Searching \ for '[OT] Quote - You and your friends are exactly what' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=quote+you+your+friends
Search entire site for: 'Quote - You and your friends are exactly what'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Quote - You and your friends are exactly what'
2010\04\05@181947 by ivp

face picon face
"video of me smashing a brand new ipad right out of the box still at bestbuy
lol"

http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=147699

Incomprehensible

2010\04\05@185830 by solarwind

picon face
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM, ivp <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> "video of me smashing a brand new ipad right out of the box still at bestbuy
> lol"
>
> http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=147699
>
> Incomprehensible

It's true. Most of the kids in my high school and every school before
that are like this. I'm so happy that I'm at U of T now. Much fewer
idiots walking the campus. I personally think that this generation is
pathetic.

2010\04\05@193439 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> "video of me smashing a brand new ipad right out of the box still at bestbuy
> lol"
>
> http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=147699
>
> Incomprehensible

I could post a video of me doing that with one of our 'Mini' lights.
Trouble is it wouldn't break.
Well, maybe if you got really extreme it would :-).
My standard demo is to either place kick them down a concrete yard or
if not enough room for that, throw them to about 3 metres high. It
gets people's attention. (The aim of course is not the resultant
destruction but, in this case, the lack of it).

For, perhaps, something similar to what you are seeing with these
kids, see "Potlatch".

This Wikipedia article refers to it almost solely in terms that sound positive

               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlach

and make the legal and missionary originated bans on it sound harsh
and illogical.

However, buried in there is the sentence

             "Within it, hierarchical relations within and between
clans, villages, and nations, are observed and reinforced through the
distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances,
and other ceremonies."

I think that the " .... sometimes destruction ..."  may have had
unusual values of "sometimes" and that what you are seeing with the
kids and their iPads comes soemwhat close to the destructive side of
Potlatch. B,IMBW :-)

Potlatch refs at end, should anyone care :-)


or perhaps "conspicuous consumption". A term coined, inteerestingly, in 1899.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

_________

Potlatch

Relevant

    http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/museum_exhibitions/enciklopedia/america/festivals/potlatch/

Wealth of confusing comment:

   http://www.sandycline.com/rita/potlatch.html

Status by destruction - more open mention here

   http://www.answers.com/topic/potlatch

and

   http://sociologyindex.com/potlatch.htm

Almost funny.
A where's wally type potlatch.doc photo trail.

   http://www.blumology.net/potlatch.html

2010\04\05@212715 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
Rzzzzzzzzz
please post a video of your Mini lite being banged around.
I would love to see a close up of your lite.
Gus

{Quote hidden}

2010\04\05@214116 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Rzzzzzzzzz
> please post a video of your Mini lite being banged around.
> I would love to see a close up of your lite.

Video sometime :-)

Not quite closeup here

  http://www.bogolight.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=60

Closerupish of them 'in the wild' here.
Those are the SL2 - not the mini.

       http://public.fotki.com/RussellMc/atw/bogo/sl2africa01/sl2africa.html

SL2 is no wimp, but not as tough impact wise as the Mini.
eg I wouldn't place-kick them on concrete as a demonstration :-)
Do it often enough with the Mini and they slowly degrade. Bezel ring
breaks, carabiner may get smashed off (!) depending on impact point.
Body gets to look 'exceeding grotty'. Light keeps going :-).






{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\04\05@215703 by ivp

face picon face
>> http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=147699
>>
>> Incomprehensible
>
> I could post a video of me doing that with one of our 'Mini' lights.
> Trouble is it wouldn't break

Destructive testing is one thing but whacking an iPad to verify the claim
that it's weak is just mental, even if it is his own money. And would that
be cash or just another grand to stick on the plastic ? If you told
lilmattlp
that $100 notes are flammable, would he set light to one to see ? Would
he look if you told him "gullible" isn't in the dictionary ?

Probably, but destruction goes deeper than that. He said it was "fun",
so maybe he's a Type T personality. Or just one of those morons who
thinks being "out there" is some sort of success

It reminds me of Father Liam Deliverance (Father Ted series), or Abe
Simpson who would go out of their way to pull on, stamp on, bash and
break products and furniture to show how "flimsy" they are

I wonder if litmattlp tries similar product testing at home. Maybe this is
how that waste of space Bam Margera and his ilk got started

So many today care little about money, property or consequences and
are taking an awfully long time to grow up

2010\04\05@231223 by John Gardner

picon face
Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?

