Slashdot Mirror

I disagree. ;)

> The viewer isn't made to relate with the geeky characters, they're made to laugh at.

If you can't laugh at yourself, what do you have? And even a caricature can have a grain of truth.

Could we get some sort of statement, perhaps just in the FAQ, that addresses this? It would be nice to know that the supported candidates are being chosen based only on their suitability for accomplishing this goal. Politicians don't stay bought, and I'd be sad to see my money go toward electing someone who turns around and breaks their promise once the money gets them into office.

I wouldn't want to earmark my donation for either Democrats or Republicans, but I'd want to know that the candidates being supported are actually the "bankruptcy judges" that Lessig talked about and not just more-of-the-same problem politicians who are just using the PAC to boost themselves into office.

The impetus behind this concern is something said in the Bill Moyers interview linked by the main page. In this interview, Lessig puts forward the idea of Michael Bloomberg as being a possible "bankruptcy judge". Bloomberg is almost a caricature of partisan politics, one of the the poster boys of using his money to buy personal representation regardless of what the citizens want, and pathologically incapable of not using his influence to push his personal goals. It seems as though Lessig is judging the feasibility of potential candidates based on his personal politics and not any objective measure of accountability. Suggesting Bloomberg as a possible candidate for funding is just as ridiculous as suggesting that the PAC be used to fund the Koch brothers running for office.

It seems that Lessig is blinded by his politics from seeing that Bloomberg is just as representative of what this PAC is supposed to be fighting as the Kochs are, albeit on a smaller scale. If this PAC is going to get universal support, Lessig needs to show that he can keep his own politics out of it. The point of this PAC should be to get money out of government, not to give Lessig the money he needs to become his own Koch or Bloomberg.

The mention of TED however makes me wonder this is just another left wing power grab, same as it might be a neocon power grab if this came from the heritage foundation.

The more I read about this, the more I agree with you on this point. I'm by no means associated with either party or either wing, by the way. (Seriously. I'm very firmly anti-party politics and my views are not simplistic enough to represented by either of the two main parties.)

In his Moyers interview, he suggests funding someone like Bloomberg to handle this one cause and then "step aside". Anyone who thinks Bloomberg (almost a caricature of partisan politics, one of the the poster boys of using his money to buy personal representation regardless of what the citizens want, and pathologically incapable of not using his influence to push his personal goals) would be a good place to spend this money is clearly letting his politics lead him around.

I'm assuming that all of the D's they fund will be of Bloomberg's character and all of the R's will be ones who personally don't offend Lessig's sensibilities. I like the idea of this PAC quite a bit, but there's no way I'm giving any of my money to see Bloomberg elected to an even higher office. It's a trap!

I like TBBT, but I do have one criticism of it. I know a lot of you are saying it makes fun of nerds, rather than idolizing them, and I think someone even went so far as to call it "blackface for nerds", or something like that. But the show is a sitcom and ALL sitcoms rely on caricatures and clownish antics. TBBT is no different. I don't criticize them for that.

My problem with TBBT is that it's been going on a little too long. The actors are getting into middle age. Jim Parsons is over 40. Johnny Galecki and Mayim Blaik are almost there. The others are all approaching their mid-30s. Most people, by this age, are raising families, getting mortgages, etc. Maybe not everyone, but among professionals this is certainly the case. Certainly, by middle age, most people have moved beyond paintball and hanging out at the comic book store. The show is becoming a little too unrealistic.

I have not been able to establish correlation between BBT characters (probably anecdotal - only seen 3 episodes) and scientists/engineers. .

Myself and fellow employees are mainstream, and not that exceptional for engineers. My boss, with three technical degrees, was former airborne, and broke his leg in ranger school. I am a former marine with two technical degrees. We both are technical climbers, do xc hiking (fuck trails), are married, like to do lunch at local micro breweries while enjoying an over-hopped ale. We are both IPSC shooters, and are both licensed pilots.

The sw engineer is somewhat of an outlier. She was an RN, biology degree and working on a math degree, is married with two offspring, does assembly through Python, and can actually make stuff work on windoze. She is a quiet person, a bit introspective, and thinks that many ales are over-hopped.

The mech engineer went to Cal Poly, builds his own audio equipment, is on his second wife, has a kid going to college, and drives a Lexus, while most of drive small trucks or motorcycles.

