Slashdot Mirror

Well done on a successful troll, look at all the responses. I was about to respond myself until I hit this post which pretty much gives up the game. I thing of beauty to take the point of the article to this extreme of caricature and still have people responding to it as a sincere argument... I love that last line: "Exactly. I'm saying that collecting evidence and then not finding any, is proof of gross negligence on the part of the police."... awesome.

The Republican party needs a reboot. We need a healthy Republican party to be the best country we can be. I welcome a strong Republican party. This one ain't it.

I'm about done with both parties. I think what we really need is a 3rd party. This two party system is getting ridiculous. Look what we had to choose between this election. Personally, I was unhappy with both candidates.

In my opinion, both parties have degraded into caricatures of their former selves. There's no independent thought and no compromise. If you want to be supported by the party bosses, you need to tow the party line.

I'm sick of having to choose between only two sets of beliefs. What if I am pro-abortion and pro-gun? What if I am pro-stem cell research and anti-taxes?

Let's get some more options for the voters. If congress consisted of 4 or 5 parties, maybe we could avoid situations where one of them gets majority control of congress and tries to ram their bills down everyone's throats. Maybe we could have real compromise from the start, rather than last minute, poorly thought out, hacked up bills.

Maybe we could limit the congress terms to 4 years too. Then we'd see some real change.

For example, the access to my country's equivalent to the ivy league schools doesn't depend on your family's wealth, which means that if you are dumb as a door knob and you happen to be the son of a billionaire then you still have to work your ass off in order to be admitted to one of those schools. It also means that if you are terribly smart and talented then you may enrol in those schools, no matter how poor you are. It's raw talent that matters, now raw cash.

I see someone has been watching too many Hollywood movies. This is a silly caricature of how higher education really works in the states.

Harvard doesn't publish statistics of how many students are admitted into each freshman class solely because of rich parents building a new library (and the student would not have otherwise qualified), but the number is necessarily small. After all, if building a library is a requirement for matriculation, the campus would be stacked with nothing but libraries, one on top of another.

Scholarships and financial aid are readily available here for students that need it, and the overwhelming majority of Universities here strive to achieve a high level of diversity in each freshman class.

I didn't read the article as Pro-Ayers, merely reporting that the guy was the author of the study in question.

Also I read a lot of the allegations against Ayers during the election campaign, and the guy was obviously somewhat nutty and disingenuous in terms of how he described what he did, but I specifically have not heard any non-discredited allegation that he "intentionally made homemade explosives that killed people", unless you're misusing the term "intentionally" to just mean "he made explosives" rather than "that killed people". Indeed, I'm not even aware of a bomb he made that actually killed people, though bombs made by his collegues certainly did - Ayers' girlfriend Diana Oughton managed to make one, for instance. Unfortunately for Oughton, the victim of her bomb was herself.

As far as apologies go, Richard Elrod, a victim of the Weather Underground, reports receiving a direct apology from William Ayers.

I don't mean to come off as defending the person, but he's neither the bizarre caricature Palin painted him as, nor the largely innocent, never intended to hurt anyone, Vietnam War opponent he paints himself as. If Ayers was posting some of the crap he's posted about himself here, I would be as critical of it as I am of what you've just posted.

What has to occur for people to understand that manned space flight 1) is as colossally expensive as it is devoid of any redeeming scientific value, 2) far from fulfilling our need for exploration and discovery, actually prevents it, and 3) is possibly the least efficient way to explore the cosmos.

Don't start with the moronic "if Christopher Columbus blah blah blah" argument. Manned space exploration is the equivalent of Columbus going out about 10 or 20 miles from port, sailing around in circles for days or weeks, then coming back and claiming that he was investigating the effects of sailing on the human body in preparation for real exploration that never really occurs.

Manned space exploration means missions to lower earth orbit, and maybe a few trips to the moon every fifty years. Utterly pointless, of no scientific value, a caricature of "space exploration," and nothing more than a huge subsidy to the aerospace industry and the Pentagon. There is no credible or compelling reason to do it!

Unmanned space exploration is exactly the opposite. It is far less expensive and has already managed preliminary exploration of almost our entire solar system, transforming our scientific understanding of the universe in less than half a century. That is true exploration, sans bullshit emotional arguments.

For those of you enamored with the notion of a manned mission to mars, forget it. Its cost is unreachable and unjustifiable. Psychological issues cast great doubt on its human feasibility. No credible return mission has ever been put forward. It is morally unconscionable to send people on a suicide mission. Death or serious biological damage are highly likely even before they get there due to radiation and other dangers. With an enormous burden of expense year after year over decades it might be achievable, but for what? Robots have been exploring the martian surface for the better part of a decade at a miniscule fraction of the cost in time, money, and resources that would be required for a manned mission, also transforming our scientific understanding of that planet.

The idea that our destiny is to somehow leave earth a la Battlestar Galactica even more absurd for the same reasons multiplied over an even grander scale. People who hold this belief are victims of a magical religious superstition akin to a belief in a spiritual life after death. It is nothing but uninformed faith, specious emotional arguments by another name.

