Slashdot Mirror

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

There are many campfire songs that the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts no longer sing because they were told they would be sued for royalties if they did not pay. It is bone headed things like this that give ASCAP and the music publishing industry a bad name. They could have given Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other non-profits limited permission to perform the songs at official functions and maybe made some money off of related sales like records and sheet music. But no, they had to threaten to sue. So songs like "This Land Is Your Land", "Puff the Magic Dragon", "God Bless America" and "Happy Birthday" are no longer sung around the campfire.

A quick google search found:
        The birds may sing, but campers can't unless they pay up:
        http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-96/08-23-96/b02li056.htm

And it is even mentioned in Wikipeda:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers#Criticism

Isn't America wonderful

I don't see a lot of Women doctors

You haven't been looking very carefully. As of two years ago approximately 42% of internal medicine interns were women. By next year 33% of doctors are expected to be women and that number is rising. Yes the profession used to be heavily male dominated and still is among older doctors but women overwhelmingly dominate most other areas of medicine and their numbers are rising fast as doctors as well. My wife happens to be a physician so I see it first hand.

67% of dollar bills in this study, and thats south shore mass, i would expect manhattan to step that number up a bit.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/NEWS/804110348

...finding out you're actually related to someone born almost 10,000 ago.

A thousand years seems a pittance when they were able to find a local history teacher was a relation to the "Cheddar Man" via mitochondrial DNA -- which is inherited unchanged on the maternal line. (BTW, that's a professor and a researcher at London's Natural History Museum, not the descendant, in the photo.)

The search for a descendant came about as, "Dr. Larry Barham, a Texas-born archaeologist at Bristol University, said the finding "adds to the evidence that Britons came from a race of hunter-gatherers who later turned to farming because they found it was to their advantage." Archeologists believe Cheddar Man, who lived during the Stone Age, was a hunter-gatherer.

Opponents of this theory argue that Britons are descendants of Middle Eastern farmers."

Talk about tracing your family tree!

Apparently the whole media blitz did not register on ratings.
Target audience of 18-24 olds grew from 380000 to 386000 last week. In other words 2 million bucks bought mere 6000 of viewers. If that's not an utter disaster of ads campaign I'm sure it's very close to it.
It also may mean that show has saturated its audience and no matter what they do they won't get bigger ratings.
Causing such bad returns on such large involuntary investment is very upsetting and I understand why he resigned.

...just as long as we refrain from listening to Mao's Little Red Book: The Musical on iTunes.

Man you aren't up to date on that story. Heck, did you even click the follow up story link right there under the title? Federal agents' visit was a hoax

The kid made it all up. No G-Men visited him.

All societies have taboos, and all societies believe that those taboos protect either all of society or the target of the taboo.

Yeah, but we got over most of ours. Remember the "Red scare"? Its not like the FBI will investigate a college student for retrieving "The Little Red Book" from a library system or anything, right?

Oh, I must have forgot.

Inhibition of freedom, especially of basic information, only alienates people from the government. By making crimes out of non-crimes (morality, silly stuff) it only hurts the authority that the government has, because people give them less authority and then have to question which laws are really important or not.

Keep in mind that the US government did away with slavery in 1865 (or so), gave basic rights to women in 1920, and more rights (mostly lip service) to blacks and other minorities in 1964. It seems pretty common for governments to make egregious mistakes.

Oh, and we are part of the government process so long as we follow it, wether or not we approve of it.

I had a much better article that pointed to an article that says the student admitted to making up the story. Here's a link: Student admits hoax

Here's a link to an OpinionJournal article on it.

There is a lengthy article in The Standard Times here with great detail about the whole thing and how it came down. As usual, the kid got attention, started embellishing the story, and the whole thing came crashing down.

I can understand how it might be so hard for you to use a web browser to hit more than one website.
Here, let me help you:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

See? It's a hoax. The kid made it up. It never happened.

It reason the article say anything about the student's claim being a hoax is becuase the submitter picked just about the worst possible story to link to. Here a better link, taken randomly from a Google search for "Little Red Hoax".