:)

2010\04\06@002827 by ivp

face picon face

> Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?

Haha. Yes, if you can't learn from the past, what's the point having one ?

2010\04\06@005235 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
On 4/5/2010 9:28 PM, ivp wrote:
>
>> Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?

I resemble that remark!

2010\04\06@005907 by solarwind

picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:28 AM, ivp <.....joecolquittKILLspamspam@spam@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Haha. Yes, if you can't learn from the past, what's the point having one ?

That implies the ability to select whether or not to have a past,
which one cannot.

2010\04\06@012007 by John Gardner

picon face
> That implies the ability to select whether or not to have a past,
>  which one cannot.

Ah, no. The past happened, independent of your perception. Hard to
believe, I know, but as time goes by, you'll come around.

I used to be your age... About a million years ago...  :)

Jack

On 4/5/10, solarwind <x.solarwind.xspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:28 AM, ivp <.....joecolquittKILLspamspam.....clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> Haha. Yes, if you can't learn from the past, what's the point having one ?
>
> That implies the ability to select whether or not to have a past,
> which one cannot.
> -

2010\04\06@012906 by solarwind

picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Gardner <EraseMEgoflo3spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, no. The past happened, independent of your perception. Hard to
> believe, I know, but as time goes by, you'll come around.

What? Your statement and my statement are in accordance with each
other. I'm saying that the past happened no matter what, and so are
you.

2010\04\06@014700 by John Gardner

picon face
> What? ...

My apologies. I  misunderstood your post.

Jack

2010\04\06@015458 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?

If you can remember the 60's you were't there.

I can.
(And AFAIk I was, so ...)

     Russell

2010\04\06@024908 by solarwind

picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Russell McMahon <apptechnzspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>> Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?
>
> If you can remember the 60's you were't there.

Is that a reference to getting drunk? Or have I missed the point entirely?

2010\04\06@031044 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>>> Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?

>> If you can remember the 60's you were't there.

> Is that a reference to getting drunk? Or have I missed the point entirely?

No & no :-).

Usually more a drugs reference. Flower power generation, LSD et al. Al
had lots of LSD* :-).
(* Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds). (Not to mention the technician from
Wichita... *).
I was a bit * Leary of such things myself.



              Russell

* Who I neither want or need, I'm pleased to say.
** A lot actually.

2010\04\06@082058 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: (* Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds).

And I always thought it stood for pounds, shillings and pence. or is
that Libra, shillings and denari?

I don't know the youth of today miss out on base 12, base 20, base 14,
16, 256 - just boring old base 10 is all they have to look forward to.

Now how many fathoms in cricket pitch or is that rods per chain?

Colin
--
cdb, @spam@colinKILLspamspambtech-online.co.uk on 4/6/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359








2010\04\06@091102 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> I don't know the youth of today miss out on base 12, base 20, base 14,
> 16, 256 - just boring old base 10 is all they have to look forward to.

OCT 31 = DEC 25
(Halloween and New year)

COFFEE = 12648430

10101 today, 10101 today, I've got the key of the door, never been
10101 before ...
(Even I am not THAT old)

There are 10 sorts of people, ...

The Babylonians started all the 12 and 20 etc rubbish.
Decided that 60 was a useful number to subdivide things from and away they went.
2,3,4,5,6,10,12,20,30 not bad.

360 days in an original Babylonian  year as well.
Used to work well I'm told until Mars got in on the act. All ancient
calendars used, I'm told , to have 360 days years until about BC xxx
(some say xxx = 701) when orbital resonances finally setlled down. May
even be true. I suspect not but it's a good story. Certainly stranger
things have happened and do happen in the solar system.


         Russell








{Quote hidden}

>

2010\04\06@092104 by Bob Ammerman

flavicon
face
>>> Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?
>>
>> If you can remember the 60's you were't there.
>
> Is that a reference to getting drunk? Or have I missed the point entirely?

more likely under the influence of some other mind-altering substance

-- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2010\04\06@092256 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
There are people who spend money to play online games so they can
annoy the other players - the term is "griefers"

There are people who go out to eat so they can berate their servers.

