Slashdot Mirror

As an Asian, I'm absolutely glad that Sarkozy won. May I point out that he himself is a son of immigrants, and not the anti-immigrant caricature that the story blurb would have us believe.

Vive la France! By voting against the socialist and fundamentalist-sponsored hoodlums and other opponents of assimilation, the French people have chosen a path for future progress and prosperity.

Taco, isn't it long overdue for that Borg icon to be retired? No other slashdot topic icon has that juvenile caricature. And Bill Gates isn't even the CEO of Microsoft anymore. He is the chairman.

That icon isn't even relevant anymore. It's time slashdot grow up as well.

"Your contributions to the culture of humanity will be mercilessly dissected, reshuffled, caricatured, parodied, paraded, criticized, subclassed and recycled."

This is not progress. This is a step for a bunch of profiteering assholes. According to your reasoning, if a starving art student created a webcomic with a lovable character, it would be A-OK for Disney to come in, steal the character, rename him, put him in a bunch of movies that make 100 million dollars, and then give absolutely no credit or money to the creator.

I don't know many people who would call this progress.

We can only hope we are witnessing the death throes of state-sponsored protection of the antiquated intellectual property regime that has been built up over the past several hundred years.

You can't "own" an idea anymore. It's absurd to even try in a world with instantaneous global communication networks. We got a little taste of this two nights ago with the digg 09:f9 revolt. We see memes getting remixed all the time over on 4chan /b/.

Welcome to the future. Your contributions to the culture of humanity will be mercilessly dissected, reshuffled, caricatured, parodied, paraded, criticized, subclassed and recycled.

This is progress.

Yea, thats a real comic book caricature there. Go back to the wois me lifestyle and I will stay in the when we do something certain things happen environment. Then down the road when you complaining that all corporations are evil and you don't have any money, I will sit back and laugh.

The only implication I made is that people who cannot manage their money won't have it and people with money who cannot manage it, won't have it long. Only in America is the thought of sacrificing your drug habit or not buying a recreational vehicle over placing food on the table considered a deep decision the poor need to make. And for some reason, we should feel pity for them.

Actually, you are the one I pity. Your comic book caricatures of what people are like belie the fact that either you live in a significantly sheltered universe, or your powers of perception are seriously lacking.

Bunch of terrorists only marginally better then PETA.

1) make a caricature of an organization you don't like
2) find anecdotes to support your arguments, and apply them to everyone in said organization
3) attack the caricature like a pinata
4) ???
5) profit!

I could make a caricature of Republicans as mule fucking, abortion clinic bombing, racists that believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This would of course be ridiculous, but you see this line of reasoning in attacks on PETA all the time, as well as unions, Greenpeace, trial lawyers, etc etc. Those with a mad hate-on for PETA are just as irrational as they make PETA out to be.

But a bigger problem is anti-scientists who deliberately fail to differentiate between theory, hypothesis, and that first-step sense of wonder which is at the root of discovery

They have to jumble it up so they can quote-mine any sentence made by any science-type person, at any time, on any subject, out of context to show their audience, "Look how silly scientists are! They think they're smarter than God!" They can't make a case without caricaturing science, because they have no case of their own, and science works so well (as they plainly see, looking around them). So they're stuck with misrepresentation--i.e. bearing false witness.

Have you ever heard the term "Mad as a Hatter"? Maybe, but you probably do know who the Mad Hatter is.

Mad as a Hatter is a term that stems from "Hatters" (hat makers) using Mercury in the formation of hats. It was used in the process of removing hair from animal hides. All the hatters ultimately went insane or had the other symptons of mercury poisioning.

That's where the term comes from, and that's where the idea for the "Mad Hatter" came from for Alice in Wonderland. What does this have to do with the article? Nothing really, just trying to spread some random information.

According to: Mad As a Hatter at snopes.com, this is but one possibility. Here is some of what I found there:

In the 18th century, mercury salts were used to make felt for fancy hats. The process required copious amounts of the element, a substance then not known to be as dangerous as we now know it to be.

Hat makers who day after day handled mercury-soaked fabric risked mercury poisoning, a condition that affects the nervous systems. Those so exposed would in time develop uncontrollable twitches and trembles, making them appear demented to the casual observer.

Even though there exists a strong tie between mercury poisoning and strange behavior in those long-ago hatters, it's still more than likely the term we now toss about so casually did not spring from this combination.

Even though there exists a strong tie between mercury poisoning and strange behavior in those long-ago hatters, it's still more than likely the term we now toss about so casually did not spring from this combination.

Whether Carroll meant his "hatter" as a caricature of a known crackpot, a play on mad as a March hare, as a bit of tomfoolery about venomous vipers, or as a combination of all three, it seems clear that the only relation his use of the term had to mercury-maddened hat makers was that of coincidence.

No doubt!!

