Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
The Swedish government ordered the removal of a site displaying the Muhammed caricatures. They were immediately removed.
Belgium has banned an entire fucking political party, compare that with taking a website offline.
The people writing this article, and the summary, are brainless idiots. Or people with special interests who will gain from hyperbole and FUD.
What's next bubble gum trading cards of the leading windrones and micro-softies, with a special super secret set of the leading forum flooding microtrolls.
I can just imagine a whole range of viral videos depicting many varied and imaginative ways of destroying those disgusting little caricatures. Some days it feels just so good, to not be a M$ employee ;).
Considering the bug is also in Firefox doesn't your ridiculous caricature also apply to them? And yeah, it's so easy to write code that doesn't have a single bug in it. Examples of huge apps with zero bugs ever found are:
End of list.
Firstly, the level of many of the posts here, the reflexive and snide referral to the principles of atmospheric science as religion indicate to me that an increasingly large group in society are hostile to science. Here is a New York Times article that argues just that, that there is a rising tide of anti-intellectualism building in America today.
As for the accusations of indoctrination, I believe that climate science should be taught in schools. However, it should be taught at a far more advanced level than they typical caricatures that appear in popular culture. Students should first be taught about the physics of electromagnetic radiation, about absorption, reflection, and emission. They should be given an understanding of how some wavelengths transparently pass through some materials, while others wavelengths are absorbed by the same materials. In my experience, students today typically have a terrible understanding of these concepts.
They should also be taught some basic atmospheric science. For example, they should know why the air becomes cooler as altitude increases (up to the thermosphere at least) because the reduced pressure causes the air molecules to move more slowly. This means that they should be familiar with gas laws, and with the concept of adiabiabatically raising a parcel of air. They should be taught about the latent heat in water vapor and also about relative humidity and the capacity of air to hold water vapor. They should understand that raising a parcel of air causes it to cool, thus reducing the amount of water vapor it can hold. When the water vapor condenses to form clouds, heat is released, causing the parcel of air to rise even faster...this is the main mechanism of storms.
Finally, they should be taught the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect. They should especially be taught that the typical pop culture caricature of the greenhouse effect is wrong. The greenhouse effect is typically portrayed as a sheet of gas reflecting infrared radiation back to Earth. This is not the way it works. Instead, increased carbon dioxide, especially at high altitudes (where it is dry) makes it more difficult for infrared radiation to escape to space. The high altitude carbon dioxide causes the Earth's infrared radiation to be emitted to space at a higher altitude. However, since the air is cooler at higher altitude, the infrared radiation is emitted to space less effectively, thus causing an increase in temperature of the entire system. Here is a nice summary.
If the material is taught in a logical scientific way, then I believe that it cannot be called indoctrination. If the students are familiar with the detailed science underlying the field of climate science, then they will be more able to judge between authentic and fallacious arguments. Mandating that this material be taught is really not that different than mandating that chemistry be taught.
Like I already told you, it's an absurd claim. You might as well call me lazy and dumb for not attempting to refute the claim that soldiers deployed to Iraq are equipped with water pistols.
I don't see how this proves that as a rule US troops are not educated in laws of warfare. Abu Ghraib was a total fuckup in general, and it occured years ago.
This is the old "since the US military is not perfect, they're all savage murderers" argument.
Doesn't mean you can't be a multiculturalist drone. You certainly sound like one.
My shift of perception started when I began to wonder why Muslims all over the world were having fits of hysterical, homicidal rage over some pictures drawn in Denmark. Speaking of which, caricatures of Mohammed recently caused a few deaths in Nigeria.
Hah hah. A site run by former Muslims is Islamophobic and racist. That's a good one. Maybe you shouldn't blindly trust some stupid webfilter. Many Finnish ISPs maintain a blacklist of sites provided by the police. Before I switched to OpenDNS, I was regularly prevented from accessing absolutely 100% legal sites because the idiots in charge of the list weren't too specific about what sites they included.
As I suspected, this is hopeless. You will simply deny historical facts because they just don't happen to fit your ideology.
