Really, who cares about what 18 - 25 year olds from Houston think? If it doesn't roll on dubs or get dropped when it's hot, most of them will not find it interesting enough to pay attention to. We don't need them anyway, get the smokers to pay for it - they already pay for roads, why not space flight as well?
"A weapon is a tool that is intended or is used to injure, kill, or incapacitate, to damage or destroy, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable." (Thanks Wikipedia.org) To say that a weapon is not a tool is incorrect. We (humans) have been turning the guns on our own kind for as long as they have existed - this is nothing new and changes nothing. Were we to exist in a world where guns did not, I can say with absolute certainty that we would persist in killing each other as indiscriminately as we do now. Guns did not invent self-defense, offence, violence or murder; Guns simply provide us with additional options should we find ourselves participating in such activities. Please understand that none of the anti-gun people would be happy for more than about 15 seconds were guns to be eliminated from the planet because some stupid, panicky human would kill a whole bunch of people with a coke bottle and then we would be arguing about how coke bottles went from being simple tools to weapons. A gun is a tool, nothing more. If we attempt to make tools illegal - no matter what they are, it's like casting a vote for returning to pre-stone-age times - personally, I'm all for that, because I'd love to be fighting probable liberal opinion of the wheel as a weapon to be made illegal. Where does it stop? It doesn't. Fix the humans by removing the things we love so dearly to fight about; Organized Religion, Property of any kind and anything that could make one person jealous or angry with another - and that'd put us right back in the stone age or worse. Basically, weapons are not evil, they are tools and it is the way in which we use these tools which is good or evil, the tool itself cannot be either, reinforcing my point: "Humans are Evil...Let's make them illegal." I think we got a bit off-topic here. I think it is good that the guy was able to get a refund on the copy of Windows he did not intend to use. I'm sick of copyrights being shoved down our throats; making us pay for everything - twice if they can get away with it. Who's looking out for the consumer that has gotten stuck paying for the rights to use the same darn thing over and over again whether or not they ever asked for or intended to use whatever it is.
Wowsers. Your Fact: "Guns are Evil", Reason: People can and have been killed by both the proper and improper use of this tool (Not all guns have killed people, but many have). Conclusion: Lets make guns illegal. My Fact: People are Evil (Not all of them, just some of them - some people have even killed other people). Conclusion: Lets make people illegal. Heck, while we're at it, people have been killed by everything from water to sunlight - lets make it all illegal and we can all bury ourselves in Berkley, California and be so happy nobody could ever make us feel "frowny" ever again.
How about the Catholics fighting the Protestants? Nah...that'd never happen.
Just some info for those who may be interested; I thought I'd put up some numbers for all those who think the "Iraq War" is the bloodiest war in history. These are only numbers from all American wars. if I missed one, (and I doubt it) I'm sorry.
Revolutionary War; Total Deaths: 4,435, Wounded: 6,188
War of 1812; Total Deaths: 2,260, Wounded: 4,505
Mexican War; Total Deaths: 13,283, Wounded: 4,152
Civil War; Total Deaths: 364,511, Wounded: 281,881
Spanish American; Total Deaths: 2,446, Wounded: 1,662
World War I; Total Deaths: 116,316, Wounded: 204,002
World War II; Total Deaths: 405,399, Wounded: 670,846
Korean War; Total Deaths: 36,995, Wounded: 103,284
Vietnam War; Total Deaths: 58,151, Wounded: 153,303
Desert Storm; Total Deaths: 382, Wounded: 467
Enduring Freedom; Total Deaths: 292, Wounded: 743
Iraqi Freedom; Total Deaths: 2,465, Wounded: 18,184
As humans, our primary free-time activity is tribal warfare.
Super. OLPC is non-profit - what a statement. You think the people working there work for free? How much do the executives get paid? OLPC avoids paying taxes by claiming that they've made no profit, but I guarantee you, someone is making money off of this and even though it has failed thus far...someone will continue to make money off of this. See how long it takes before the government earmarks 30 Million bones to get the project back on track. Intentions may be honorable (so say so many people), but it's always about money. If we're going to pretend to care about people - lets pretend to care about Americans first.
This project was designed to make somebody rich - supplying laptops to underprivileged children is just the excuse to make you all feel "good" about making someone rich. Think about it: What good is a laptop going to do a child if they 1) don't have access to software, 2) don't have access to electricity to charge it (Crank was removed from final model), 3) don't have access to tech support (Unless they are underprivileged children in India - then they just take it home to Mom and Dad), 4) don't have anything worth accessing with the equipment (The cost of internet access in most 3rd world countries is prohibitive and is a luxury afforded only by the wealthy). So, what's the point? A laptop does not make someone more intelligent, nor does it provide them with opportunities where none existed before. Heck, if this project succeeded, I'd start the "A bike for every fish" foundation - see if I could make a little scratch for me.