There are those that drove past lines of people waiting for a new
Harry Potter book, yelling out the ending.

There is a company that took an iphone when it was new and scarce and
blended it.

And there are people who purchase an iPad with the intent of
destroying it in front of others who want one, but can't get one yet
because they are oversold.

And yet... life still, somehow, goes on.

-Adam

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM, ivp <RemoveMEjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> "video of me smashing a brand new ipad right out of the box still at bestbuy
> lol"
>
> http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=147699
>
> Incomprehensible
>
> -

2010\04\06@092848 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Russell McMahon <spamBeGoneapptechnzspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
> There are 10 sorts of people, ...

My new favorite is:

There are 1 types of people in this world:
Those who index starting at 0, and those with off-by-one errors.


--
http://chiphacker.com/ - EE Q&A site

2010\04\06@093342 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Since google's search can act as a calculator which is aware of units,
you can do some really funny stuff quickly, like determine the density
of water in stone per cubic fathom.

(1 gram) per (cubic centimeter) = 963.174249 stone per (cubic fathom)

Sean


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:20 AM, cdb <TakeThisOuTcolinEraseMEspamspam_OUTbtech-online.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\04\06@093649 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
At least the company who blended the iPhone was creative about it - it
was Blendtech (sp?) and it was part of their "Will it blend?" video
series on Youtube. It wasn't just laughing at destruction but
curiosity to see A) can the blender grind up said item and B) what
happens when the item gets ground up (e.g. do batteries short out)

The iPod was still quite a waste, I agree, but overall the series was
funny and interesting even from an engineering viewpoint. Especially
when he blended the golf club!

Sean


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, M. Adam Davis <stienmanEraseMEspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2010\04\06@103203 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 10:17 +1200, ivp wrote:
> "video of me smashing a brand new ipad right out of the box still at bestbuy
> lol"
>
> http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=147699
>
> Incomprehensible

Why? What right do you or I have to determine what another person finds
entertaining?

It was there money to do with as they please. If smashing an iPad gives
them kicks I say go for it. What would you say to someone firing off
fireworks on the 4th of July? Same thing? It's a pure "burning of
money", just like this is.

I've never understood the "it's your money but I should have some say in
how you spend it" mentality.

TTYL

2010\04\06@104525 by solarwind

picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> Why? What right do you or I have to determine what another person finds
> entertaining?

According to that logic, one has no right to question another who is
finding entertainment in murdering innocent people.

http://digg.com/d31NZ0Z

2010\04\06@111144 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 10:42 -0400, solarwind wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafspam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> > Why? What right do you or I have to determine what another person finds
> > entertaining?
>
> According to that logic, one has no right to question another who is
> finding entertainment in murdering innocent people.

If you were to completely blindly follow my statement, yes, it would.

However, societies have other rules to follow, which would bracket this
statement.

And you know that Solarwind. You are trying to start a flame war: stop,
NOW.

The point is buying an iPad and smashing it with a baseball bat hurts
noone. The person doing it got their jollies from it. Same as I enjoy
firing off fireworks. From a societal point of view this should be fine.

TTYL

2010\04\06@113125 by Marechiare

picon face
> The point is buying an iPad and smashing it with a baseball
> bat hurts noone. The person doing it got their jollies from it.
> Same as I enjoy firing off fireworks. From a societal point of
> view this should be fine.

tolerable not "fine", things should be used according to specs, that
is, the way they are intended to be used. Fireworks are meant to be
fired, iPad is not meant to be smashed with a baseball bat. The
societal point of view depends on the location of that point.

2010\04\06@113603 by solarwind

picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> If you were to completely blindly follow my statement, yes, it would.
>
> However, societies have other rules to follow, which would bracket this
> statement.
>
> And you know that Solarwind. You are trying to start a flame war: stop,
> NOW.

Not really. Besides, it's OT.

> The point is buying an iPad and smashing it with a baseball bat hurts
> noone. The person doing it got their jollies from it. Same as I enjoy
> firing off fireworks. From a societal point of view this should be fine.