Yes, it was a hoax.

The kid made it all up.
You can go read it here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

Or you can stay confused, if you do so wish.

Yes, it was a hoax, as in "It never happened, the kid made it up"

Go read, please: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

The error in the original reporting is that it was all fake. The kid made it up. The parents had no clue. No Homeland Security agents, or any government agents ever spoke to him about any book requests.

Please, please, please just do a google news search if you don't believe it.

Seems the editor forgot to post any link to any article about the discovery of the Little Red Book hoax. Here's one.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

http://progressive.org/mag_mc122605

The UMass Dartmouth student who alleged that Homeland Security had questioned him over his library request for Mao's "Little Red Book" has now come clean. "The student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter," Jonathan Saltzman of the Boston Globe reported. Professor Brian Glyn Williams told the Globe that when he questioned the student about inconsistencies in his story, the student replied: "I made it up. I'm sorry. . . . I'm so relieved that it's over."

A much more detailed account is here:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

I know it's a bit off topic but hey, that whole deal about the Dartmouth student being visited by the agents, turns out he lied:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm ... why isn't it on /. ?

The Southcoast Today, which printed the story, now states thatthe student admitted it never happened. His professors became skeptical when his story changed too often, and then learned his parents didn't know the part of it where they signed papers.

Guess what! We now know the story was a hoax.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

Sorry to ruin it for some of you conspiracy nuts. :)

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-0 5/a01lo719.htm

The most predictable thing about this story was that it would be exposed as a hoax because of all the nonsense and contradictions in it.

Now the student, whose anonymous allegations were the only evidence of the whole matter, has recanted.

I pitched this as another story and it was rejected. Maybe it will show up from another author, or maybe the editors prefer the story to be true.

China does a pretty good job of censoring the internet. Major telcos want to create their own internet and rights management will be one of the big "benefits" of this new infrastructure.

You'll buy the first set of eBooks because they'll be so convienient and have so many great features. We'll all decry the closing of bookstores with lots of comments like, "Oh, I still read a hard-book every now and then, it's got more feeling that way. Too bad everyone else prefers eBooks." Then, once the eBooks are the majority, they'll jack up the DRM. Hell, these days, most people will buy the eBooks even if the DRM is restrictive.

Let's see... then they'll pass legislation restricting the use of printing presses due to their analog nature and potential for rights abuse. Firemen will be dispached to finally burn all the leftover paper books because "all you need is your offically-licensed DRM eBook reader to enjoy all content." Most people will participate willingly, holding neighborhood book burning parties.

It's so easy to forsee and the corporations are extremely patient. Sure, there will always be EE's and hackers out there who can get around the protections. The protections don't have to be perfect, just enough to stop most casual users, as this legislation will do. Eventually possession of unrestricted content will be a crime. Funny how any "subversive" books and information will be restricted content, but yet nobody will publish it legally. Insert your desired definition of subversive here. Today's version is Mao - which gets you a visit by Homeland Security.

For the record, I stopped watching TV and most movies as well, but for more practical reasons, not as a protest of any sort.

Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
  "I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."

I'm not implying it. After three days of research, I'm saying it outright. These memos are forgeries, and inept ones at that.

You weren't listening to anyone before, you shithead.

This turns out not to be the case. In the first place, you would have to say (on the basis of zero evidence) that John was a liar, since he explicitly claims to have been an eyewitness. In the second place, this late dating of the gospels is only "commonly accepted" by people who refuse to believe even the possibility that the content of the gospels is true: hardly an impartial audience.

More importantly, there is evidence to demonstrate that these naysayers don't know what they are talking about: namely, references to a parody of Matthew that was written by Gamaliel no later than 70AD.

Well, he couldn't have written a parody of a non-existent document. And he wouldn't have written a parody of a document that no one took seriously. And it would have been pointless to write a parody of a book so new that no one had heard of it. So it's entirely reasonable to suggest that Matthew wrote his gospel no later than 60AD. So in fact there is no reason whatever to pretend that it wasn't written by an eyewitness.