A lot of words are well defined. Doesn't mean they can't be abused until they lose all meaning.
How the fuck can you argue that being serious is trolling? That's completely batshit crazy.
Similiar riots (and other problems) occur in many others places in Europe. Immigrants from
No, sir, I do understand the concept of free speech (freedom of thought is kind of topic here, don't you think?). What I do not understand is why the balance between free speech and all other things has to be in exactly the way you or Jimbo wants. At least it should be debatable, shouldn't it?
As for Wikipedia stands for, I believe, it is the purpose of accurate information which provided by democratic discussions and argument between simple users and sheer vastness of information provided by sheer vastness of users.
As I said in my original comment, pictures of the Prophet are not accurate depiction at all, the quality of pictures are so low that all the people look the same. Clearly, pictures have no more relevance to the article than any other caricature.
"Everybody who does something you don't agree with is not necessarilly your enemy" Of course, not. I have the only enemy, the Satan.
The edict against depiction of Muhammad post-dates his death by a couple of generations and is only found in the Sunni branch of Islam. It is part of the who 'No God by the God' thing, since it was believed that pictures of Muhammad would lead to a form of idol-worship - exactly the same argument the Protestant churches use against statues of Mary. Somewhat ironically, disrespectful pictures of Muhammad are in line with the spirit of this rule, since no one is going to idolise a mocking caricature.
I certainly can't disagree that there are a lot of Obama supporters doing Hillary-bashing. Perhaps it's because a good number of those folks who are members of Hillary's negative numbers end up in the Obama camp? That's certainly the case for me, even though I'd still be supporting Obama if I didn't dislike Hillary. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote 3rd party, as I've had enough of her fearmongering, think-of-the-children, divisive, anti-tech, pandering politics; supporting even symbolic anti-flag-burning legislation and doing photo ops with Jack Thompson earned her a black mark in my book long before Obama became a household name.
Okay, so I've given you the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm getting nothing but condescension from your reply, and I looked up intolerance.
The old 1994 Webster II dictionary gives a pretty flat definition:
intolerant Not tolerant, esp.: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinion or beliefs, esp. religious beliefs. b. Unable or unwilling to endure.
So far it sounds like I know what intolerance means, but it's a pretty generic definition and using "Not tolerant" to define the word seems a little hokey. I checked tolerant to make sure I had a good understanding of that word too.
tolerant 1.Inclined to recognize and respect the beliefs, practices, or traits of others: FORBEARING 2. Capable of withstanding or enduring an adverse environmental condition. (plants tolerant of extreme cold)
Then, since it was on the same page I figured, what the hell, I'll check out tolerance too
tolerance 1.Recognition and respect for opinions, practices, or behavior of others.
Tolerance goes on to define other things in mechanical and medical senses, but the first definition was really how I was using the word.
Just to be extra special certain I hit up the old google define:intolerance.
I noticed a funny trend. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about fervent disagreement. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about "blowing up churches, burning crosses on your front lawn, stringing people up, or beating up random X in the street". One word REALLY popped out at me immediately - RESPECT.
That is what tolerance is about. You have taken the most extreme cases of intolerance and held them up as the only true sign that there is any intolerance, but don't you think at the point where people start setting fires and setting out to join the mob that the level of intolerance has already gotten a little out of hand? RESPECT is the root of tolerance. "rage filled rantings and crazed indignation" are generally sans respect. Respect doesn't preclude someone from disagreeing however. Disagreements are welcome, discussions are usually good for both parties when they are done with respect and tact.
And while we're talking, I thought I would rebut your second post. I used zealot twice in my original post, once to say there were zealots on both sides of the line, and the other to describe what this particular brand of zealot tends to do. We'll break out the dictionary again, because it seems that you only apply the meaning of a word to the most extreme caricature you can imagine. For the sake of brevity I'll use the most applicable definition, you can trust me or look it up if you think I've missed some important detail.
One who is zealous, esp. excessively so. A fanatically committed person.