I basically agree with what you've written - I'm only speaking to the question you've posed: "...what are these 'damages' for exactly?" For you and I and, I imagine the majority of the at least somewhat savvy internet users, spam is a non-issue. I receive approximately 90 spam messages per month and I just don't care - I take a second to add it to the blocked addresses list and I move on with my life. My family, however, and many of my friends are not so savvy and I have seen people I care about getting sucked into Pyramid schemes, Chain Letters and even having their computers compromised due to foolishly downloading some stupid attachment simply because they thought it might be coming from someone they know. I remember when I got my first computer a few years back, every email I received about a special offer or a secret opportunity - I believed and got a bit messed up. As I have learned and seen, spamming can facilitate theft-by-deception, fraud and maybe other things I'm not thinking of at the moment. This is not to say that all spammers should be punished equally - let the punishment fit the crime: Some schmuck trying to sell Viagra or bolster a stock price should be punished according to the laws they have violated or are attempting to violate, with the a factor of the crime committed being spam, spam not being the crime itself. I think it's more important to base the punishment on the intended outcome of the spamming - not the spam itself; I know this can't always work because if I sent you spam urging you to shoot your neighbor, how would fault be assigned - obviously, the jerk who did the shooting is at fault and blaming it on someone else is very lame. If people were to get put in jail for years simply for being annoying; I could find myself in real trouble.
A posthuman or post-human is a hypothetical future being whose capabilities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer human by current standards (Anyone who would claim to be one would be stupid - not simply arrogant). It is a common error for social commentators to say that transhumanists claim to be transhuman; Adopting a philosophy which says that someday everyone ought to have the opportunity to become transhuman is not to claim that one is currently better or "more evolved" than one's fellow humans. Human = well...everyone. Transhuman = Human+Enhancements. Posthuman = Not Human Anymore - totally different, but has decended from humans. No disrespect - but I wrote exactly what I meant to wright. The political commentary doesn't really fit, but I know where you're coming from. Bush is kind of a weenie and he's a bit embrassing (I voted for him because McCain dropped out). But I can't regret my decision - Kerry and Gore are embrassments to the human race while Libertarians and Populists seem to be completely cracked in the head though all sides may spout something generally similar to a rational though from time to time. Money is what its all about. I don't have any, but I'm trying to change that daily.
You have shown me the light. I now realize that I have been so immoral and selfish to resist my urge to sleep with (and produce a child with) every beautiful woman I could possibly convince to get into the sack with me. How many children have I murdered simply by not making sweet, passionate love to all the potential mommies out there who could have been coerced into a lapse of judgment sufficient for me to get a little procreation on? Woe is me, I shall strive to change my ways...hey baby, what's your name? Mind if I holla?
Transhumanist is simply someone who advocates transhumanism.
Transhumanism; an intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human capacities and improve the human condition.
Transhuman would be a human more evolved than other humans.
(Thanks to Wikipedia.org)
I don't find Trahshumanism to be arrogant in any way. Someone claiming to be a Transhuman, however, would have to be one arrogant prick.
You know, I realize that I have allowed my passion and my personal opinions to cloud my judgment from time to time - and in this instance as well. It can be very difficult to separate passion from understanding; if one makes a statement based on faith and another counters that statement citing that faith is irrelevant and they are able to keep their statement free from passion - that would be dandy. It's hard to do. However, the simple fact that someone does not share another's faith and felt it necessary to voice that difference does not qualify them as one of the faithful. The difficulty I have with this whole situation has been pointed out beautifully by you without actually saying it; we have freedom OF religion - what we need is freedom FROM religion. That's my opinion and I believe it to be wholly correct and accurate. As an opinion, it does qualify as a belief, and therefore a statement of faith. I have every faith that were humanity truly free from religion the world would be a better place - everyone could believe in their gods, squirrels or trees as they see fit and we could be truly happy. How does one make that statement without being passionate? The passions of the religious majority influence everything. If one does not agree they have the choice to just sit and take it, get over it or do something about it. In my own small way, I was approaching my argument as if I was actually doing something about it and I know that I was not. However, my friend, if you read your own posts, you should realize you are guilty of the same - you wish to point out the flaws of others without accepting any responsibility yourself. I wouldn't know what to do if I truly needed to do something about it and therefore I'm just going to sit and take it until I'm able to get over it or have become wise enough to do something about it. My opinions also include that people should do whatever makes them happy so long as that pursuit of happiness does not impede the happiness of others. That makes it too sticky.