Now, with respect to Bible books as being universally firsthand accounts - that, of course, is a given: Moses, after all, lived millennia after the events recorded in the early chapters of Genesis; and as you rightly say, this fact doesn't mean that Genesis isn't true.

You cannot be prosecuted more than once in the United states for a single crime, period

Then how do you explain this?

I think the answer here is that prosecutors can do what they want, regardless of what state law or the Constitution might say about it.

That's not a circular argument! A circular argument is more like: "The Bible is the Word of God because it says that it's the Word of God." To say "Lust is bad because Jesus says it is" is an argument from authority. But, since the rest of your paragraph here is actually addressing an argument from authority rather than a circular argument (as far as I can tell...see below), we'll just note the fact and go on.

All you've got is a book written over a period of a few hundred years after his death

False. Profoundly false. Did you know that buried in the Talmud is a story written by Rabbi Gamaliel that is an obvious parody of the gospel of Matthew? And did you know that Gamaliel couldn't possibly have written it after 70 AD? And that in order for him to have written a parody, Matthew's book had to have been written before them? And that in order for a parody to be worthwhile, the thing parodied has to be fairly widely known? And that all this points to a date for the book of Matthew absolutely no later than 70, and more realistically at least 10 years before that? And that this means it certainly was written during Matthew's lifetime?

This is a single example, addressing the book I've been mainly quoting here, that more than adequately addresses the silly nonsense you've been hearing from leftist whacks about the dating (and authorship) of the New Testament. Try reading the early church fathers sometime, and you will see (as I have) that your assertion doesn't hold a drop of water.

with quotes taken out of context

Please entertain the good folks here at Slashdot by proving this charge. I haven't taken anything out of context, friend.

and badly translated

Have you ever studied Hebrew? How about Greek? I have. Trust me on this: it's not mistranslated. I did quote the KJV because that's what I have at hand, but a number of modern translations say essentially the same thing...because the KJV doesn't have the sense of it wrong.

and you're putting enough faith in it to think that make decisions about "lust" in every context.

There seems to be a word missing there towards the end, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'll guess, though. I'm guessing that you are challenging my premise that the passages I've quoted thus far are sufficient grounds for me to make the statement that sexual desire outside the bounds of marriage is sinful. If I'm correct in guessing at your point, then I have to ask you to prove your assertion that the texts that I've quoted are inadequate to make that statement (about sexual desire outside marriage). I think that in particular the Matthew 5 passage more than adequately establishes the case about lust being tantamount to committing the sin. If you disagree, please explain why.

The black and white comes from you thinking that one line in a book that's over a thousand years old, not even written by the guy in question, has absolute answers that you can directly apply to life in a world that's completely different than the one this messiah of yours lived in.

No offense, friend, but that's not normally what people mean when they say a man is a "black and white" thinker. Normally they mean that he sees everything in terms of right and wrong, and that he doesn't see many moral questions as being difficult. Really, what you seem to be accusing me of is more like relying on a standard of authority that is ancient (almost 2000 years for the most recent, up to 3500+ for parts).

I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, I absolutely affirm that the Bible has answers for life in 2003. One good example is the subject we're discussing here. So far you have failed to demonstrate that the answer I've given based on the Bible - "Pornography is evil because it is intended to stir up lust in its viewers, and lust is sinful" - is invalid. I think that this answer

This should be the same Wang - Wang was a word processor (as in the physical word processors with a little monochrome monitor attached to a typewritter) manufactorer and made some microcomputers, I think. But they missed out on the PC "revolution" and became a bit player. They eventually went bankrupt in the early 1990s, but apparently survived to as later as 1998.

Wang seems to have been bought out/changed it's name to Getronics, but their webpage still exists.

As far as I know, Wang is the name of the founder of the company - I don't remember which Asian nation he was from, but it's an Asian name. But yeah, Wang does seem like a weird name to use for a US company... :)