Unseelie

My youngest brother is eight. Far from being the offspring of ubermenshen, he suffers from a slew of learning disabilities inflicted on his brain by drug use during pregnancy.

My brother doesn't type fast, he doesn't know how to code python. He does immensely enjoy minecraft, and he does use google. Honestly, for him, the ability to find something using google, going through the immensely difficult task of correctly typing a search term and then parsing the search result is a massive achievement.

All that said, to suggest that he shouldn't be allowed his gmail account, given the immense amount of effort it took for him to learn to use it, is not something I'm willing to stomach.

Its part of the internet, and he is well and truly a member of the internet generation. Its something he should have every right to grow up immersed in.

That the internet is made of advertising is no reason to deny our children access.

I do not understand your point. Yes, there's fucked up situations in every economic status, but if we follow your argument to its roots, that each level of economic welfare has the same level of utility to its members, you're arguing that healthcare, decent food, and basic shelter are without value.

You've said your parents are perfectly fine, and ergo, no-one else is worse off.

This is a brilliant example, but even after reading the article, I feel like it needs a stronger connection to the problems of poverty.

So, anyway, Guys, the situation where you're in a room where people are screaming is poverty, but its only one moment of poverty. In poverty, you go into that room over and over and over again. You can't afford to keep your whole reality quiet, but you can buy a moment or two of peace, by paying more money than you can rightly afford to spend, if you've a longterm goal to support. You may go into debt for a TV to relieve the oppresive boredome, or spend change you shooldn't on a sweet, to eat something nice.

Those breif respites are massively appealing, even though they don't last, and very possibly set you back, because remember, you're living in a situation where everyone is always screaming. A moment's peace is worth not making it out.

No, sudden unforeseen and expensive illnesses aren't that common. Sudden costs are. Costs don't even need to be unforseen, they just have to be more than you can deal with on a timescale.

You have entirely and completely missed the point. The point is that they are buying things that make their lives better. They aren't buying things that make themselves healthier, no, but they're buying things that make their lives bearable, and you're making the assumption that that's an 'unwise' choice. Their preferences aren't in the line of work hard for nine months, they're on doing well enough to have a bearable life.

And, anyhow, your story is about a single, healthy man, with a very clearly defined plan and an escape valve, not a bunch of trapped mothers trying to raise children.

I am fairly sure that that's not a cure for AIDS.

AIDS being a contagious disease, if you don't wipe it out, you haven't cured it, it isn't a disability in one person, but a plague on the population.

Sad life if your entire world consists of bare survival.

Certianly worth revolt, of course, if your first life is a horror.

But to then argue that anything other than that life is not worth struggle is a blatant denial of value of anything above bare survival.

Does it really count as alliteration with only two words?

In all fairness, even if someone is your boss, they are a piece of meat. Cause we're made of meat. Unless there's something you want to be telling us..

While the transformation was minor, the visual change was quite drastic, and moreover is an incredibly apt description of the album he created.

IANAL, but for real, it looks a great deal like fair use to me.

I kinda take issue with any law that allows collection of evidence without a Warrant. If you're looking for evidence, you had better have enough cause to get a warrant from a judge. Else, that's witch-hunting.

I'll do it from home. Don't even have to provide an office!

Course, what's it cost to buy someone in india an office and pay a wage?

Would you trust someone at minimum wage to do it?

At the same time, FB makes lots of money per capita. They could hire a few grunt banhammer moderators.

Oh my god, half of my pictures aren't me at all...they're all just photos of things I make..

I'm fairly certain that Google wasn't the first firm to think about, or employ, automation. They may have taken it to an extreme, but even so, its also ridiculous to call what is a facebook problem Google's fault. Google may have set an example, but the FB execs decided they'd not have any customer support.

Anyway, you're mixing up first agents. Google didn't put a gun to FB's head, as the old adage goes.

I'm not convinced that's a default state of people. We may train ourselves to be that way, and we may have some level of inclination to such..

I'm wondering if we might not be better off if fairly frequently we do get exposed to the best arguments against $MY_IDEOLOGY, and not get trained into the idea that $MY_IDEOLOGY is the one true correct ideology.

Beyond such, being dropped into a bunch of other bubbles will probably force you to come up with stronger arguments for your ideology, which is, all in all, growth and arguably a good thing.

