talking about honest in some abstract sense. We are talking about people doing what they feel they need to do in the situation they are in. People who decided that they want something already made their decision. They know what they want and what their reasons are. If you setup a situation where they need to lie to get what they feel they need or want, guess what they are going to do? Its not a matter of honesty as a principle, people are not principled like that. This is true....so don't make them be.
In fact, thats what I advocate.... don't make them be. Accept that they make their decisions, accept those decisions and.... ALLOW THEM TO BE HONEST. Most people will be honest when they feel its safe to do so, they only lie to avoid consequences.... so.... simple solution.... value truth over judgement.
Have you ever done cocaine? If so did you like it? Did it do anything for you?
The thing is, these drugs don't act on people who are being medicated by them quite the same as other people. I tried coke, and I should probably be looking into an ADD diagnosis and adderal script. The thing is, I didn't like coke, it didn't do much for me. It did little more than coffee does to me. I tried it...and then didn't do it again.
Now look at what these drugs do, and some of the models of ADD and this makes sense. Normal people take coke, or speed, and it sends their dopamine/norepinephrine systems soaring high. Ours, according to the model, are already depressed/low functioning so the addition of these drugs doesn't send us soaring so much as bring us up to a more normal level.
I suspect there are some large feedback componenets that fuel many addictions that you don't experience due to the fact that the dose is much lower for you than for others since you are overcoming an initial deficit that recreational users may not be...and you probably don't take extra doses, or particularly higher doses.
Well if it wasn't for the DEA, those customers wouldn't need to pass phoney prescriptions, nor would doctors give out massive ones. In a climate where drug use can be above board and people can be honest, its not clear that any of the real problems with meth, or any other drugs, are actually major issues....and even less evidence that prohibition and regulation to stop drug use does anything positive.
Generally the DEA has created a climate where violent gangs thrive, legitimate patients are often under medicated for pain (do you have any idea how many people will spend the rest of their lives in daily chronic pain for no other reason than their doctor can't give them heroin? or high enough levels of other pain meds?) and desperate people are preyed upon.
The alternative? Some doctors give some drugs to addicts? Oh my god what a horror! Above board drug use? Where it can be monitored and people can seek out help without stigma? Oh no! How terrible!
DO you have any idea how much I don't want to be a Ron Paul Supporter. I mean... the gold standard? Seriously?
Or the whole not using the bathroom of homosexuals thing.... or his statements on abortion but... in the end... hes the only one saying anything sane on drug policy, which is a bigger issue than all of them. He is the only one who says anything sane about wars, and how silly it is that we keep having them.
I so don't want to support that crazy old coot but.... when he is the most sane one out there....
Well thats scary.... but it doesn't make him less right on this issue. The DEA makes no sense. We have ample evidence that amphetamine use is not terribly harmful and its addiction can be managed and even beneficial for many people. Similarly to coffee.
Look at all the problems with meth addiction and...please....show me them before its prohibition. Meth was around for a LONG TIME. Meth addiction in this climate of expensive drugs and addicts being driven underground sucks for the addicts, and sucks for everyone else who has to deal with the results. All problems that didn't exist before prohibition.... when it was mostly regulated by doctors and use was above board.
Congress and their DEA lap dogs made every problem that they touched worst. They made the lives of addicts worst, they made the supply more dangerous, they drove people to do business with violent criminals, and created an atmosphere for violent criminal gangs to thrive. Its THEIR FAULT WE ARE IN THIS MESS!
This research has been fascinating me for a while too. Amazing what they did with such crude techniques... but it isn't hard to imagine how you could setup evolutionary courses to evolve the phages that are needed to combat some nasty bacteria. That said, the problem they tend to have is specificity....they tend to be overly specific to the point of not having general utility even against what we would otherwise call similar infections.
That is a phage that kills your MRSA infection, may not kill mine. However, that may be just a matter of further evolutionary pressures?
Sorry.... inflation.... not deflation. Inflation is good (up to a point).
Actually, I used to really like bitcoin and never thought most of the arguments against it held much water, since they mostly ignore that all the fiction in bitcoin is the same fiction in other currency. All currency is fake, because its all an abstraction. Nothing wrong with that.
