HeavyInk.com, Is it reliable?

[Awake]

This seems to be the right kind of crowd to ask this question, so here it goes. Is Heavyink.com any good at delivery these days in regards to Brian's comics, or anyone else's? I have some bad history with their delivering practices, and I am wondering if it is just me.

[ChaoticBrain]

Brian and Heavy Ink have recently fallen out of favor.

You should read the front page news more. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2011/01/11/heavy-ink/)

[Fifthfiend]

Yeah basically if you are asking about heavy ink these days what you are going to get told is "heavy ink is a fine online retailer if you like online retailers run by people who support murderers".

[Doc ock rokc]

Amazon has always been a fine choice in my opinion. I had a friend get compensation when something he ordered was damaged once.

[Geminex]

"heavy ink is a fine online retailer if you like online retailers run by people who support murderers".

Mind you, they've found quite a niche, there.

[Awake]

Mind you, they've found quite a niche, there.

Indeed. I ordered a manga from them three months ago and it only just delivered last week. I wanted to buy kick ass part 2 from them but even though I bought the good delivery option my comics are still pending.

[Geminex]

Well, I was more talking about the millions of americans out there who think their comic-buying experience could be vastly improved if only their retailer of choice was run by a right-wing extremist whose contempt for taxes and utter ignorance of economic principles combined with a massive sense of entitlement resulting in comments about how not enough members of the US governing body (and their staff) are being murdered in cold blood.

But yeah, that works too.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well it's hard to send packages on time when your day is taken up by petty terrorism.
I'm surprised they haven't combined the two really.

[Kurosen]

This seems to be the right kind of crowd to ask this question, so here it goes. Is Heavyink.com any good at delivery these days in regards to Brian's comics, or anyone else's? I have some bad history with their delivering practices, and I am wondering if it is just me.
My parents used them since forever, though that's changed of late for some reason. The only complaint they had was that it would generally take two weeks after the sale date for their comics to arrive.

That said, the owner's a looney and I can't bring myself to endorse them any longer.

Here's a few reliable shops to choose from which are not owned by looneys. (http://www.red5comics.com/?page_id=183)

[Awake]

Well, I was more talking about the millions of americans out there who think their comic-buying experience could be vastly improved if only their retailer of choice was run by a right-wing extremist whose contempt for taxes and utter ignorance of economic principles combined with a massive sense of entitlement resulting in comments about how not enough members of the US governing body (and their staff) are being murdered in cold blood.

But yeah, that works too.

... I think I missed something there.

EDIT: so the guy is some right winged wacko? Sad.

[Fifthfiend]

Awake: The owner of Heavy Ink has extreme right-wing views which led him to publicly applaud Jared Lee Loughner, after Loughner recently shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (and several others).

In Chaoticbrain's post, above, he links to a Nuklearpower.com post by Brian, in which Brian explains the situation, including various further related links.

[Geminex]

Heavy Ink.
Owned by Travis Corcoran.

Travis Corcoran.
A guy who responded to the assassination of Gabrielle Giffords with "1 down, 534 to go".

He does this because he views taxation as evil, and since the government is what taxes him, the government is evil. And all the people involved with it should die. I should not have to tell you that this is not a view anyone should hold, ever.

My point was that, since not a lot of companies are run by people with these kinds of views, Heavy Ink is clearly exploiting a market niche. That is a joke. Or, really, just an excuse to make above points in a sarcastic context and make fun of the free market.

The whole thing is pretty well known on the forums because Brian cut ties with Heavy Ink following those comments by Corcoran.

So nobody's gonna be telling you about Heavy Ink's reliability. They are going to be talking about how Heavy Ink is run by a loony tune.

[Krylo]

I'm not sure calling libertarians right wing is really accurate. They're pretty left wing socially, and extremely right wing fiscally.

I'm also not sure if it actually matters how accurate you need to be when you call someone a politically motivated crazy.

[Kim]

It varies. You've got some people who call themselves libertarian but just mean they're right wing extremists, and you've got some who are actually what libertarians claim they are. Nowadays there seem to be much more of the former than the latter, but I dunno.

[Krylo]

Well to be fair, the party line reads pretty right wing extremist with the current party divide. I mean, they don't like the idea of health care, gun control, etc. On the other hand, a 'real' libertarian would also be against the drug war, pro-life legislation, sanctity of marriage legislation, etc.