Hmph, no fire and death here either. The dictionary is SO boring. Anyways, if you take note, you'll find that I also said that there were zealots ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. That is to say, there are excessively fervent, fanatical folks on either side of the argument.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my response, I hope that you didn't find it as sleep inducing as my original post. Perhaps I should have just posted RESPECT, which is really what needs to be shared between people of differing opinions and views. I hope that you come to agree that intolerance is more than death and carnage that is a result of when intolerance goes to the extreme, but that it is also a lack of fundamental respect that should be given to every individual, no matter how much you disagree with them.
That's my point.
The issue is what is really going on with millions of families who want to but cannot afford to have children. Your caricatures apply to many families certainly. There are many households getting in over their head in mortgages for McMansions they couldn't afford no matter how otherwise frugal, racking up credit card debt for things like 52" plasma HDTVs, etc. But the reality for many other households is that they are frugal, hardworking and still not able to provide sufficient security to make a responsible choice to bring children into the world.
This gets down to a fundamental law of economics called "the iron law of wages" wherein international arbitrage in labor results, in classical economics terminology, in wages settling out at "subsistence". In a world without birth control/abortion/women's rights, etc. this could not result "subsistence" going lower than the cost of reproduction. Nowadays, however, it can.
The big "exceptions" to this are the cultures, such as Mexicans, Indians, etc. being imported that have retained aspect of the old times where treatment of reproduction is different. Yes those families can have children for less security and, certainly in the case of Mexicans, they make extensive use of social safety nets for their children paid for by others.
PS: I didn't mention my personal circumstances. You can rest assured they are quite different from your imputations.
The Swedish government gave orders to pull down a server that was hosting the caricatures of Muhammed, and it was done instantly, outside of any legal process.
Of course, if you are very liberal about what you define as "neo-nazi propaganda", then you simply have to classify something AS neo-nazi propaganda to justify censoring it. Such as, anything insulting or in opposition to Islam. But then you can't really whine the day "socialist propaganda" gets banned and repeat offenders punished by imprisonment..
The quote Gordon Geko is famous for is "greed is good", but like I said I don't agree with either of the previous posters myopic worldviews.
"The end result is that the worlds poor and the worlds "progressives" have brainwashed each other into believing that the creation of wealth is evil, because being rich must means you're exploiting someone else"
The word for those people is "envious", and I don't think it correlates with either a lack of money or a particular political outlook.
"Gordon Gekko seems to be a socialists caricature of a modern businessman"
Close, it's a caricature of a rabid capitalist, it's also based on a real person who was locked up for insider trading.
I had to look up Gordon Gekko to figure out what the hell you were talking about. Here's the first quote that pops up on wiki:
"It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another."
Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what I believe. If anything, it's much closer to what the OP was suggesting; that the western way of life is based on the exploitation of other nations. This seems to be a common theme amongst people who do not understand economics - the belief that money cannot be created or destroyed, and so all wealthy people must acquire their fortunes by making others poor. In reality, wealth is created every time one professional exchanges goods with another professional, and the rich and successful tend to drag the poor and incompetent along with them, making everyone richer in the process. But you can't be a hip anti-establishment "progressive" without blaming the rich and powerful for all of the worlds problems, so....well, there we are. The end result is that the worlds poor and the worlds "progressives" have brainwashed each other into believing that the creation of wealth is evil, because being rich must means you're exploiting someone else. It's a rather twisted way of looking at things, but it's frighteningly common.
BTW, as far as I can tell, Gordon Gekko seems to be a socialists caricature of a modern businessman. You didn't actually take that movie seriously, did you?
A strawman argument (or fallacy of extension) is attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. However, I chose not to respond further to his second posting because it was nothing more than a rhetorical question.
Finally, he is correct in his assertion that, with the extreme example of nuclear weapons, there clearly exists a limit to the citizenry's right to bear arms. The arguement is now where do we draw that line.This particular strawman argument is nothing more than an attempt to assert that a line must be drawn by legislation. Anyone that gives any thought to the issue would realize that the line has already been drawn by economics, without legislation.