Grow up, people. We are adults, not silly uneducated children.

It's fun to paint a caricature, isn't it? So much easier to argue against.

The fact is there are assholes on both sides, but they don't matter. The second amendment clearly gives me the right to own guns. Not guns I can "hunt" with. Guns I just want.

I don't care about hunting. We're not going to have an armed revolution in this country almost no matter what. Who cares? Do people "need" 65" TV's? Do they "need" 500hp cars? No. Fuck need - I

want

an AK47.

... and decided he'd had enough. Things would have to change.

He was bone-weary of discrimination and shame and reproach. The way he could feel people looking at him, mocking him -- sometimes subtly, sometimes not. The way people talked about him, about people like him. The sneering, caricatured representations in movies. Everywhere, the pressure, the rejection -- singling him out as a second-class citizen, as substandard, as (at best) silly and ridiculous, or (at worst) weak and deficient. Not good enough.

But it was all ignorance and lies. He was born this way. God made him the way he was. He could never recall a time when he was any different. And no one had a right to say it was wrong.

He'd tried to change, and his efforts had always failed. So, early in life, he'd accepted the way he was. He'd told his parents and friends that he was what he was, and they must accept him as such. Stop pressing him to change. The way he lived was natural to him, and he wasn't going to spend his life in misery and guilt trying to change something he not only was powerless to change, but had no real reason to change.

So, now fed up, he found ways to take legal action, and political action. He formed PACs and organizations. It took years, and money, and a lot of hard work. But finally he had success.

Victory came the year that his state's legislature passed, and the Supreme Court upheld, the "Bariatric Freedom Act." It was now there, set in law: anyone weighing under four thousand pounds must be called "thin," and must be protected from all forms of discrimination.

The ramifications were instantaneous, and widespread.

Medical research was funded for the purpose of proving that all weight-ranges were equally healthy. What were formerly viewed as health-risk factors were attributed to negative societal pressure and stereotyping. Medical groups redefined their weight charts and standards to accommodate and approve all weight-ranges equally.

Clothing stores were required by law to carry shirts in sizes up to 10X, pants in sizes up to 125 waist, 27 inseam, and dresses up to size 75. It became illegal for WalMart, Kmart, or any other store, to charge more for "extra" sizes, since that category was rendered illegal. Any clothiers with terms like "big" and "large" in their titles found themselves athwart the law, with all people now legally "thin." Thousands of small clothing stores went out of business in the first year, and department stores took to selling only one pattern, since the size-range took up their entire department. (Then the government took over the clothing industry.)

Businesses who used visual ads were required by law to prove that they employed models of every weight-range equally. Alternately, they were permitted to hire "blind," using a number system, contracting models sight-unseen. Gyms were required to install equipment equally accommodating every weight; their instructors were required to tell every customer that he was at his perfect weight, and shouldn't change. (The government took over that industry after three months.) Body-building competitions were required completely to rewrite their criteria, and closed down after one month.

Surgeons who performed liposuction and other plastic surgeries were required to document recommending lipo-insertion surgery to patients who weighed under 4000 pounds.

Airlines were required to install an equal amount of roomy, extra-size seats. This cut the amount of tickets they could sell per flight by 50%. They were also prohibited from raising prices to compensate. When every airline declared bankruptcy the following week, the government took over the airlines. Inter-state travel ground to a halt.

Movie studios became vulnerable to lawsuits if their products contained language or materials discriminatory to "alternative bodystyles." Movies and TV shows went into production portraying the "ample" lifestyle as healthy, happy, normal and desirable.

Gymnastic and other sports events were required to issue "weig

Re (specifically): Palin's use of Hotmail. Wasn't so much a major scandal, more it fed into the snowbilly caricature that was forming about her, and it wouldn't have been an issue beyond being sort of goofy, if she hadn't been using it to exert some pretty official pressure regarding getting that dude fired. So, yeah, Obama using a blackberry is different.

> You need to ask yourself why Israel has kept the West Bank and Gaza
> territories occupied for so long rather than integrating them into Israel.

Nevermind the whole "annexing territory being illegal" thing.

They get enough bogus crap from the world as is.

They realize that they can't just run amok. Unlike their enemies,
they actually do care and have some vested interest in what the
rest of the world thinks of them.

Why should Jews need to fear Palestinian voters?

Any answer to that question leads to the obvious conclusion that
Palestine can't be trusted to the Palestinians. It holds far too
much significance for far too many people.

UN rule would make more sense than muslim rule of Israel.

New years in Bethlehem...

This is in stark contrast to the caricature that is presented by their enemies.

Lennon was counterculture for a few years in the 70's. Paul? Only his veganism. He was a pop king through and through. Ringo wandered off and George was a nice guy who did his own thing quietly.