However, the more I learned about it and dove into it...the more convinced I came of this simple fact... a currency wants deflation because currency isn't intended to be a savings instrument. People hoard gold. People hoarded bitcoins. Hell, I gave in to that temptation, even as I started to see the reall folly in it.
Inflation serves a purpose though...I am very much with the bitcoiners still in not trusting governments to be the arbiters. Worst though, allowing a few private hands to do it. I don't trust the fed as far as I can afford to pay someone to throw them
I still ove bitcoin for trying. It was a good attempt, just like some of the good attempts before it...I hope there will be more...and the community will keep trying until something wins out.
Anonymous isn't exactly a crack tactical team. More an amorphous general-purpose psy-ops.
Symbolic victory is all they really ever need. As long as public perception remains that they caused a real headache, then it was a win.
As long as they inspire someone to take up the mantle in the future, they win. Its all about hearts and minds. Every time some random person puts on the mask and stands on a street corner, they win.
Wow Webster sure is getting opinionated these days. Guess everybody is fighting for eyeballs now.
Well could be worst.... at least he can't see in Infrared..... how I hate the night....
> Even anarchists will organize a government given sufficient logistics problems to solve.
And only those who couldn't get past a base dictionary definition of anarchism were surprised.
I was thinking about an argument I had with someone a long time ago, what it was about wasn't important but.... answering which version of events was true was only going to be settled by the word of a third party....who was still sleeping. I remember coming to the realisation that only one thing would solve our dispute... I remember waiting for that person to show up with the truth....
I wonder now how maddening it must be. Every time I read of these things I think of that.... weeks here, a month there, predictions already made, arguments carefully laid down. All that is left to do is fire up the collide. How many of those firings are already set.... just waiting on the technicians and engineers to be ready.
Sure, they can keep running over simulations and equations, trying to refine predictions, look for some obvious problem, but, in the end.... its just a matter of waiting for it to wake up, and show up with some new truth.
Should is not relevant. Should it rain on your wedding day? Should the the continents drift and slide against eachother causing massive devestation?
I can't disagree though, I put more of the blame on the editor who allowed it to be posted.
Oh and I also recomend looking at the state unemployment website (from my experience in MA anyway). Here anyway they keep a list of places I think they call "Career Centres". Basically non-profit run centres that offer free classes on resume writting, interviewing and general job hunting. I found them useful when I was last out of work, and recomend them to anyone who is inexperienced at getting professional jobs.
> Immature: He bailed on a job in this economy with only the vaguest of handwaves about "FUD."
Several people have said this... nowhere in the question does it say he bailed on the job, it says he is seeking employment elsewhere.
Generally, there are several reasons not to leave a job before securing the next. Needing to eat is one of them... but... people with jobs are seen as more valuable.
Aside from that, I can't disagree too much with the assesment but... at the same time I think, immature and inexperienced, often translates into young. No need to go hard on the kid, hes asking for advice.,... is that such a crime? A lot of people are not really familiar with the job hunting process, especially for professional jobs.
It can be daunting especially when most jobs are never posted publicly. Word of mouth, friends of friends, drinking buddies....still how jobs tend to be found by many. In fact, some studies have shown that people who drink socially (but are not alcoholics) actually make more money on average than those who don't.
That doesn't always make for the easiest scene to break into...especially if your experience is mostly from hitting newspapers and job sites.
Oh, and there are worst things than talking to a head hunter. I have interviewed with a few. Never actually got a job through one, but, doesn't hurt to get your foot in a new door if you don't know where to find other options.
Actually, he said he would seek employment elsewhere. That doesn't mean just up and quit, that usually means you keep working, and send out resumes, take a few days off to interview. That sort of thing. Normal shit that any professional should be doing from time to time anyway, unless he is at a place that he intends to make a career and stay for the retirement package.
Its the best way to make more money and....if the company is going in a direction that you don't want to go...by all means...why not leave? No job is a lifetime commitment. If the work isn't what he wants to do....FOR ANY REASON... then he absolutely should seek other employment.
Also, forget open source, few, if any, companies are bought into any ideology. Be willing to work with other Unix environments, and there are plenty of jobs to go around, in fact, right now there is a glut of trained technical people and those getting a lot of these jobs are not that competent. So its an excellent time, if you have the chops, or a great time to get them if you don't.