Funny...I'd not even heard of this Live Earth concert till this article. I went to the website to look at the bands, wow...not much to see except the Police really. I guess Madonna and the Peppers still put on a good show, but, really, the music industry has really killed music.

Look at the HUGE names for the original Live Aid, heck, look at the bands that were fairly newcommers that became huge (U2 for instance). Look at the sheer number of big acts then available to play a worldwide show, and look at what's available now. It appears that the music industries actions over the past 2 decades has left us with no successors to the bands of the 70's, 80's...and even some in the 90's. All the older bands are aging past quality performance levels (they can't all survive like Keith Richards), and/or have broken up. Where are the new 'Beatles'?

I may tune in for parts of this show...but, I may not watch long. Was I the ONLY one severely disappointed with the Live 8 broadcast? I was there for Live Aid when shown live, and it was a major day for us. They had 2-3 channels showing bands all day long. I tuned into Live 8 expecting to watch bands all day, but, what did I get? I got to see the fscking announcers and 'celebs' talking all day, and occasionally showing a clip of a performance. Where the hell did the music go? At least, it was this way in the US. I mean, my God...they went to commercial here before Pink Floyd had finished their set. One of the largest reunions in the rock world, and they cut to commercial before it was over????????????????

Perhaps that behavior of money completely overiding content is exactly the problem.

I for one love to see things like this done...it should raise awareness of an issue, and provide the audience with entertainment from big established acts, and showcase the best of the new artists. But, I think that is something of the past.

I don't think we'll actually see performances by artists like at Woodstock, or Live Aid again. At least...not until the atmosphere changes, and talent can emerge on the world circuit, and be allowed to grow and develop as they did in the old days.

The music industry is a caricature of itself, so why shouldn't Spinal Tap be both?

What happens if you see someone with a gun shoot someone else with a gun, then turn and point their gun at another guy with a gun? Is that person the original shooter, or did they just kill the original shooter?

My god man, do you think people are really that stupid or you have to use a contrived example featuring caricaturized fools with guns? In this case you should obviously shoot the weird asshole in the boyscout uniform that came through the door with the vest that is shooting people. Why is that so difficult to understand without resorting to the "OH MY GOD the confusion is so bad people with guns for protection will shoot everyone!?!!?!!!" bullshit. There is a common sense in people that can evaluate things correctly in even 1/2 a second. Besides, even taking your extremely retarded example, if someone made the mistake of then shooting someone protecting everyone in this case the overall tally could have saved still 29 lives even though there was still a very tragic loss of one life of a protector and the asshole original shooter would still fortunately be as dead as ever. In my book the protector would be a hero and family lavished with millions of dollars and affection and celebrated for years to come by the society they're in.

dude, as far as putting words in your mouth goes, I'd say I was a lot fairer than you were to the grandparent when you claimed he was drawing a caricature of armed citizens as "twitching bundles of indiscriminate reflexes" by asking "You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?". Besides, he wasn't even talking about your average "armed citizens", but any citizen in a completely armed society, which would then include all citizens. Anyway, this is all besides the point.

Besides, I didn't put words in your mouth. You made the blanket statement "We can think as well as you can, and about the same things" about "armed citizens", and I was merely pointing out that, should this be interpreted as including all armed citizens (which isn't unreasonable from your phrasing), it would be pretty silly.

The truth is, we'd all have to be pretty highly trained to deal with random situations, such as these, effectively, especially considering that you can never be truly "prepared", unless you're crazy paranoid. When random psycho opens the door to your classroom and starts shooting at you, you don't have a hell of a lot of time to react, and given that this sort of occurrence happens to about 1/1,000,000 people in this country, odds are you're not expecting it.... I'd honestly hope. And what I think both my and the grandparent's point is (though he didn't state it very well), arming everyone is probably more likely to cause more problems with some of those 1,000,000 people than it is going to solve for the one who gets attacked by random psycho and probably isn't able to respond in time to save themselves anyway.

Of course, this isn't to say that I'm for banning guns or anything like that. I think they're handy for people who live in dangerous places. I just think some of the arguments about guns for self defense in a 9am german class in buttfuck virginia are pretty silly.

You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?

I don't shoot anyone for holding a gun. I only shoot if I see someone shooting unarmed students.

If someone runs into your car in a parking lot, who do you blame? Everyone with a car? Of course not. Only the person you know hit your car. Stop trying to caricature armed citizens as twitching bundles of indiscriminate reflexes. We can think as well as you can, and about the same things.

Geof (153857) said:

"Wow. You take my breath away. How does one respond to such an incredible warping of the purpose of school? What the hell do TAXPAYERS have to do with it?

I thought school was supposed to be about the education of students, for their benefit, that of their parents, of other citizens, and of society and democracy at large.

Not that I think schools actually do this; I would say on balance they achieve the opposite. But to actually state that the goal of public education is the efficient satisfaction of taxpayers (not citizens, parents, or God-forbid students; learning, citizenship, and the improvement of students are nowhere to be found) is so ass-backwards it's virtually guaranteed to never achieve actual education or fulfill the interests of students.