I am sure they are kidding, but it doesn't really matter. Your statement has sparked a need within my very core to respond. I'm not directing this at you "Anonymous Coward", rather, at anyone reading these posts. "the philosophy behind the war on terror" is not "Kill people in other countries to "prevent" Americans being killed". The philosophy behind the "war on terror" would be more accurately summarized as forcing our politics (political system) into places where we have been unable to enforce "our" religion.
This whole argument clearly boils down to religion. However, those religious types who believe that "god" put plants and animals on the planet so that we could eat them should really try to understand the big picture: We're all animals, and all plants are alive as well. The bacteria and parasitic organisms which depend on humans to survive, and subsequently cause a myriad of health problems, are alive and reproduce as well - your own immune system is fighting to keep them in check daily. By the time you've come home from work or school at the end of a hard day, how many lives have been cut short simply as a result of your own selfish need for survival. If "god" created those life forms for you to consume and/or live with you in harmony as you feel fit to freely define, how do you know he didn't create embryos for you to experiment with? You don't, and the reason you don't know is because "god" hasn't told you anything at all...ever - and never will. If you're speaking with "god" on a regular basis, ask him/her/it that for me, then get yourself checked out because the voices in your head have obviously driven you completely mad.
The meaning of life is to live. The meaning of death can be surmised by contributions made by that life form whether during its life or as a result of its death. If the embryo, which eventually developed into my extremely attractive body, could have led to a cure for cancer 30 years ago - I'd have signed the dotted line were I to have had the mental faculty and opposable thumbs to do so. I don't wish to die or to have never existed, but if that had been the case - I wouldn't know about it right now, would I?
Go to a 3rd-world country and eat at a McDonalds and then tell me about how "sacred" life is. The only thing sacred in this world is money and there will be no major advances coming out of stem cell research because there is more profit to be made from the sick and dying than from the healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, who cares about what 18 - 25 year olds from Houston think? If it doesn't roll on dubs or get dropped when it's hot, most of them will not find it interesting enough to pay attention to. We don't need them anyway, get the smokers to pay for it - they already pay for roads, why not space flight as well?
That's what happens when the people who write the laws don't understand the technology the new law governs. #1
"A weapon is a tool that is intended or is used to injure, kill, or incapacitate, to damage or destroy, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable." (Thanks Wikipedia.org) To say that a weapon is not a tool is incorrect. We (humans) have been turning the guns on our own kind for as long as they have existed - this is nothing new and changes nothing. Were we to exist in a world where guns did not, I can say with absolute certainty that we would persist in killing each other as indiscriminately as we do now. Guns did not invent self-defense, offence, violence or murder; Guns simply provide us with additional options should we find ourselves participating in such activities. Please understand that none of the anti-gun people would be happy for more than about 15 seconds were guns to be eliminated from the planet because some stupid, panicky human would kill a whole bunch of people with a coke bottle and then we would be arguing about how coke bottles went from being simple tools to weapons. A gun is a tool, nothing more. If we attempt to make tools illegal - no matter what they are, it's like casting a vote for returning to pre-stone-age times - personally, I'm all for that, because I'd love to be fighting probable liberal opinion of the wheel as a weapon to be made illegal. Where does it stop? It doesn't. Fix the humans by removing the things we love so dearly to fight about; Organized Religion, Property of any kind and anything that could make one person jealous or angry with another - and that'd put us right back in the stone age or worse. Basically, weapons are not evil, they are tools and it is the way in which we use these tools which is good or evil, the tool itself cannot be either, reinforcing my point: "Humans are Evil...Let's make them illegal." I think we got a bit off-topic here. I think it is good that the guy was able to get a refund on the copy of Windows he did not intend to use. I'm sick of copyrights being shoved down our throats; making us pay for everything - twice if they can get away with it. Who's looking out for the consumer that has gotten stuck paying for the rights to use the same darn thing over and over again whether or not they ever asked for or intended to use whatever it is.