The left wing is about more social freedom at the cost of financial freedom*. The right is about less social freedom in exchange for more financial freedom. Libertarians are basically just one step above anarchists and want the government to get its snout out of both, for maximum social and financial freedom**. Which doesn't really place them as right or left--but it does make them come off as extremist right wings depending on the topic, and with things like government health care plans and balancing the budget being large political issues currently they're going to come off rather extreme right wing.

*I, of course, realize that 'more financial freedom' legislatively actually means much less social mobility, and thus less financial freedom, in practice. I'm using freedom here to denote fewer regulations, not greater equality and freedom of movement.

**Again, I realize that a libertarian government would actually quickly devolve into just about no freedom for anyone who wasn't rich as shit, but libertarians tend to think less regulation = more freedom, which only holds together as a political ideal when viewed rather shallowly. Looking deeper you see that a good amount of regulation is required in order to ensure a functional freedom.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Brian and Heavy Ink have recently fallen out of favor.

You should read the front page news more. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2011/01/11/heavy-ink/)

Well I'll be sure to stay way the hell away from Heavy Ink in the future when the time comes to look for publishers.

[Fifthfiend]

Libertarians generally seem to be people who don't want government oppressing us when corporations can do so far more cheaply and efficiently.

**Again, I realize that a libertarian government would actually quickly devolve into just about no freedom for anyone who wasn't rich as shit, but libertarians tend to think less regulation = more freedom, which only holds together as a political ideal when viewed rather shallowly. Looking deeper you see that a good amount of regulation is required in order to ensure a functional freedom.

Like I've never been especially convinced, looking at the "freedoms" that self-identifying libertarians are animated by, that freeing corporations to more effectively take freedom away from everyone else isn't overtly the point (such that there is one).

[Awake]

Hmm... if Libertarians are prochoice then I wonder how they would feel about allowing parents to determine which embryo to make their child based on genes. I am a very firm believer in selecting children who are more likely to live longer, healthier, and more cognitively aware lives.

I have stayed out of the abortion debates, but allowing parents to give their child the best of what the human gene pool has to offer has always been important to me. Now that our technology is approaching the point where we can start to make these decisions it is important to create awareness for the need of such rights. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a party that represents my beliefs on this subject. I could very much go for a party that tells the government to mind its own business and let the parents decide. Unfortunately, the Democrats only seem to be willing to do this up to a point. After abortion, some of them can be just as stodgy about denying parental right of choice when it comes to genes as any Republican.

[Geminex]

Hmm... if Libertarians are prochoice then I wonder how they would feel about allowing parents to determine which embryo to make their child based on genes. I am a very firm believer in selecting children who are more likely to live longer, healthier, and more cognitively aware lives.

Well, thing is, there's two points about Eugenics:
Firstly, scientific viability. We can't really do it yet. Primarily because the human genome is, to put it scientifically "fucking complex".
Yes, it is possible to select for genetic disorders that result in disease. But only a few, and only because those are obvious mutations. But what you're suggesting, selecting for 'superior' genes, that is far from viable at the moment. Biology has no idea (and no real way of finding out), how to modify or select for genes in a way that makes for a healthier human. This is mostly because genes aren't organized like and RPG character sheet. You don't have genes for certain traits. Every gene codes for a certain protein, and to understand how a gene will affect an individual, you need to understand the role of that protein, and understand how it interacts with other proteins. It's just really complex. And really not scientifically viable yet.

When it is viable, I'm guessing that political parties might look into supporting it. But right now, the right to modify your child's genome (or select for the genes you want) is about as important as the right to use space elevators. Maybe important in the future. But not relevant now.

Also, there's the whole ethics question. If you start selecting for genes, you're classifying some genes as superior to others, by definition.
And I would much prefer to live in a society of slightly less long-lived individuals, over living in a society the wealthy section of the population is genetically superior to the rest. Or, for that matter, a society that places value on your genome at all.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Eugenics is not at all scientifically viable- I've outlined this in many posts before. Go look them up cause I is lazy.
But even in a fantasy world where you could modify specific genes to however you felt, it still wouldn't be scientifically viable. It's a myth based on early 20th century biology.
Eugenics as a means of population enhancement would be about as effective results-wise as me personally shooting people I decided were unworthy to breed and a lot more expensive.
Also NAZIS!