Society is comprised of the "the people". And therefore society's
viewpoint is the collective viewpoint of "the people". A lot of people
think that it's stupid to senselessly destroy an expensive piece of
electronic equipment. Fireworks, by comparison, put on a far better
show and cost much less. This video of kids destroying an iPad,
however, symbolizes reckless behavior and rebellion.
>
> -

2010\04\06@113635 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:42 AM, solarwind <EraseMEx.solarwind.xspamspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>> Why? What right do you or I have to determine what another person finds
>> entertaining?
>
> According to that logic, one has no right to question another who is
> finding entertainment in murdering innocent people.

Your line of logic makes sense given the UN's recent declaration:

iPad rights set out in the Declaration

The following reproduces the articles of the Declaration which set out
the specific iPad rights that are recognized in the Declaration.

   Article 1
       All iPads are manufactured free and equal in dignity and
rights. They are endowed with A4 processors and iPhone OS and should
communicate one with another in a wireless fashion.
   Article 2
       Everypad is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as purchase
date, price, memory capacity, wireless connectivity, firmware
revision, software revision, or board revision number.
   Article 3
       Everypad has the right to long battery life, liberty from
wires and security of mechanical assemblage.
...

So yes, as soon as [insert your country here] adopts this declaration
then destroying an iPad for entertainment will be equivalent to
murdering a human being for entertainment.

You might urge your lawmakers to start drafting support for this
declaration immediately, before any more iPads are cruelly deprived of
their rights in this heinous fashion.

--
http://chiphacker.com/ - EE Q&A site

2010\04\06@114557 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Marechiare <marechiareSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>> The point is buying an iPad and smashing it with a baseball
>> bat hurts noone. The person doing it got their jollies from it.
>> Same as I enjoy firing off fireworks. From a societal point of
>> view this should be fine.
>
> things should be used ... the way they are intended to be used.

Are you sure about that?  Humans are adaptive tool users.  The English
language even has a word for that suggests using something in a way it
was not originally intended to be used: utilize.

I find it surprising that an engineer express such a restrictive
notion - that things should not be put to uses other than their
intended use.

(double checking to make sure the subject line is OT...;-)

--
http://chiphacker.com/ - EE Q&A site

2010\04\06@121139 by Alexandros Nipirakis

picon face
I dont think that the core question is whether or not the people who
did this have the right to do this.  They are, of course, allowed to
spend their money in whatever way they see fit.  If they feel they
wish to destroy that which they buy, they of course have the right to
do just that.

It does follow, though, that even as they have the right to do
something it does not make it any less stupid.  There are starving
people in this world, and the five hundred dollars spent to needlessly
destroy a useful piece of electronics hardware could have been better
spent.

On the same token, it can be said that anyone can destroy anything
they own (property).  As long as (of course) the destruction doesn't
harm anyone else.

I cannot view the movie from work, but can I assume that the
destruction was because of their hatred of Apple?  If so, then it
seems even more stupid.  They are angry at a company, so they
effectivly give them money for nothing?  Seems pretty senseless to me.

I suppose the only final comment is to point out that many people find
the senseless destruction of things to be abhorable.  I am one of
these people.  The thing was produced by someone and does in it have
the original person's labor.  It represents human time in its design
and manufacture.  Therefore, people should respect that someone
created the things they have, have taken pride in their work and
therefore the product should be respected as such.

Even as I find what these people did reprehensible, I agree that they
have the right to do it.  There are no laws protecting iPads,
MacBooks, iPhones or any other Apple or Non-Apple device.  We, as
onlookers, also have the right to have the opinion that this is stupid
-- which I think is the prevailing thought.

Just my 0.02

Aleksei


On 6 April 2010 11:45, M. Adam Davis <spamBeGonestienmanSTOPspamspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\04\06@123335 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:35 -0400, solarwind wrote:

> This video of kids destroying an iPad,
> however, symbolizes reckless behavior

Please look up the definition of reckless, for example:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reckless

reckless: marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences

I don't see either of these applying, proper caution was there since it
wasn't likely anybody else would be affected. The consequences were
obvious and again wouldn't hurt anybody else.

> and rebellion.

What's wrong with a little rebellion every once in a while? Rebellion
isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd go so far as to say that a society
NEEDS people who question why things are the way they are and challenge
"norms".