There are four other engineers in the dept, but will not further bore with incessant details - certain that an image has been formed.

Our politics are scattered, our ethics are dissimilar, and our morals are similar. But we all agree that the BBT is mind-rot, two-dimensional, and a poor caricature.

But ignore the opinion of this engineering dept - my wife is an artsian and musician (opposites apparently can attract), has a brother and mother that are PhD scientists, and cannot see any relevance in these characters.

I believe that the show is derogatory, has further contributed to American hatred of intellect, and has promulgated bias against 'academia'; that is, yet another hollywood hack-job.

thats the point of a comedy show

That's the point of *some* comedy shows. Shows like "America's funniest home videos of people getting kicked in the nuts". Hilarious for some, I'm sure.
Bill Hicks was a comedian. George Carlin too. But I never laughed at them, I laughed at their humour.

Has there ever been a science/tech-related comedy show which *didn't* cater to a mainstream audience by placing caricature stereotypes in all the main roles?

Once Rome had drawn its line in the sands in north and central Europe, Asia Minor and the Middle East, for the most part it actually retained its territory for something like two centuries before the decline saw territories lost (like the abandonment of Britain). Clearly Rome was not completely reliant on simple expansionism, and was far more complex than the all too often put forward caricature of the out of control military state. It was a complex society (or rather a complex collection of societies). Certainly military expenditures ate into the treasury, but if that was the cause, why didn't Rome collapse after it had achieved, by and large, its maximum territorial extent in the second century? Rome as an at least semi-united political entity persisted for nearly two centuries after that.

Again, people like to find nice neat explanations, but it's never going to be that easy. There were a whole host of internal and external problems that lead to the collapse of the Western Empire. Who knows, if the Asian Steppe hadn't started puking forth hungry legions of semi-barbaric peoples looking for greener pastures (let's remember here that some of the forces that smashed into the European parts of the Empire were also being experienced at the opposite end of Eurasia), maybe Rome could have withstood the catastrophes of the third and fourth centuries.

The plot needs to make sense at some level, first of all. Otherwise I'm just not going to give a shit. Does this mean it needs to challenge my ideas on (blank) or attempt to (yadda)? No. If you make it like every horror movie where people act in a completely retarded way, weather or not they've ever seen a horror movie if freaky random ghostly shit starts happening you GTFO after a few times. It just needs to make sense. Even if you KNOW it's a bad idea, but you HAVE to do it because a reasonable reason, that's okay. Hell, I trotted after Sephiroth because all the characters were like "If S-Dawg be doin' stuff, we in deep shit!" and just about the time I got tired of that, the characters ruminate on how he MURDERED people and burnt down villages and went frikkin' CRAZY. So, yeah, it made sense we should try and stop him, then this seed grew into a sapling and eventually became a massive redwood tree which would sound sketchy as a story when summed up but every step of the way made sense. That's all a plot needs to hold up: small steps that make sense, leading to a conclusion.

A story? You need characters for that. I don't mean this is "blah" he is like "yada". That's a caricature at best. They need thoughts, feelings, things to do, quirks. Any halfway decent GM can tell you that the difference between "the bartender." and "That's MISTER M.F. Bartender, esq. to YOU!" can be as simple as kicking some street punks out of the bar, then eyeing down the PCs like they could be next if they misbehave. The difference between "manic evil dude." and "Are you MAD Villain, bro? wtf?! SRSLY?!" is, instead of "You'll nevar catch ME! *poof*" he turns to the PCs and says "Well. This has been fun, but now you've gone and made me late. *frown*" then, suddenly, he just shoots one of the PCs in the leg "Tootaloos~! (to self while walking of) Mental Note: Yes, that meeting with... John, was it? Yes. Move that to tomorrow. I've an underling that's failed me, one of those "getters" that just isn't going -- needs his kneecaps busted, I think. Yes... I'll hold... *manic laughter he cuts short then shoots someone else* What, thought I lost it? No such luck."

This is what separates the memorable moments in gaming from the filler. Character. We didn't care that Aeris died because she was the healer or because "plot twist! SOMEONE DIES!!". It broke our hearts because we CARED. You had her nurture the group, share her fears, her past, gave her a story and personality and then BAM. GONE.