In the future, contribute something coherant to the conversation, or go fuck yourself.Right back at you.
Yes.
Or no, depending on what you mean by "fundie".
From what I know of its original, historical definition, I might be a fundamentalist. (It comes from a document call "The Fundamentals", discussing various theological positions and views of what the Bible is. I haven't actually read it, so I don't know to what extent I might disagree with elements of it, but from what I do know, I generally agree.)
The original movement did have an element of social isolationism--a "bunker-down" mentality. That connotation has pretty much taken over the term entirely, so that it now denotes a closed-minded, uneducated approach. I've had to interact with that kind of person, and it's very frustrating. (Particularly when that kind of person is a proud "skeptic" or atheist.) By that definition, no, I'm sure fundies don't bother to read Hebrew. But in that case, you're pretty much defining "fundamentalist" as an anti-intellectual. It gets a bit circular.
Are you asking whether theologically conservative, evangelical, Biblical inerrantists bother to read the original languages?
If so...My goodness, of course yes! If you have to ask that, it suggests to me that you're very unfamiliar with that segment of Western culture--going from caricature, however well-intentioned you may be. I would be shocked to hear of a conservative seminary that left out coursework in the original languages. Being able to exegete from the Greek is like...major cool points. The best pastors are those steeped in the languages.
Again, you are dealing in black-and-white caricatures. Most people who believe in a biblical creation don't believe that dinosaur bones were put there "4000 years ago to confuse us". You are reducing a very large group of people to one grossly-oversimplified straw man (admittedly based on a real but tiny minority) that you can conveniently--and, perhaps, therapeutically--knock down.
And the "Fortunately, no" bit was irony gold.
The fact that you yourself are ostensibly unable to comprehend the idea of "faith", which underpins all religions, doesn't mean that anyone who holds religious beliefs is "uneducated" or "right on the bottom". In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of people who are much more intelligent than you are, who much more thoroughly understand evolutionary theory than you do, and who are much more generally enlightened and educated than you, but who still hold religious views which might properly be called "creationist" views.
There's a lot of this sort of bigotry--apparently rooted in insecurity--on Slashdot. In the end, though, you end up looking more like an ignorant, black-or-white thinker than the people who you intend to mock, but whose views to choose to caricature rather than actually understand. That's not to say that there aren't some hard-core "creationists" who are irrational, but they are certainly a minority amid a sea of people who are more-or-less intelligent than you but who believe in God, and you don't allow for that at all. That's why you sound like an idiot to me.
But if you come by your lousy spelling honestly, then I certainly applaud your scholastic efforts, and would only add that it takes all types to turn the world --and that none of the types you mention need to be labeled with antagonism. Why on earth should there by any kind of war between the various classes of passion in the halls of learning?
-FL
Doom defined the first person shooter. ...
There were and are mods for Doom based on schools and other real-world settings. You could - however crudely - caricature real people. This is potentially dangerous ground and I think the gamer-geek should admit that much.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say - that Doom did cause Columbine? Or if not, let's have a measurable definition of "potentially dangerous ground" before we admit to anything.
All those 2D space alien shooters ever since Space Invaders didn't have a "story or narrative that "framed" the action in anything but the most minimal sense" and they had the same goal "to shoot everything that moves". Nor did they have "concepts like rules of engagement, collateral damage".
Which great atrocities shall we blame on Space Invaders?
Doom defined the first person shooter.
The game play was intense and - in a loose sense - "addictive." It let you move in a plausible pseudo-3D environment. You could modify the game, introducing your own environments, characters and weapons.
What Doom did not have was a story or narrative that "framed" the action in anything but the most minimal sense. You goal is to shoot everything that moves.
The tactical or stealth shooter like S.W.A.T or Rogue Spear introduced concepts like rules of engagement, collateral damage. You couldn't go rogue and win.
There were and are mods for Doom based on schools and other real-world settings. You could - however crudely - caricature real people. This is potentially dangerous ground and I think the gamer-geek should admit that much.