I'm an atheist, so I don't feel a biblical compulsion to protect the planet. However, I'd love if "stewardship" - the idea that we act as caretakers of God's Creation - gained more traction in American Christian circles. And there are some Christians that embrace stewardship and sustainability as part of their Christian duties. (See testimony of Joseph Sheldon, a Christian biologist, to the House Committee on Resources.)
However, stewardship hasn't really caught on in the States. We had one professedly devout Christian - James Watt - as Secretary of the Interior, and he was essentially a fox guarding the henhouse. Take a look at his track record, and some of his quotes, to get an idea of the more traditional Christian conservative view of environmentalism. (Such as: "If the troubles from environmentalists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used.")
if you haven't read McCauley on Copyright, and if you haven't read Eric Flint's analysis of copyright, piracy and e-books as they effect modern authors, do so. You're kidding me about Eric Flint, right? I followed your link to his essay, but only read about three paragraphs of his "analysis" before closing my browser. He starts his essay by explaining the conditions under which cars are sold:
True, occasionally, a customer will walk into a dealership knowing exactly what they want. That happens . . . maybe 1% of the time, at a guess. 5%, tops. He goes on to explain that this percentage isn't based on any research, but it does accurately reflect his own car-buying experiences. But enough guesswork about cars - let's make some guesses about how books are purchased:
I will make a flat statement. At least 90% of all book sales, outside of the narrow market in course-required textbooks, begin with fair use. No conclusions drawn from this sort of lazy guesswork are worth reading. Mr. Flint may be a best-selling author, but his analysis of book-purchasing patterns - gleaned from the way he bought a car one time - aren't worth your time.
If you want to see just how hilariously bad video-game acting can be, check out 'Star Wars: Rebel Assault II' for the original Playstation. It's got live-action video of people that *have* to be the game programmers. If you traveled to every community theater in the United States, you still wouldn't see acting as poor as you'll find in Rebel Assault.
But don't take my word for it. Do a search on youtube - there's a lot of game footage on there. The video intro to "Chapter II" is probably the funniest.
I wanted to mod this comment up - noble sentiment, ably phrased - but I have to register disagreement. It's not hypocritical for a society to guarantee Free Speech while clamping down on child pornography. Child porn isn't off the table simply because it makes the knitting circles squeamish; it's illegal because its production involves the sexual abuse of children. It gets to be a much thornier issue when you talk about animated images, and that sort of thing, but the basic premise is sound.
On the other hand, I don't share parent's concern about keeping the Anarchist's Cookbook out of his kids' hands. That's not the government's responsibility.
Kent Brockman: Professor, would you say it's time for our viewers to panic?
Professor: Yes Kent, I would.
Follow-up question: Given that our neighbors to the north "may be considering" an internet policy, isn't it only a matter of time before we enact the same policy?
The quality of stories on/. has been down for the past few years. Things I hate about/.(No particular order) 1. Goddam CSS design 2. dupes 3. slashadvertisement 4. bad summaries 5. lazy editors
And yet here you are.
At least from my perspective. New Jersey courts are particularly active in holding that our State Constitution offers more protection than the federal constitution. (See State v. Nyhammer, 396 NJ Super 72, for a typically bizarre reading of the Fifth Amendment.*)
In this case, an appellate court had previously held that the New Jersey state constitution grants a broad-based right to "informational privacy." Some state constitutions explicitly grant a right to privacy; NJ doesn't, but the Court reads our constitution as having one anyway. And then the appellate court expanded this judicially-granted right to include "informational privacy." The NJ Supreme Court rejected this expansion, although they said that they might change their minds if technology progresses to the point where IP addresses are more freely available.
All in all, I'm happy they ditched the Appellate Division's interpretation. I liked the idea of informational privacy, but I didn't like it coming through the courts.
*In that case, police officers read Nyhammer his Miranda rights. Nyhammer waived his rights, signed the Miranda card, and confessed to molesting an 11-year old girl. The appellate court held that Nyhammer's fifth amendment rights were violated; although he waived his rights, he didn't know at the time that he was a suspect. Therefore, his waiver wasn't really knowing and voluntary, and the court overturned his conviction. Talk about an expansive reading of a right against self-incrimination.
Huh? Are you saying that the Four Pests Campaign and the Three Gorges dam project didn't actually happen? Or that modern history doesn't support the assertion that the Chinese have an appalling environmental record?
No one - not even the Chinese government - is saying that the Chinese are doing a swell job with the environment. They acknowledge that they're screwing up the planet. They simply argue that they're entitled to walk the same path to economic growth that we did.