Also libertarianism originally referred to anarchic marxists (I'm pretty sure that was where the term was coined) which is about as left as you can possibly go. But then some right wing dudes stole the term and then you got guys who aren't really left or right (as Krylo dropped) for a while so these days its a massive hodgepodge.

[Awake]

Also, there's the whole ethics question. If you start selecting for genes, you're classifying some genes as superior to others, by definition.
And I would much prefer to live in a society of slightly less long-lived individuals, over living in a society the wealthy section of the population is genetically superior to the rest. Or, for that matter, a society that places value on your genome at all.

Honestly, I fervently hope we outgrow the fear of stating the truth, especially where genes are concerned. Some people have better eye sight than others. Other people have better memory than others. We can say this as a fact. Would it really be so horrible to find out that these facts have genetic causes? I go to science websites like newscientist and scientific american all the time so I notice the mention of a new gene for intelligence found every four or five months. One time there was mention of a gene that decreased iq by about twenty points or so, if I recall correctly, but only for men. Other times it mentioned genes that can raise iq by about ten points or accounted for about 3% of overall iq. There was even a gene that boosted your iq but lowered your grades because it made you choke while taking tests.

Here is some info on the subject.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327174.600-intelligence-nature-outpaces-nurture-as-kids-get-older.html


I am a psychology major and it comes up every few classes, with teachers pointing out how some children crack under just a little pressure from their environment and others are highly resilient to abuse, and how it gets traced back to genes. Other teachers talk rather openly about how, after years on reading up on the subject, they are convinced that iq is about 70% inherited and 30% environmental in adults despite what they used to think in their teens or twenties.

One of the interesting things I've read about genes and intelligence is that as a child you are reasonably malleable and your intelligence can greatly vary depending on your environment. This lasts, I believe, until you reach late adolescence, at which time if your iq is higher than your biological parents it begins to decrease. If I remember the statistics correctly, at late adolescence you owe approximately 70% to biology and later adulthood it climbs to about 85% owed to biology.

The problem today is that we are still, psychologically, living in the aftermath of the Holocaust and what was done in the name of eugenics. This, along with other black marks in history, makes people defensive of things like genes, despite how they are nothing more than bits biological software.

When I think of the future, what I hope for is a world where genes are no longer looked upon as something sacred or as heritage to be honored, or what we all feel compelled to make excuses for, but simply as biological software that can be discarded in favor of an upgrade on a whim and have it payed for with government assistance. A world where any child born would have the potential to finish a PhD in Mathematics by the age of 18 and reasonably expect to have a good 100 or so productive years. Naturally, today this is wild science fiction, but we will never see a future where every child born truly does have the potential to be whatever they want to be unless we start discarding notions about how sacred our genes are and how it is sensitive to ignore how they effect us.

I noticed in California they had a fertility clinic that allowed parents to choose traits like eye and hair color. I believe it was closed or changed after some protest, but I liked it because it was a good first step in the right direction. We keep discovering new genes that affect intelligence all the time, and it will just be a matter of time before we learn how to impart foreign genes into human embryos safely. Had the clinic stayed open it probably would have been the place where the next step in selecting the most positive genes for your children, which is implanting ones that neither parent had to give, would have been taken. That clinic was definitely a case where it would have paid to have someone tell people to mind their own reproductive business and respect and a woman's right to make choices involving her own reproductive system by herself without outside input being forced on her in regards to what she could do with her body and what she could or couldn't put in it.

People talk about how only the rich will be able to afford giving their kids a more complete genetic toolkit, but I suspect that governments would find it cost effective to work to provide as many parents as possible with the option of gengineering children, simply due to how such children will be able to bring more tax revenue back to the government in the future.

EDIT: Also, in regards to a society placing value on your genome, what I want is the opposite of that. One where no one places value on a genome because it is just transitory.

[Raiden]

Eugenics: Explaining why Heavy Ink sucks.

a.k.a. how a thread about Heavy Ink's delivery system turned into a discussion about libertarians and then the function of genetics is beyond me, but I enjoyed the ride.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Honestly, I fervently hope we outgrow the fear of stating the truth, especially where genes are concerned. Some people have better eye sight than others. Other people have better memory than others. We can say this as a fact. Would it really be so horrible to find out that these facts have genetic causes? I go to science websites like newscientist and scientific american all the time so I notice the mention of a new gene for intelligence found every four or five months. One time there was mention of a gene that decreased iq by about twenty points or so, if I recall correctly, but only for men. Other times it mentioned genes that can raise iq by about ten points or accounted for about 3% of overall iq. There was even a gene that boosted your iq but lowered your grades because it made you choke while taking tests.