The words "Would you kindly?" stick with me not because "plot twist! MIND CONTROL!" but because we think our plane crashed, we have no direction, then this guy with a propensity for being polite shows up, guides us, gets in trouble, we try to help etc. etc. and then, suddenly, everything that made us sympathize with the character is stripped away and the very quirk which provided some level of endearment is brandished against us.

When I think of Gothic, I remember "Welcome to the colony! *punch to the face*" not because it's the first line of note in the game, but because it gives the entire setting of Gothic a character itself. "Wizards, magic spell gone wrong, prisoners take over, orcs are trapped in here too because of a war going on, blah blah blah, yeah, yeah 'only I can prevent forest fires!' figured as much... wait... 'but he had a ways to go before that'... well yeah I'm level one... Oh... you... uh... really meant that. Wow. Okay. Well... that chicken thing don't look too--- OH GOD MY CHARACTER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWORD!!! BALD CHICKENS TERRIFYING!!!!" Even though the majority of characters are not even "real characters" they FEEL like it, because the world has made it painstakingly clear that although you're used to being special in a video game, you have to earn it. The "I'm a prison A-hole" vibe everyone oozes works because from the get go you KNOW what kind of place you're in and that you really need to invest in some friends, and soap on a rope, quick.

Even Borderlands 2 gets this right. Jack has got personality. Mar

Whoops, I didn't realize I was talking to a caricature of a fundamentalist Christian instead of a real person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

1 - people keep living in the past, by this I mean black folks calling other successful black folks uncle toms. Other black folk demanding to be paid because their great great great great grandpa was a slave, by people who dont own nor have they ever owned slaves

2 - elitists propagating the myth that people of a certain color need help by the white man because they cant make it on their own. This breeds animosity among whites who feel that a poor white kid deserves just as much of a shot as a poor black kid, and this breeds victim mentality among black folk

Interesting. So you are against elitists who propagate myths about people of a certain color, yet you yourself is propagating a myth that people of a certain color are more prone to stick to the past, call successful blacks uncle tom, demand payments etc.

I'm not saying I support AA, but I'm saying what you're doing is no better. The caricature of blacks you're holding is also a form of "living in the past", which - I'm throwing your words back at you - will further breed animosity among blacks, and victim mentality among whites.

The irish were racial targeted when they came to america, guess what, they assimilated with the american way of life and are not generally targets anymore. Asians were targeted and even rounded up and put in camps 70 years ago, guess what, they are doing just fine.

There are significant differences between blacks and the groups you mention.

Most Irish and Asians CHOOSE to immigrate. They choose to assimilate. They choose their destiny for themselves, so they had all the motivation to work hard and succeed, and nobody else to blame. Even if as a second or third generation, you can say that your father/grandfather came here by their own choice. That alone filters out many slackers in Ireland or China, so of course you don't see many failures from those who had the motivation to move.

Same cannot be said for African Americans. They did not arrive on this continent by choice, even the slackers (being slaves, master can always just whip the slackers to work) They did not choose to adopt their master's culture: master said you'll learn English, so you learn English, and master only wants you to learn enough to follow orders, not enough to become fully literate and improve your lot in life.

Furthermore, most Irish and Asians have a country/culture of origin to turn to. Irish culture is very old. Most Asian cultures are very old, very established. Like religion, they provide strong morale support for the immigrants to endure hardship.

Blacks? Some of them don't even know which part of Africa they came from. The cultural identity and morale support Irish and Asians had from the get go, the blacks had to pretty much build from scratch. Soul food, Jazz, Rhythm and Blues, Rap, etc. all these things associates with African Americans happened in the span of only a few hundred years, maybe even just a few decades. Frankly, I'd say for all the crap they've received, the blacks have done more than alright.

What I'm trying to say with all this is that the blacks really did have a much later start. You can talk all you want how the Irish or Asians came with nothing and built themselves up. The blacks still came with less than what your forefathers had. It's unreasonable to expect blacks to have the same level of success (but again, I think they've done quite well)

Even amongst Asians, some are more successful than others. For example, the Chinese tend to be more successful than the Vietnamese, but for there's an explanation for that: the Vietnamese had a later start (Chinese were around before the railroads were built, Vietnamese immigration started really immigrating after Vietnam War)

There certainly were large movements of support against Germany. There were even plenty of men who crossed the border into Canada or traveled to the UK to volunteer, and there were even men who went to Finland to fight against the USSR in the Winter War of 1940. This kind of "world police" behaviro is definitely a fairly common thread in American history, both unofficially by volunteers and officialy often driven by the same undercurrents which drove the men to act independently in the first place. There were even official American expeditions to fight against the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolutions in 1918.