A good example recently was a protest in Portland where a bunch of
people, men AND women walked down the street topless. Their argument:
why is it OK in our society for a man to be topless but not a women?

When you agree with them or not, asking the question is IMHO a GOOD
thing for society.



2010\04\06@124232 by Derward Myrick

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <EraseMEhkgrafspamEraseMEgmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <@spam@piclist@spam@spamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Quote - You and your friends are exactly what's wrongwith
our species


{Quote hidden}

Herbert,  I think that a person can do with his money as he wants.
I also think that a person has the right to say that he cannot
comprehend someoneoing this.

Derward Myrick








2010\04\06@125005 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
> I also think that a person has the right to say that he cannot
> comprehend someoneoing this.

I think we've all had plenty of opportunity at this point, can we please
move on to something interesting?

Commenting on the decline of the species is incredibly boring and a huge
waste of bandwidth and there are enough gossip sites on the internet
already.

Thanks,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

2010\04\06@125333 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Alexandros Nipirakis
<spamBeGoneanipirakisspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose the only final comment is to point out that many people find
> the senseless destruction of things to be abhorable.  I am one of
> these people.  The thing was produced by someone and does in it have
> the original person's labor.  It represents human time in its design
> and manufacture.  Therefore, people should respect that someone
> created the things they have, have taken pride in their work and
> therefore the product should be respected as such.

Interesting!  I suppose it follows, then, that the payment for the
product was only part of the responsibility the purchaser owes to the
creator of the object?

What, then, do you think of one birthday activity I had many years ago:

1. Spread out a large tarp on the lawn.
2. Place old computer equipment on tarp (some worked, some didn't
mostly valueless)
3. Don suitable safety equipment (glasses are a must, gloves, long
sleeve shirts, and full pants good)
4. Pass around a baseball bat and let people enjoy the entertainment
of applying large mechanical transient forces to the old computer
equipment

Aside from the shear joy of destruction, there was lots of education
to be had - but let's dismiss the possible educational aspects of this
and discuss the point:

Was this activity abhorrent to you, given that it differs from the
iPad incident by only a few particulars?
If not, what particulars make the difference, and what is that difference?
If so, what is the proper "retirement" for objects that people put
their time and labor into so we can show proper "respect" for that
labor when the object no longer has practical use?
In 30 years when a given iPad is literally useless, does one still
have a responsibility to the creator of the iPad to treat it with
suitable respect, or does that responsibility have a time limit?

--
http://chiphacker.com/ - EE Q&A site

2010\04\06@131024 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:53 AM, M. Adam Davis wrote:

> Aside from the shear joy of destruction

"Joy of destruction" is NOT something that should be encouraged, IMO.

In the iPad case, the motivation is presumably along the lines of "Joy  
of pissing people off."
Which is also not something to be encouraged.

BillW

2010\04\06@132611 by Marechiare

picon face
>> things should be used ... the way they are intended
> to be used.
>
> Are you sure about that?  Humans are adaptive tool
> users.  The English language even has a word for that
> suggests using something in a way it was not originally
> intended to be used: utilize.
>
> I find it surprising that an engineer express such a
> restrictive notion - that things should not be put to
> uses other than their intended use.

Do you teach your kids to smash things, they have no idea what's
inside the things? Let me advise you to teach them using the
technologically  advanced (and other unknown, that is potentially
dangerous) things strictly according to the specs.

2010\04\06@132635 by Alexandros Nipirakis

picon face
On 6 April 2010 12:53, M. Adam Davis <.....stienmanspam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I think there is a big difference between taking some computer
hardware, much of which probably didint work and smashing it and
taking something that is brand new and smashing it.

I suppose my objection comes from the fact that the device never saw
useful life.  I suppose the destruction of old computer hardware is
less bad than destroying something new.

But I think both are senseless.

Furthermore, we are loosing much of our computing past because people
do not preserve old computer hardware.  Much of it is destroyed or
thrown away.  Myself, I am quite interested in computer history, and
have several older computers in my house.  My wife hates this of
course, saying "what use is this" and I tell her that you never know
when you will need something.

I think your point about the destruction being informational is at
least partially interesting.  I remember in my younger days (err --
which were not that long ago) when I was in High School, the teacher
would frequently encourage us to take apart old (non-functional) hard
drives to understand how the insides worked.