Here is some info on the subject.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327174.600-intelligence-nature-outpaces-nurture-as-kids-get-older.html


I am a psychology major and it comes up every few classes, with teachers pointing out how some children crack under just a little pressure from their environment and others are highly resilient to abuse, and how it gets traced back to genes. Other teachers talk rather openly about how, after years on reading up on the subject, they are convinced that iq is about 70% inherited and 30% environmental in adults despite what they used to think in their teens or twenties.
And I'm doing my pHD in chemical evolution and that's pretty much all bullshit. Yes genes have an effect but it is fucking miniscule compared to nuture. Intelligence is the classic one, as a psych major you should know the vast vast vast majority of brain development is determined by your environment both pre and post birth. It's seriously about 90-95%. While nature does eventually outstrip nuture, gues what- you brain has already pretty much fully developed by then so it's worthless. The incredible plasticity of the brain is not driven by genes, it is driven by its inherent biological structure. Human intelligence is determined by this plasticiity and its allowance for neuronal connections. Inherited intelligence except as a small amount is a myth.
Those teachers are quoting early studies where they didn't strip out economic factors and suchlike which are nuturish like fuch.
Also intelligence is not a gene, in fact no property is a gene despite what newspapers will have you agree. Every gene develops IN CONCORD with every other gene, gene activity is basically impossible to predict- pretty much we are just out and out guessing at the moment. To select for a gene you would have to select for an entire set of genes so eventually you are selecting for a single set of genes- ie every person is exactly the same, human race degenerates. Also genes themselves are not nature, they are as much nuture as everything else. Why? Because the key determinant of gene activity is its tertiary structure which, guess what, is determined by development in the womb.
And so, yes you could improve humans genetically but with our current science it is basically impossible AND improving the developmental environment of the world, of its children, giving them nutrition and educational would not only be vastly more effective but vastly cheapr too. Genetic modification is expensive, slow and only affects one person.

Again, you esem to be reading vastly vastly outdated material- the use of IQ tests adds to this suspicion. About 90% of your development at a young age is environmental and this is the vast majority of your development. And this is generous to genes.
There is basically no correlation between intelligence and genes that is strong enough not to rule out as experimentla error. Further it doesn't make biological, chemical or psychological sense.

[QUOTE]
The problem today is that we are still, psychologically, living in the aftermath of the Holocaust and what was done in the name of eugenics. This, along with other black marks in history, makes people defensive of things like genes, despite how they are nothing more than bits biological software.
No it's because it is bunk science and even if it wasn't bunk science you are better off spending the quadrillions of dollars it would cost on education and nutrition/.

When I think of the future, what I hope for is a world where genes are no longer looked upon as something sacred or as heritage to be honored, or what we all feel compelled to make excuses for, but simply as biological software that can be discarded in favor of an upgrade on a whim and have it payed for with government assistance. A world where any child born would have the potential to finish a PhD in Mathematics by the age of 18 and reasonably expect to have a good 100 or so productive years. Naturally, today this is wild science fiction, but we will never see a future where every child born truly does have the potential to be whatever they want to be unless we start discarding notions about how sacred our genes are and how it is sensitive to ignore how they effect us.
Do you know what this world is? It's where every child has good meals every day and is educated with fantastic resources.

I noticed in California they had a fertility clinic that allowed parents to choose traits like eye and hair color. I believe it was closed or changed after some protest, but I liked it because it was a good first step in the right direction. We keep discovering new genes that affect intelligence all the time, and it will just be a matter of time before we learn how to impart foreign genes into human embryos safely. Had the clinic stayed open it probably would have been the place where the next step in selecting the most positive genes for your children, which is implanting ones that neither parent had to give, would have been taken. That clinic was definitely a case where it would have paid to have someone tell people to mind their own reproductive business and respect and a woman's right to make choices involving her own reproductive system by herself without outside input being forced on her in regards to what she could do with her body and what she could or couldn't put in it.
Here's the thing about genes that "affect intelligence". They "affect" it. We don't know the causal links, we don't know how they interact with others to increase it or decrease it. It's is complex interplay of many many parts. You can't just select all the genes that "affect intellegence".