That said, it should be easy to see that these same undercurrents and social movements aren't unique to any particular movement, with some much stronger than others, and the "world police" interventionist tendencies of the USA and American civilians are just that: undercurrents. In addition to those that volunteered to fight in WW2 early, before America's official entrance, there were also a large number of Nazi sympathizers. People with German ethnic heritage make up the largest single demographic of America even today, with memories and ties to Europe much stronger half a century ago. Coupling this with tendencies for Americans to voice their opinions adds to the "world police" caricature.

I only bring all this up because I think it's an injustice to history to take the "world police" superpower caricature of the USA today and apply it to its actions around the time of WW1 or WW2. Calling America's entrance into both wars anything other than a reluctant, late entry due to the strong isolationist tendencies of the vast majority of America is simply wrong. America was basically dragged, kicking and screaming, into both wars, and are probably a major cause for the Cold War-era interventionism.

that said!

I don't think it's surprising at all that the US focused so much on Europe early on. Nazi Germany's industry and power were a huge threat to established industrial powerhouses, with many others with important manufacturing, manpower, and resources already under its control. With access to these, Germany was even more of a threat to the UK and USSR. If the UK fell, especially, hope of a decisive victory against the Nazis would be lost.

Japan had already conquered most of its goals, and already had access to most of the resources it needed, and most of this was a region which is more defensible and has less ease of transportation (thanks mostly to the ocean, large numbers of islands, and tropical jungles). Almost none of it was industrialized. Losing Australia was a threat, but not an entirely serious one. I just don't think that what happened -- focus on Europe, smaller focus on defending areas just off of Australia like the Coral Sea and the Solomon Islands -- was surprising.

Yes, the article is not the best, but this is the one I found in a hurry that deals with the complete issue at once rather than a one day news update at a time. All this transpired over some months so better articles are some 50 in number, each adding a bit to the story so far. But the issue is quite famous.

And no, you are caricaturing the isssue by your battery example. India is not going to Canadian manufacturer for $300 batteries. The agreements being discussed are for billion dollar deals, over years.

If someone were saying it is ridiculously easy to not cause an accident at nuclear plants by making a mistake in mowing grass, yet no company is ready to undertake that including the risk even at twice market rates, this is a serious argument against it being ridiculously easy to not cause accident, right?

And India is ready to limit liability of manufacturer upto purchase price, but manufacturers are STILL not ready. That tells about their confidence in their own technology, doesn't it?

From a non-U.S.A. perspective, this is a caricature.

Guns guns guns. Hooray Hollywood !

Can you envision not having to fear your approaching neighbour?

Well ganjadude. May I call you ganjadude? I imagine that is what your friends on 'your side' call you, right? 'ganjadude' sounds like that kind of a name.

You're assuming that the people who are angry about the appointment of Rice to this role are the same people who were angry about the Eich being given the CEO position at Mozilla.
You're also roughly stating that because there are other reasons to dislike Dropbox, it is inappropriate to complain about their choice of someone who has historically be pro-surveillance and supportive of state-sanctioned torture (in certain contexts, like the state doing the torturing for the US). I isn't really 'inappropriate' to complain about both the color and performance of a car, and likewise I don't think that disliking some other attribute of Dropbox reasonably precludes me complaining about their choice of board members.

I didn't much like the way that Eich was attacked for his support of Prop 8, even though I didn't agree with Prop 8. Eich's views on same-sex marriage really don't relate Mozilla (I don't think), and they don't really make him a bad or nasty person either - at least, not themselves without knowing the reasoning behind them.
That Rice previously demonstrated support of intensive surveillance by government does directly relate to Dropbox. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to criticise. I think that her support of torture and extraordinary rendition makes her an unpleasant person, but I'm not sure that so much relates to her role at Dropbox.

Your obsession with what 'they' do, those dirty liberals, is slightly bizarre and makes you sound like a crazy person. Also, you're presenting a weak caricature of liberals and then pretending it is reality. That doesn't make you sound clever, or steadfast in your role as an opponent of liberals. It makes you sound like someone who is to polarized to be able to think straight.