Their big counterculture album read more like some wankers take on what the media perceived was happening in San Francisco in the 1967 which those in the counterculture denounced with Death of the Hippie march which signified the end and then it became a caricature of itself.
The Beatles followed the fads of the time, spoke of vague meaningless efforts without ever denouncing anything in a system which made them rich. Sure, Lennon tried but the trappings of his life of luxury made him just another spouter of cliches mantras.

Im not defending them since I think ther work is overrated. popular does not equal good.
Sly Stallone is a popular actor.
He is not a very good one.
Britney Spear is a popular 'singer'.
She is not a very good one.
I dont want to compare them to the two above but it helps get the point across.

But 'counterculture' is pushing it with this bunch of fashionable poseurs. About as counterculture as The Mamas and Papas and Sonny and Cher. Both those acts had the lingo, clothes of the era down pat too.

Global Warming has all the elements of caricatures of religion.

Sin? Carbon.

Original Sin? Capitalism/Industry.

Which leads us to carbon offset. Yes, just like Roman Catholic indulgences. Except they produced something useful. The Sistine Chapel.

"The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback."

So American consulates were attacked by muslim extremists because of blowback. Why were Danish consulates attacked by muslim extremists? Blowback as well? Making political caricature cartoons is an act of war now?

Why was Theo van Gogh killed by a muslim extremist?

Since you might be Canadian(inferring from GYBE! mention), maybe you'll appreciate this one. Why was Tarek Fateh attacked by muslim extremists? Being an apostate from Islam in an act of war now?

My opinion is that there are plenty of muslim extremists who do use violence on people pretty much just "because [they're] not muslim."

If you read Sayyid Qutb's Milestones, which at least Wikipedia, citing something, calls a "major influence" on Islamic terrorism, there is this message that violence should be used to destroy non-muslim institutions which output vulgarities like pornography, blasphemy, and other haram things.

From Milestones:
"But any place where the Islamic Shari'ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the home of Hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it, whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located.
And thus Muhammad - peace be on him - fought against the city of Mecca, although it was his birthplace, and his relatives lived there, and he and his Companions had houses and property there which they had left when they migrated; yet the soil of Mecca did not become Dar-ul-Islam for him and his followers until it surrendered to Islam and the Shari'ah became operative in it."

I would say that such an interpretation of Islam is basically the same for Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups: Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.

I have to agree with you there. Star Wars is a good tale, but the designers of Star Trek really thought long and hard about what future technology would be like and then came up with plots for how humans (and other species which are really just caricatures for human traits) would use and deal with that technology. This is what drew me to TNG in the first place. The technology was almost as much as part of the story as the characters were. That is *real* science fiction. Other types of drama where the technology takes a distant back seat (like Star Wars and Firefly, excellent though they are) should really occupy a somewhat different genre.

The other day, I came across my old copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual. I fondly remembered flipping through it as a teenager memorizing the (*almost* entirely fictional) technical details of the 1701-D's innards. And then it dawned on me that much of the technology detailed in the book has already come to fruition just in the last 20 years. Our computer systems are not very different than the ones depicted in the 24th century: large touchscreen LCDs are not yet mainstream, but smaller versions are already very popular in handheld devices (our equivalent to tricorders, PADDs). The Internet combined with powerful personal computers rivals the Starfleet mainframe computer systems in almost every regard. Worldwide communications are generally easy and cheap. Computers are getting astonishingly good at recognising human speech, although it will be awhile longer before they can interpret arbitrary questions.

I'm intensely curious to see what the next 20 years will bring.

This from a dweeb on Slashdot. Slashdot, where the hilariously predictable first post on a question about how to install Windows for old people was "[durr, hehe]Instll ubuntu". You people have really become a caricature of yourselves.

Doh. Not the same role as political cartoons in particular. This is called political satire. Yes, cartoons, web games, caricatures, it's all part of it. Why the comparison to cartoons in specific? Watch the big picture, please.

So rather, you chose to be intellectually lazy, post no argument of your own, and caricature your opponent as an idiot. You, sir, are certainly no better, and that your post is modded up is shameful.

Except the neighborhood baker could claim its just a caricature and that its legally acceptable as a form of art.

That -might- get you out of a copyright infringement suit... but wouldn't dodge the trademark suit.

Except the neighborhood baker could claim its just a caricature and that its legally acceptable as a form of art.

The somewhat fantastic animals, the way the heroes were larger-than-life, the fights over a fallen comrade, the caricatured enemy--it is exactly the way you'd expect a somewhat-talented ancient Greek storyteller to handle the tale.

...

"Somewhat fantastic animals" are not especially characteristic of ancient Greece either.

Typical of ancient Greek storytelling however, which I think was the point. Minotaurs, chimera, hydra, harpy, hippogriff and so on.

The somewhat fantastic animals, the way the heroes were larger-than-life, the fights over a fallen comrade, the caricatured enemy--it is exactly the way you'd expect a somewhat-talented ancient Greek storyteller to handle the tale.

Actually, the last three cliches are exactly the way I'd expect any mediocre storyteller to handle the tale.

"Somewhat fantastic animals" are not especially characteristic of ancient Greece either.