Plastic printers...

they're still pretty expensive, but arguing you're in a fairly high rent neighborhood with basic security systems (no keypad requirements, but alarms blare if you force a lock or break a window...Is that even a system on the market?) Anyhow, if you've a van, that's a good five thousand dollars at least. Grab a printer, say another 10k...I dunno how many robberies you need to pay that off, but assuming you intend to make a go of this life of crime, being a guy with the key helps a lot.

Maybe there's a hugely male, and young populance here, but I'd like to point out that theft isn't always the intent of home invaders, and that in a lot of cases, the really scary people want to get in without alerting you to it.

This is information I'd want my sister to be aware of, as I can easily see how I'd use it to hypothetically abuse someone.

I'd much rather it be what it is..But that's a case of its incentives.

Banks don't necessarily have the incentives of being any more user friendly than fits the needs to attract and keep customers, and they can use, to some degree, lockin and acquisitions to do that job. Bank Simple, on the other hand, doesn't make money from anything but attracting savings and checking customers, which is the service i want from it, and as that's its only profit stream, its likely to work pretty hard to keep us happy...by doing the work of securing the best banks to work with, rather than leaving that work to me.

I'm going to take issue with both of those comparisons. Standard Oil was only a dictating force in the economy for a short while, after it took over every other oil distribution company. Oil is a dictating force, the company was simply an outgrowth of scarcity rent.

Ma-Bell was in fact, not the only way to communicate. That's like saying Phones were the only way people got in touch. Its simply and patently wrong. as far as industries that did Ma-Bell's job, you've the post, television, and radio.

I don't see an Internet wide login and identity service as related to the entertainment industry any more it is to many others. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that facebook's business, while it facilitates entertainers, is not actually engaged in entertainment. To argue that its different from Ma-Bell in its basic feature, connecting people, I feel is a complete misunderstanding of the service.

Of course, my sister uses her telephone connection for entertainment as well..

Ma-Bell breakup? Standard Oil breakup?

I fail to see how things like that never ever happen. It doesn't happen in quite the same way, but the fact is, anti-trust isn't antithesis to the American ideals. Allowing one company a position where it can toss abuses both upstream and downstream of its supply chains doesn't mesh at all with a market interested system.

I'm interested in the tolerances on that 10 micron distance...if you could build an approximation that works most of the time with much less precision, then you might be able to make sale-able objects that do such...

No, you missed the point. A, or B, or C,

If you posit that B or C are always true, you don't need A You only ever need one of the three.

Rather than instituting term limits, we could try what the founders set up, and arrange for senators to be representatives of state legislatures, not state populations. Same problem exists, but I'd imagine its harder to buy the backing of a few hundred politicians than one.

What I've been trying to express is not that this law in particular is nessisarily wrong, but that laws have no value beyond their place as instruments of our societal will.

There's a much deeper debate over abuse of copyright that I won't get into, but it seems to me that if we can say something like "despite what we all may wish" with any level of veracity, then you're in very shaky territory when making declarations about what rights people or entities should have.

Not that there aren't first principles to evolve laws from, but those first principles are very bare, and most of what we decide people should do, and most of the rights we grant (key word) to persons or entities are decided by interpretations of situation based on what we want society to be shaped like.

On what basis do you justify laws which illegalize socially acceptable behaviors, and why do you start what people are entitled to at the law?

Surely the law should follow society, rather than society following the law.

I think there's a strong argument to be made for the case that anything based on social is ephemeral. Facebook may be hiring a lot of engineers, but it is also, really very young, and networks change over time. There's a reason the post office doesn't own telecoms, and there's a reason Ma Bell doesn't own facebook, and didn't own Myspace (aside from the fact that they got trust-busted).

Anyhow, it could well the world's greatest computer engineers, but I doubt even that will allow it to survive the shifting sands of both fashion and technology over the next hundred years. Its not that facebook is bad, just that I very much doubt it'll be plugged into the technology that my children use to communicate in high school, twenty to thirty years from now. It may be telepathy.

Wait. It could affect his kids. His civil liberties are at risk, and this involves a fear that he, who supports his children, could get in trouble: putting the dependents at risk.

Furthermore, in more than one sense, Bin Laden has won a victory here. He's inflamed Americans against middle easterners, his goal, and he's gotten lucky enough to have government protocols that protract the inflammation.

It isn't fair to call what can be a writer's honest feelings emotional appeals. They may be appeals to emotion, but you're trying to claim that the author was somehow dishonest in your context.