I hate to be the curmudgeon that wonders why this made Slashdot, but really: what makes the relationship between the recording industry and a retailer "news for nerds"? Does every story that implicates the greed of the RIAA become newsworthy, even if it has nothing to do with technology? Even if it's four years old?
I feel a bit of a hypocrite talking about road safety after the reputation I got for speeding around all the time, but hey... I've not had an accident for a few years Sort of like a deli boasting about remaining accident-free for 4 days.
for an extremely informative post. Doubly deserving of moderation when contrasted with the misinformation in grandparent's post.
A lot of predatory behavior is learned, not instinctual. That's why your pet tabby will play with a mouse instead of killing and eating it. Chasing after a little furry blob is hard-wired, but a cat needs a mother to teach it to (a) administer a killing blow, rather than just playing with it, and (b) eat it afterwards.
On a very informal test recently in which I just listed ten books I had bought or was considering buying, I found that eight out of ten were available in Kindle format. Including nine books by Barbara Kingsolver, two of which I haven't read yet. I think there might be a few statistical hiccups in there.
What I *could* be easily convinced of is that the NSA has taps on all oceanic fiber... And...frankly, they should be. And the NSA's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want the NSA on that oceanic fiber. You need the NSA on that oceanic fiber.
Good points. I used to read the YRO & politics sections - there are some interesting posts buried in the bitchfest - but the echo-chamber effect has grown to repulsive proportions. Much like the Apple or MS stories, there's no posts in there that I haven't already read a million times. "I'll never buy anything connected with DRM!" Really? I would never have suspected. "Creationists are such idiots, here's the difference between faith and science." Alright, got it already, thanks.
That's why I much prefer the science section. There's barely ever a consensus there - someone's always disagreeing someone else. (Of course, unless the story concerns a new expensive venture. Then you have the flood of "I don't know shit about this, but I think it might be a bad idea and it's definitely a waste of money." But hey, nothing's perfect.)
That said, I don't share parent's pessimism. Slashdot might suck in the future, sure, but where isn't that a possibility? When it sucks, I'll stop coming. Until then I'll keep lurking in the science section.
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -H.L. Mencken
Or:
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. All it accomplishes is (a) to throw a veil of sanctity about ideas that violate every intellectual decency, and (b) to make every theologian a sort of chartered libertine. No doubt it is mainly to blame for the appalling slowness with which really sound notions make their way in the world. The minute a new one is launched, in whatever field, some imbecile of a theologian is certain to fall upon it, seeking to put it down. The most effective way to defend it, of course, would be to fall upon the theologian, for the only really workable defense, in polemics as in war, is a vigorous offensive. But the convention that I have mentioned frowns upon that device as indecent, and so theologians continue their assault upon sense without much resistance, and the enlightenment is unpleasantly delayed. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated since Mencken's day. The above quote was printed in the Baltimore Evening Sun on Dec. 9, 1929. Can you imagine any of today's newspapers even suggesting that a man's religious views don't deserve our respect?
True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it. -Milan Kundera, 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being.'
I should never visit any Slashdot threads touching on animal experimentation, because I am always sickened by what I find. One or two people will post thoughtful comments, debating the intersection of human medical and animal suffering. Unfortunately, these are drowned out by a chorus screaming that living creatures should be viewed only as a means to human ends. There is no thought or analysis put into these posts; they evince only selfishness and a grotesque sense of entitlement.
These posts, and how they are moderated, also reveal a disturbing group psychology. Cruel jokes about the victims, caricatures of opponents (if you hesitate about this sort of thing, you must be a frothing PETA nut) - these sort of distancing techniques have led down some terrible paths. If your reaction to this news goes no further than "lol next they'll say we can't eat carrots", it might be time to re-evaluate a few things.
A slightly smarter and less greedy attorney will tell you up front that all of these points are irrelevent to the case. I suspect this guy is grabbing at straws and this isn't the first offense. As a prosecutor, I see a lot of these cases. And you're right - if I see an appeal from a DWI conviction, I assume the guy has prior convictions. Because the penalties for third offenses in NJ are stiff: you spend 180 days in the county jail, you lose your license for ten years, and you get an ignition interlock. When those sorts of penalties are involved, that's when people start opening their checkbooks and telling their attorneys to file every motion possible.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for these defendants. Every conviction represents countless nights they drove home drunk without getting caught. And while the penalties may be harsh, I don't know how else you get through to a person that continues to drink and drive after his second DWI conviction. However, I can understand why a person facing a ten-year license suspension would fight tooth and nail to win his case. The public transportation system in NJ is terrible; if you can't drive to work, you're going to have a hell of a tough time working for the next decade.