Of course, to the extent that you're a politico or functionary dependen on an industrial system of public education for your power and income, your characterization of education may be in your personal interest. What you wrote thoroughly confuses the private benefit of public servants with the broader public interest. I sincerely hope this is an accident of your writing and a product of having to cope with an imperfect system, not what you actually believe or practice.

None of which is to argue that schools are better with or without MySpace. Addressing that question requires a much more thorough analysis than the caricature you've presented here: of what we as a society want our schools to achieve, of the degree to which school should be isolated from real life and of the practical questions of how school can teach students to function in their actual lives, of whether it's better to try to change the student than to train the teacher, of the potential and actual nature of social sites (socialization is, after all, one of the main things we want out of schools), and of the practical dimensions of any relevant policy. In other words, I don't have an answer but I don't think you've made an argument."

Very well said.

People don't pay tax dollars so that we can let students post whiney blogs about how few people are friending them on myspace. . . . this is about making effective efficient classrooms that don't waste taxpayer time and money

Wow. You take my breath away. How does one respond to such an incredible warping of the purpose of school? What the hell do TAXPAYERS have to do with it?

I thought school was supposed to be about the education of students, for their benefit, that of their parents, of other citizens, and of society and democracy at large.

Not that I think schools actually do this; I would say on balance they achieve the opposite. But to actually state that the goal of public education is the efficient satisfaction of taxpayers (not citizens, parents, or God-forbid students; learning, citizenship, and the improvement of students are nowhere to be found) is so ass-backwards it's virtually guaranteed to never achieve actual education or fulfill the interests of students.

Of course, to the extent that you're a politico or functionary dependen on an industrial system of public education for your power and income, your characterization of education may be in your personal interest. What you wrote thoroughly confuses the private benefit of public servants with the broader public interest. I sincerely hope this is an accident of your writing and a product of having to cope with an imperfect system, not what you actually believe or practice.

None of which is to argue that schools are better with or without MySpace. Addressing that question requires a much more thorough analysis than the caricature you've presented here: of what we as a society want our schools to achieve, of the degree to which school should be isolated from real life and of the practical questions of how school can teach students to function in their actual lives, of whether it's better to try to change the student than to train the teacher, of the potential and actual nature of social sites (socialization is, after all, one of the main things we want out of schools), and of the practical dimensions of any relevant policy. In other words, I don't have an answer but I don't think you've made an argument.

Dean's problems were 1) the media didn't like him 2) he was not the establishment candidate and 3) primaries are decided in the first few states. First the media: it loves to caricature people, and it caricatured Dean as angry and "too liberal to win", despite the fact that he was was a pro-gun, pro-death penalty fiscal conservative.

Second, he wasn't the Establishment Candidate, which brings money, support, and more money. The same thing happened to McCain in 2000 - the GOP establishment went with his opponent, despite the fact that McCain was far more charismatic, the press loved him, and he took New Hampshire with a large lead.

Lastly, the primaries: they are all but decided in the first five states. Sometimes in the first two, Iowa and New Hampshire. In a democracy, it is atrocious that less than a handful of states decide a primary, and the last 30-40 states are completely irrelevant. Again, the same thing happened to McCain in 2000 as happened to Dean in 2004, even though McCain did win New Hampshire.

What you've described is a caricature of modern business, not reality.

I find modern business loaded with people with both integrity and long-term committment. Not everyone, not everywhere, but enough that the situation is no where near as dismal as you make it out.

And so far as suppressing good ideas, I state again that I've never seen it happen. I've seen good ideas ignored or under exploited, but due to ignorance or incompetence, not through evil intentions.

Businesses know that good ideas are for exploiting, not hiding. We had better innovate, better our competitors sure the hell will. The status quo is not an option.

I agree with the spirit of this article, and don't want to be contrary, but the comment "the world is not always a nice place" is completely out of step with the topic, and mixing these topics is precisely what leads to trouble. The violence depicted in games is a mere caricature of the real thing, and a dangerous one at that.

With regards to which games are acceptable for children, our family is admittedly out of step with mainstream culture. My 4-year-old son has dabbled in Rome-Total-War. "Lemmings" has some disturbing content by preschool standards, especially the updated 3D-versions. But its on the approved list because the player is challenged with saving the lemmings rather than destroying them. Mario in contrast, is completely off-limits.

We will watch and discuss "Saving Private Ryan" before we introduce Mario. Though I don't distinguish between Mario and Gears-of-War, one could argue that Mario is worse because it sugar-coats aggression, makes it more palettable. Lobbing mushrooms and fireballs teaches aggression every bit as well as mortars.

NOTE: It composing this post, I used the concepts of "aggression" and "violence" somewhat interchangeably. They are of course not the same, but I wanted to limit this post to a few paragraphs. Apologies to those who are offended by this ambiguity.