Though, market matters. Out where I am, shit, the past couple of months I have had recruiters calling me again, and friends of mine trying to recruit me off to their companies. The market is definitely picking up in some places. I have heard more activity on that in the past 2-3 months than in the past 2-3 years.
That was my thought exactly. There was a story just the other day about a thief who stole a couple of cell phones from a car. He found child porn on the phones, and turned himself in. The judge gave him 1 month in jail... because he neither wanted to encourage theft nor discourage reporting child porn, and the guy also had stolen a car previously....
In any case...my thought was...good thing he looked! Good for the kids obviously, but, him too. How much of a mess would that have been had he been picked up for his stolen car charge and THEN the police found the CP. Sure, they will know it was a stolen phone but, whether they would believe that the CP was the original owners or his.
I wouldn't take any chances with data like that. I might look over the drive to see if there was anything really problematic (might even let the original owner know if I identified him) but... since I can't trust my ability to find what may be hidden, the only safe move next is to wipe the whole drive.
I can only reply to the statements made. How else is one supposed to take the suggestion that one persons assesment of a lack of value is invalidated by someone else being willing to pay for it? Or, do you read that quote differently?
Um no, what I am saying is control is an illusion. Someone always could have laboriously reproduced some work, the printing press gave the ability to do it easily to very few. Very few can be regulated effectively. Now that power is in the hands of everyone. Its as sensible as asking people politely not to breath.
I think any sort of attempt to retain such control is doomed to utter failure, and thus, a pointless activity. I offer only recommendation that it be abandoned.
Exactly.
File sharing is here, its not going away. Any attempt to make it go away is just stupid when set against the backdrop of the internet and technology. Their BEST HOPE is to keep delaying things long enough to update their business model... which doesn't seem to be what they are trying too hard to do.
We are only going to get more bandwidth, more connected, and more able to share, and more secure in that ability, I expect this to be about as effective as sueing the clouds for bad weather. Or attempting to legislate away a glacier that's floating in an inconvenient place.
> the real problem is, quite simply, not that the work does not have the value being asked for (a view which is contradicted by the fact that some people are
> willing to actually pay for the work), but that the person expressing that sentiment is just being cheap - whether that is because they genuinely cannot
> afford the work or not.
Well value is relative, not absolute. Some people will pay market value for a house in a neighbourhood with a homeowners association. To me, that drops the value to a negative...negative because it would mean having to keep up with HA rules, which would be an ongoing expense. Other people make different assessments. You can't really call mine, or any other assesment wrong, because it is a personal value. To me, thats what they are worth.
Could I buy them and flip them and make money? Maybe...sure... there are ways to get value out of such things. However... thats not what I do, thats not the position I am in, they are not worth that to me. Someone else being willing to do that, does not invalidate my value assessment.
As for videos? The last video I downloaded was litterally just to test freenet as a medium for large file distribution. Last game? One I already originally had a purchased copy of, but the company went out of business and their online license server was gone so I couldn't play it without getting a cracked version. Why? Because I have amazon prime and cable, and a good job that allows me to afford the few things I watch.
Frankly....copyright was a great idea back when copies were hard to make and distribute and when they worked like physical objects. Now, technology has outstripped it and any restrictions are just sillyness and treated as such. A stupid law, by silly people, and not one that I recommend paying any mind to. Then again....I never had much respect for the law for its own sake.
I don't pirate...100% because its more easy for me not to.... just like most people who don't.
Well.... I think we should draw the distinction when it matters, and not when it doesn't. In the end labels are just labels. If application of a specific label does't male sense, or there isn't enough information to apply it, then don't.
However, when the distinction matters, and when there is enough information to make it....thats where I would tend to draw the lines.
Hmmm all true, i can't disagree.... I think in terms of organism though, I would call them a separate organism if the connection is servered. Otherwise, its all just one plant. A single fungus can kill both parts if its connected, a single bacteria. The parts can share nutes or signaling hormones...one plant.
Once its severed, and each part lives or dies of its own accord. then.... separate organisms.
So... all the Navel orange trees, despite being clones, are their own organism. However, a forest of bamboo....all a single plant.