In fact, I remember when I was 5 my dad and I found a wallet in the airport. He opened it to look at the license, closed it, looked at me and said "never take anything from someone's wallet, even if you find it on the ground like this. Always return it or give it to security." A former roommate (whom I'll call Jack for narrative convenience) told me a similar story with a different outcome.
Jack, around ten years old, was leaving a convenience store when he spotted a wallet on the ground. He picked the wallet up and found it contained a driver's license, a credit card, and eighty dollars. Jack wasn't sure what to do, so he took the wallet back home and gave it to his father. Jack's father took the eighty dollars out, gave Jack forty and kept forty for himself, and mailed the wallet to the address listed on the license.
I was particularly appalled by this story because Jack told it to me as an example of how "cool" his dad was. Jack now has two children, whom I'm sure are now learning the same self-centered version of morality that Jack learned from his father.
I think of this story when I see a person cut in line, or yell at a store clerk, or engage in antisocial behavior in front of his child. The fact that you and Jack both remember how your father handled a moral dilemma is troubling when you see the examples being provided for children - in public, no less. I can only imagine the moral guidance these people are providing when they aren't subject to social disapproval.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't have known the submitter's name if I hadn't seen a "+5 insightful" with the man's name in the subject and his university in the body.
There is nothing wrong with power sellers selling their power.
What about Peter Sellers? What is he allowed to do?
I'm an atheist, so I don't feel a biblical compulsion to protect the planet. However, I'd love if "stewardship" - the idea that we act as caretakers of God's Creation - gained more traction in American Christian circles. And there are some Christians that embrace stewardship and sustainability as part of their Christian duties. (See testimony of Joseph Sheldon, a Christian biologist, to the House Committee on Resources.)
However, stewardship hasn't really caught on in the States. We had one professedly devout Christian - James Watt - as Secretary of the Interior, and he was essentially a fox guarding the henhouse. Take a look at his track record, and some of his quotes, to get an idea of the more traditional Christian conservative view of environmentalism. (Such as: "If the troubles from environmentalists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used.")
If you want to see just how hilariously bad video-game acting can be, check out 'Star Wars: Rebel Assault II' for the original Playstation. It's got live-action video of people that *have* to be the game programmers. If you traveled to every community theater in the United States, you still wouldn't see acting as poor as you'll find in Rebel Assault.
But don't take my word for it. Do a search on youtube - there's a lot of game footage on there. The video intro to "Chapter II" is probably the funniest.
I wanted to mod this comment up - noble sentiment, ably phrased - but I have to register disagreement. It's not hypocritical for a society to guarantee Free Speech while clamping down on child pornography. Child porn isn't off the table simply because it makes the knitting circles squeamish; it's illegal because its production involves the sexual abuse of children. It gets to be a much thornier issue when you talk about animated images, and that sort of thing, but the basic premise is sound.
On the other hand, I don't share parent's concern about keeping the Anarchist's Cookbook out of his kids' hands. That's not the government's responsibility.
Kent Brockman: Professor, would you say it's time for our viewers to panic?
Professor: Yes Kent, I would.
Follow-up question: Given that our neighbors to the north "may be considering" an internet policy, isn't it only a matter of time before we enact the same policy?
Ye-OUCH. Someone get this man to the burn unit!
At least from my perspective. New Jersey courts are particularly active in holding that our State Constitution offers more protection than the federal constitution. (See State v. Nyhammer, 396 NJ Super 72, for a typically bizarre reading of the Fifth Amendment.*)
In this case, an appellate court had previously held that the New Jersey state constitution grants a broad-based right to "informational privacy." Some state constitutions explicitly grant a right to privacy; NJ doesn't, but the Court reads our constitution as having one anyway. And then the appellate court expanded this judicially-granted right to include "informational privacy." The NJ Supreme Court rejected this expansion, although they said that they might change their minds if technology progresses to the point where IP addresses are more freely available.
All in all, I'm happy they ditched the Appellate Division's interpretation. I liked the idea of informational privacy, but I didn't like it coming through the courts.
*In that case, police officers read Nyhammer his Miranda rights. Nyhammer waived his rights, signed the Miranda card, and confessed to molesting an 11-year old girl. The appellate court held that Nyhammer's fifth amendment rights were violated; although he waived his rights, he didn't know at the time that he was a suspect. Therefore, his waiver wasn't really knowing and voluntary, and the court overturned his conviction. Talk about an expansive reading of a right against self-incrimination.
Huh? Are you saying that the Four Pests Campaign and the Three Gorges dam project didn't actually happen? Or that modern history doesn't support the assertion that the Chinese have an appalling environmental record?
No one - not even the Chinese government - is saying that the Chinese are doing a swell job with the environment. They acknowledge that they're screwing up the planet. They simply argue that they're entitled to walk the same path to economic growth that we did.