> If not, what particulars make the difference, and what is that difference?
> If so, what is the proper "retirement" for objects that people put
> their time and labor into so we can show proper "respect" for that
> labor when the object no longer has practical use?
> In 30 years when a given iPad is literally useless, does one still
> have a responsibility to the creator of the iPad to treat it with
> suitable respect, or does that responsibility have a time limit?
>

I think my point is more that people simply don't respect the time and
work that goes into stuff any more.  Everything magically came to
existance and nobody cares who's time went into it.  I think this is
why many people easily and without thought throw things away.  If we
thought of things as the products of human labor, then perhaps we
would have less of an interest in throwing them out.

Consider antiques --

Why do we not, then, smash up old cars who are less efficient than new
ones and have already served their useful life.  Or why do we not burn
old science books and encyclopedias that are not useful anymore (and
are probably digitized anyways).  Or old appliances?  Or (name your
favourite antique).  Why not go the centre of athens and demolish the
parthenon?  Sure, blasting it would be a spectacular show, and since
no one is using it anyways, what's the point.


We don't do these things because we appreciate the objects for what
they are, the product of human inginuity and labour.  Each can be
respected because it provides us a window into its creators.

Now, the destruction of one iPad?  Of course not as detrimental as the
destruction of an antique.  It is, however, probably a poor display of
how we (as consumers in America) respect the things which we are
privleged to have.  Not everyone on the planet can justify plunking
down 500 bucks for something like an iPad, and for someone to basiclly
say "not only can I spend this money for this device, but I can
destroy it since I am so rich" is particularly disturbing.

2010\04\06@141342 by Marechiare

picon face
> What, then, do you think of one birthday activity I had
> many years ago:
>
>  1. Spread out a large tarp on the lawn.
>  2. Place old computer equipment on tarp (some worked,
> some didn't mostly valueless)
>  3. Don suitable safety equipment (glasses are a must,
> gloves, long
> sleeve shirts, and full pants good)
>  4. Pass around a baseball bat and let people enjoy the
> entertainment of applying large mechanical transient
> forces to the old computer equipment

The words I'd like to use about the f*****g kind of activity would
definitely bring me down to moderation.


> Aside from the shear joy of destruction, there was lots
> of education to be had - but let's dismiss the possible
> educational aspects of this and discuss the point:

The same words.
"joy of destruction" - what the f*****g concept are you talking about?

2010\04\06@142459 by Al Shinn

picon face
"Those who don't remember the '60s are condemned to repeat them?"

I don't quite get the comparison to the 60s!
We burned draft cards and bras - both positive acts. We smashed many
stupid conventions, more positive acts. We tried to destroy racism,
another good thing.
I guess perhaps a few good minds were irretrievably bent, perhaps that's
a good parallel.

"If you can remember the 60's you were't there.

I can.
(And AFAIk I was, so ...)

      Russell"


Russell,
Perhaps you were in a quite different THERE then the THERE being
referenced.

Looking forward,
Al Shinn



2010\04\06@150055 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 6/4/2010 12:45, M. Adam Davis escreveu:
> Are you sure about that?  Humans are adaptive tool users.  The English
> language even has a word for that suggests using something in a way it
> was not originally intended to be used: utilize.
>  

The word "utilize" came from Latin and is present in the majority of the
Latin derived languages (if not all) and in much others.

Util = useful, util-ize = to make use, to use.

In Portuguese it means exactly that: to use, in the normal and plain sense.


Regards,

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/

2010\04\06@175932 by ivp

face picon face
> I've never understood the "it's your money but I should have some say
> in how you spend it" mentality

I appreciate that. On the flip-side to wanton destruction, I have no
interest in gold-plated taps or a $500k car. It's all relative. Not yet
in the position of having to choose between food or a tube of PICs

Of course lilmattlp can bust up a brand new iPad. I just happen to
have the opinion (and opinions are neither right nor wrong) that it's
a silly thing to do. OTOH it is not hard to spend $1000 with nothing
to show for it. The $500k car, or any new car, for example loses
that and more as soon as it leaves the forecourt, with not a baseball
bat in sight ;-)) !!


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...