Wowsers. Your Fact: "Guns are Evil", Reason: People can and have been killed by both the proper and improper use of this tool (Not all guns have killed people, but many have). Conclusion: Lets make guns illegal. My Fact: People are Evil (Not all of them, just some of them - some people have even killed other people). Conclusion: Lets make people illegal. Heck, while we're at it, people have been killed by everything from water to sunlight - lets make it all illegal and we can all bury ourselves in Berkley, California and be so happy nobody could ever make us feel "frowny" ever again.
How about the Catholics fighting the Protestants? Nah...that'd never happen. Just some info for those who may be interested; I thought I'd put up some numbers for all those who think the "Iraq War" is the bloodiest war in history. These are only numbers from all American wars. if I missed one, (and I doubt it) I'm sorry. Revolutionary War; Total Deaths: 4,435, Wounded: 6,188 War of 1812; Total Deaths: 2,260, Wounded: 4,505 Mexican War; Total Deaths: 13,283, Wounded: 4,152 Civil War; Total Deaths: 364,511, Wounded: 281,881 Spanish American; Total Deaths: 2,446, Wounded: 1,662 World War I; Total Deaths: 116,316, Wounded: 204,002 World War II; Total Deaths: 405,399, Wounded: 670,846 Korean War; Total Deaths: 36,995, Wounded: 103,284 Vietnam War; Total Deaths: 58,151, Wounded: 153,303 Desert Storm; Total Deaths: 382, Wounded: 467 Enduring Freedom; Total Deaths: 292, Wounded: 743 Iraqi Freedom; Total Deaths: 2,465, Wounded: 18,184 As humans, our primary free-time activity is tribal warfare.
Hmmmm. CMP Media is driving this thing...or O'Riley Media? I'm so confused.
Super. OLPC is non-profit - what a statement. You think the people working there work for free? How much do the executives get paid? OLPC avoids paying taxes by claiming that they've made no profit, but I guarantee you, someone is making money off of this and even though it has failed thus far...someone will continue to make money off of this. See how long it takes before the government earmarks 30 Million bones to get the project back on track. Intentions may be honorable (so say so many people), but it's always about money. If we're going to pretend to care about people - lets pretend to care about Americans first.
This project was designed to make somebody rich - supplying laptops to underprivileged children is just the excuse to make you all feel "good" about making someone rich. Think about it: What good is a laptop going to do a child if they 1) don't have access to software, 2) don't have access to electricity to charge it (Crank was removed from final model), 3) don't have access to tech support (Unless they are underprivileged children in India - then they just take it home to Mom and Dad), 4) don't have anything worth accessing with the equipment (The cost of internet access in most 3rd world countries is prohibitive and is a luxury afforded only by the wealthy). So, what's the point? A laptop does not make someone more intelligent, nor does it provide them with opportunities where none existed before. Heck, if this project succeeded, I'd start the "A bike for every fish" foundation - see if I could make a little scratch for me.
I basically agree with what you've written - I'm only speaking to the question you've posed: "...what are these 'damages' for exactly?" For you and I and, I imagine the majority of the at least somewhat savvy internet users, spam is a non-issue. I receive approximately 90 spam messages per month and I just don't care - I take a second to add it to the blocked addresses list and I move on with my life. My family, however, and many of my friends are not so savvy and I have seen people I care about getting sucked into Pyramid schemes, Chain Letters and even having their computers compromised due to foolishly downloading some stupid attachment simply because they thought it might be coming from someone they know. I remember when I got my first computer a few years back, every email I received about a special offer or a secret opportunity - I believed and got a bit messed up. As I have learned and seen, spamming can facilitate theft-by-deception, fraud and maybe other things I'm not thinking of at the moment. This is not to say that all spammers should be punished equally - let the punishment fit the crime: Some schmuck trying to sell Viagra or bolster a stock price should be punished according to the laws they have violated or are attempting to violate, with the a factor of the crime committed being spam, spam not being the crime itself. I think it's more important to base the punishment on the intended outcome of the spamming - not the spam itself; I know this can't always work because if I sent you spam urging you to shoot your neighbor, how would fault be assigned - obviously, the jerk who did the shooting is at fault and blaming it on someone else is very lame. If people were to get put in jail for years simply for being annoying; I could find myself in real trouble.