...reminds me of Steve Schmidt on Colbert saying only criminals want privacy

You can't take Stephen Colbert seriously - it's a comedy show where he portrays a republican caricature.

I've got to agree with the parent - Voyager was pretty good. Yes, most the cast wasn't especially likable, neither were those in Babylon 5. The redeeming factor was that they were a lot more *believable* than the 2-dimensional caricatures that populated much of the Star Trek franchise. DS 9 wasn't too bad there either - characters had some depth to them rather than being quite so archetypal. Comic-book characters have their place, but if I'm going to watch actual human actors acting in glacial real-time (as opposed to reading-speed) I like a little more depth.

But then what do I know - I generally refuse to watch action movies unless I've had at least a few drinks first, and preferably several more during.

It is my own position, and those of most of the people I know. Yes... Those extreme caricatures do get us in trouble..... Ahem. cough cough.

Conservatives like safe food, no pollution, no consumer fraud, etc etc etc... Yes. They do. I think they just take it for granted. Thing is, I walk Ron Paul speak back in the old days and I say "yeah... Yeah.... Yeah!... YEAH!.... Wait, what, no...." I'd agree with everything he said riiiight up to the point where we needed to abolish the EPA. His son? Rand Paul doesn't hold a candle to Ron Paul. He was arguing for less EPA regs a WEEK after that WV chemical spill. I get his emails. :D

Yes, there are some actual communists around. And some anarchists. Those don't count. I work with conservatives. we talk. I'm not getting all this from a talking head on TV. I'm getting it from my co-workers... who get it all from a talking head on TV. :D I grew up Rural. I marinated in conservativism and libertarianism. Then I went to work for a giant corporation and saw that inefficiency, stupidity, corruption, etc are NOT soley the domain of big government, but the urge to screw people out of every cent they can does seem to be lodged firmly in the private sector. My sister coming out made me do a lot of thinking as well. Learning about the infrastructure around me and how much I benefit from it did a lot too.

I know conservatives don't want NO government. But they sure do rail against the EPA a LOT. The EPA is a joke in this country. Did you know the formula for M&M coloring is different in Europe? The food colorings cause cancer, but the FDA is too weak. Europe straight up banned those colorings. M&Ms still sells in Europe. They just don't give a shit here in the States. This is just one example of MANY that we live with here because our government is bought and sold. Legalized Bribery, I mean campaign donations. Sigh.

P.S. High Five for us for having a reasonable and respectful political discussion on Slashdot. :D I will wholeheartedly agree that partisanship sucks. I don't agree with you, but I respect the thought you've put into your beliefs.

I'd say it's tautological to claim that liberals want "Correctly Sized government"... conservatives want that too, they just disagree on the correct size.

I feel like you're arguing a fairly reasonable, seemingly moderate liberal position (presumably your own) against a totally extreme caricature of conservatism. I don't know of any conservatives that are in favor of unsafe food, or pollution, or consumer fraud, or not having highways or police, or anything like that. Most conservatives I know get particularly incensed about crony capitalism as well... that's a divide that's really "insiders vs. outsiders" not "liberal vs. conservative". You seem to be taking the position that, since conservatives generally want less government, they'd be happiest with zero government... but that's anarchy, and that's a totally different thing. And there are a few extremists that lean that way, but they're rare. It would be just as valid for me to say that, because liberals like government to do more, they'd be happiest if the government ran everything... but that's communism (or totalitarianism), and that's clearly not what you're supporting (though again, that's not to say there aren't some actual communists running around out there).

It's not surprising that you see conservatives as "foolish and simple", when you misunderstand what conservatism is really about. Although, depending on where you get your impression of conservatives from, the misunderstanding is not surprising. Far too many people (and in particular the media and the politicians) are so into this "us vs. them" partisanship that they can't see that there are reasonable positions on both sides, along with more commonality than they'd like to believe. Your crony capitalism is a good example... I can't think of anyone who's not either a politician or a crony (or maybe a wannabe crony) that's actually in favor of that.

When are they going to make the users of their website tolerable human beings instead of insane caricatures designed to make you lose all faith in humanity?

And ... this is different from Slashdot, how? ;-)

When are they going to make the users of their website tolerable human beings instead of insane caricatures designed to make you lose all faith in humanity?