"You are hungry."
eat bread
"You are thirsty."
drink (ye) flask
"character with girl-name queries, 'Anyone want to help a elf gain some levels?'
answer a/s/l?
I hate to be the curmudgeon that wonders why this made Slashdot, but really: what makes the relationship between the recording industry and a retailer "news for nerds"? Does every story that implicates the greed of the RIAA become newsworthy, even if it has nothing to do with technology? Even if it's four years old?
Sincerely,
That Guy
for an extremely informative post. Doubly deserving of moderation when contrasted with the misinformation in grandparent's post.
A lot of predatory behavior is learned, not instinctual. That's why your pet tabby will play with a mouse instead of killing and eating it. Chasing after a little furry blob is hard-wired, but a cat needs a mother to teach it to (a) administer a killing blow, rather than just playing with it, and (b) eat it afterwards.
Good points. I used to read the YRO & politics sections - there are some interesting posts buried in the bitchfest - but the echo-chamber effect has grown to repulsive proportions. Much like the Apple or MS stories, there's no posts in there that I haven't already read a million times. "I'll never buy anything connected with DRM!" Really? I would never have suspected. "Creationists are such idiots, here's the difference between faith and science." Alright, got it already, thanks.
That's why I much prefer the science section. There's barely ever a consensus there - someone's always disagreeing someone else. (Of course, unless the story concerns a new expensive venture. Then you have the flood of "I don't know shit about this, but I think it might be a bad idea and it's definitely a waste of money." But hey, nothing's perfect.)
That said, I don't share parent's pessimism. Slashdot might suck in the future, sure, but where isn't that a possibility? When it sucks, I'll stop coming. Until then I'll keep lurking in the science section.
I wouldn't place too much stock in a study that surveys six people to find the "six most common reasons for playing a female."
Bro, don't eviscerate me!
Or: The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. All it accomplishes is (a) to throw a veil of sanctity about ideas that violate every intellectual decency, and (b) to make every theologian a sort of chartered libertine. No doubt it is mainly to blame for the appalling slowness with which really sound notions make their way in the world. The minute a new one is launched, in whatever field, some imbecile of a theologian is certain to fall upon it, seeking to put it down. The most effective way to defend it, of course, would be to fall upon the theologian, for the only really workable defense, in polemics as in war, is a vigorous offensive. But the convention that I have mentioned frowns upon that device as indecent, and so theologians continue their assault upon sense without much resistance, and the enlightenment is unpleasantly delayed. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated since Mencken's day. The above quote was printed in the Baltimore Evening Sun on Dec. 9, 1929. Can you imagine any of today's newspapers even suggesting that a man's religious views don't deserve our respect?
I should never visit any Slashdot threads touching on animal experimentation, because I am always sickened by what I find. One or two people will post thoughtful comments, debating the intersection of human medical and animal suffering. Unfortunately, these are drowned out by a chorus screaming that living creatures should be viewed only as a means to human ends. There is no thought or analysis put into these posts; they evince only selfishness and a grotesque sense of entitlement.
These posts, and how they are moderated, also reveal a disturbing group psychology. Cruel jokes about the victims, caricatures of opponents (if you hesitate about this sort of thing, you must be a frothing PETA nut) - these sort of distancing techniques have led down some terrible paths. If your reaction to this news goes no further than "lol next they'll say we can't eat carrots", it might be time to re-evaluate a few things.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for these defendants. Every conviction represents countless nights they drove home drunk without getting caught. And while the penalties may be harsh, I don't know how else you get through to a person that continues to drink and drive after his second DWI conviction. However, I can understand why a person facing a ten-year license suspension would fight tooth and nail to win his case. The public transportation system in NJ is terrible; if you can't drive to work, you're going to have a hell of a tough time working for the next decade.
Jack, around ten years old, was leaving a convenience store when he spotted a wallet on the ground. He picked the wallet up and found it contained a driver's license, a credit card, and eighty dollars. Jack wasn't sure what to do, so he took the wallet back home and gave it to his father. Jack's father took the eighty dollars out, gave Jack forty and kept forty for himself, and mailed the wallet to the address listed on the license.
I was particularly appalled by this story because Jack told it to me as an example of how "cool" his dad was. Jack now has two children, whom I'm sure are now learning the same self-centered version of morality that Jack learned from his father.
I think of this story when I see a person cut in line, or yell at a store clerk, or engage in antisocial behavior in front of his child. The fact that you and Jack both remember how your father handled a moral dilemma is troubling when you see the examples being provided for children - in public, no less. I can only imagine the moral guidance these people are providing when they aren't subject to social disapproval.