A posthuman or post-human is a hypothetical future being whose capabilities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer human by current standards (Anyone who would claim to be one would be stupid - not simply arrogant). It is a common error for social commentators to say that transhumanists claim to be transhuman; Adopting a philosophy which says that someday everyone ought to have the opportunity to become transhuman is not to claim that one is currently better or "more evolved" than one's fellow humans. Human = well...everyone. Transhuman = Human+Enhancements. Posthuman = Not Human Anymore - totally different, but has decended from humans. No disrespect - but I wrote exactly what I meant to wright. The political commentary doesn't really fit, but I know where you're coming from. Bush is kind of a weenie and he's a bit embrassing (I voted for him because McCain dropped out). But I can't regret my decision - Kerry and Gore are embrassments to the human race while Libertarians and Populists seem to be completely cracked in the head though all sides may spout something generally similar to a rational though from time to time. Money is what its all about. I don't have any, but I'm trying to change that daily.
You have shown me the light. I now realize that I have been so immoral and selfish to resist my urge to sleep with (and produce a child with) every beautiful woman I could possibly convince to get into the sack with me. How many children have I murdered simply by not making sweet, passionate love to all the potential mommies out there who could have been coerced into a lapse of judgment sufficient for me to get a little procreation on? Woe is me, I shall strive to change my ways...hey baby, what's your name? Mind if I holla?
Transhumanist is simply someone who advocates transhumanism. Transhumanism; an intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human capacities and improve the human condition. Transhuman would be a human more evolved than other humans. (Thanks to Wikipedia.org) I don't find Trahshumanism to be arrogant in any way. Someone claiming to be a Transhuman, however, would have to be one arrogant prick.
You know, I realize that I have allowed my passion and my personal opinions to cloud my judgment from time to time - and in this instance as well. It can be very difficult to separate passion from understanding; if one makes a statement based on faith and another counters that statement citing that faith is irrelevant and they are able to keep their statement free from passion - that would be dandy. It's hard to do. However, the simple fact that someone does not share another's faith and felt it necessary to voice that difference does not qualify them as one of the faithful. The difficulty I have with this whole situation has been pointed out beautifully by you without actually saying it; we have freedom OF religion - what we need is freedom FROM religion. That's my opinion and I believe it to be wholly correct and accurate. As an opinion, it does qualify as a belief, and therefore a statement of faith. I have every faith that were humanity truly free from religion the world would be a better place - everyone could believe in their gods, squirrels or trees as they see fit and we could be truly happy. How does one make that statement without being passionate? The passions of the religious majority influence everything. If one does not agree they have the choice to just sit and take it, get over it or do something about it. In my own small way, I was approaching my argument as if I was actually doing something about it and I know that I was not. However, my friend, if you read your own posts, you should realize you are guilty of the same - you wish to point out the flaws of others without accepting any responsibility yourself. I wouldn't know what to do if I truly needed to do something about it and therefore I'm just going to sit and take it until I'm able to get over it or have become wise enough to do something about it. My opinions also include that people should do whatever makes them happy so long as that pursuit of happiness does not impede the happiness of others. That makes it too sticky.
I am sure they are kidding, but it doesn't really matter. Your statement has sparked a need within my very core to respond. I'm not directing this at you "Anonymous Coward", rather, at anyone reading these posts. "the philosophy behind the war on terror" is not "Kill people in other countries to "prevent" Americans being killed". The philosophy behind the "war on terror" would be more accurately summarized as forcing our politics (political system) into places where we have been unable to enforce "our" religion.
This whole argument clearly boils down to religion. However, those religious types who believe that "god" put plants and animals on the planet so that we could eat them should really try to understand the big picture: We're all animals, and all plants are alive as well. The bacteria and parasitic organisms which depend on humans to survive, and subsequently cause a myriad of health problems, are alive and reproduce as well - your own immune system is fighting to keep them in check daily. By the time you've come home from work or school at the end of a hard day, how many lives have been cut short simply as a result of your own selfish need for survival. If "god" created those life forms for you to consume and/or live with you in harmony as you feel fit to freely define, how do you know he didn't create embryos for you to experiment with? You don't, and the reason you don't know is because "god" hasn't told you anything at all...ever - and never will. If you're speaking with "god" on a regular basis, ask him/her/it that for me, then get yourself checked out because the voices in your head have obviously driven you completely mad.
The meaning of life is to live. The meaning of death can be surmised by contributions made by that life form whether during its life or as a result of its death. If the embryo, which eventually developed into my extremely attractive body, could have led to a cure for cancer 30 years ago - I'd have signed the dotted line were I to have had the mental faculty and opposable thumbs to do so. I don't wish to die or to have never existed, but if that had been the case - I wouldn't know about it right now, would I?
Go to a 3rd-world country and eat at a McDonalds and then tell me about how "sacred" life is. The only thing sacred in this world is money and there will be no major advances coming out of stem cell research because there is more profit to be made from the sick and dying than from the healthy.