People talk about how only the rich will be able to afford giving their kids a more complete genetic toolkit, but I suspect that governments would find it cost effective to work to provide as many parents as possible with the option of gengineering children, simply due to how such children will be able to bring more tax revenue back to the government in the future.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA. Oh wait, you live in a fantasy land. Eugenics will totally work there just like the goverment hands out lollipops and biscuits to every passing ruffian.

Eugenics relies on an early 20th century understanding of biology in that genes=determine your properties, modify genes for a property=modify that property. It's laughably out of touch.
Holy fuck I have to write this shit every month. I could be replaced with a robot.

[Awake]

First off, my apologies on my spelling. Between work, school, and a special project I've been working on, I have been getting by on about three and a half to four hours of sleep for the past week and a half.

Second, your credentials are obviously higher than mine so I will bow out. Most people generally respond with an emotional debate about how identifying genes that correlate with high intelligence is evil or immoral, and when I continue to see individual genes identified with higher or lower intelligence I tend to find it fascinating rather than horrifying. Still, given that this is your area of study while mine is simply abnormal psychology I certainly won't presume to argue with you on this.

Third, I wish it to be made clear that I never meant to suggest that we could do anything of significance in regards to radically improving the human genome with our current levels of technology. Though technology in genetics seems to be gaining speed I wouldn't think we could do any major improvements for the majority of this century at best.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Holy shit, that's the politest response I've ever gotten on this forum!
I feel bad now for my tone being pretty dickish :(

First off, my apologies on my spelling. Between work, school, and a special project I've been working on, I have been getting by on about three and a half to four hours of sleep for the past week and a half.
I'm pretty sure we call bad spelling "SMB Spelling" or at least we should.

Second, your credentials are obviously higher than mine so I will bow out. Most people generally respond with an emotional debate about how identifying genes that correlate with high intelligence is evil or immoral, and when I continue to see individual genes identified with higher or lower intelligence I tend to find it fascinating rather than horrifying. Still, given that this is your area of study while mine is simply abnormal psychology I certainly won't presume to argue with you on this.
The problem here is how these genes get reported. Their certainly are genes which correlate to higher intelligence the problem is hat we don't know how this leads to higher intelligence, the causal link and whether these genes cause higher intelligence or some other genes cause it but these are present or these genes cause it based on how you develop.
So to be perfectely fair to your points, we could potentially select for these genes and I'm like 95% positive we would see increases in intelligence. But the resources to do so would be better spent on education and nutrition for those who don't have it. If we get much much better understanding of the brain and we live in a better society then the potential is there for eugenics.

Third, I wish it to be made clear that I never meant to suggest that we could do anything of significance in regards to radically improving the human genome with our current levels of technology. Though technology in genetics seems to be gaining speed I wouldn't think we could do any major improvements for the majority of this century at best.
Yeah we're still a long way off but to be honest I still can't see eugenics turning into anything over than an overclass without radical societal change preceeding it.

[ChaoticBrain]

Holy shit, that's the politest response I've ever gotten on this forum!
I feel bad now for my tone being pretty dickish :(

Kindness is the most powerful weapon on the internet. But it must not be abused. Young Awake, learn that with great power comes with great responsibility. Now go, and use your kindness for the powers of good.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The most powerful weapon on the internet is Hitler. Obviously.

[Awake]

Holy shit, that's the politest response I've ever gotten on this forum!
I feel bad now for my tone being pretty dickish :(


Heh, don't worry about it. I am just glad to talk to an authority on the subject who represents the other view.




Yeah we're still a long way off but to be honest I still can't see eugenics turning into anything over than an overclass without radical societal change preceeding it.

Something along the lines of outlawing genetic improvements being payed for through private money, and instead all improvements having to be paid through the state, thus ensuring that they go to those who are most in need and that the rich will have to see to it that everyone rises with them if they want to augment their own children's genome?

[Magus]

Well it's hard to send packages on time when your day is taken up by petty terrorism.
I'm surprised they haven't combined the two really.

I know! Mail bombings would be far more efficient if somebody would just do this already.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I've worked in a central post office. As long as you can get a reliable bomb in your package mailbombing is going to be super effective. Cause we'll fucking send anything.

[Magus]

And now if it fits, it ships for 4.99, anywhere in the U.S.! The US Postal Service has made mail bombing cheaper than ever.