I really don't strongly feel the need to respond to this... but nevertheless....
"The reason I think these theories tend to be so popular(relatively speaking) with the youth is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about basic aspects of human nature."
I would disagree with this... I would say that "The reason I think these theories (i.e., ones which advocate authority) tend to be so popular (relatively speaking) with aggressive and fearful personalities, is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about the basic aspects of human nature". Now I would agree that human nature is not inherently "good", but I would also add that human nature is not inherently "bad" either, as the human psyche does not function in terms of what is "good" or "bad". Human being have real motives for what they do. George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, local neighborhood theives and thugs, social reformers, charity workers, revolutionaries, etc, all have their own personal drives and motives for doing what they do. Osama Bin Laden is not a terrorist because he is just a "bad" person, but because he has, what is basically, the fascist mindset (i.e., one which is both reactionary (and, therefore authoritarian) and rebellious). He sees a military/financial power oppressing "his" people, so he, like the pro-War americans, wants to bring the US to it's knees in submission. The reason why revolution by the oppressed people is possible, is not because it is the "good" people who are oppressed, but because they are not in positions of power, and therefore have the capacity for creative disobedience. I agree that the world is "full of wonderfully architected social theories and most of them fail under the stress of human behaviour", and therefore, I think it is necessary, that any revolution must not be based on the ideology of a vanduard elite, but must spring naturally from the frustration of an oppressed people. Actually, "anarchy" is a social structure, but it is not one which is architected. It is whatever social structure which is created by people who refuse to submit to repression. And "the authoritarians" do come in and attempt to "send you back to work". It has happened in history a number of times. And maybe destructive barbarism will defeat humanity once and for all... But that shouldn't stop people from resisting it.
"You say govt is violence. Lack of government is anarchy. See how much violence you get there. Just the lesser of two evils."
Seeing how I am an anarchist, this is not really a good argument to use against me. "See how much violence you get there"? Get where? Where is anarchy? Anarchy is the absence of authority. Currently, even in places in the world were a stable authority has collapsed and lesser authorities are violently competing for power, there is no where where there is no social authority. Authority <b>IS</b> violence! It is impossible to maintain the existence of a social authority without violence. As Alexander Berkman said:
"Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery and murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that. Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you."
And please don't use that dreadful all-incluseive "we"... Niether you nor I had anything to do with the decision making process of the US government.
Actually, it should be noted that: I am far from rich, and the shirt I am wearing is polyester/cotton.
Is military force appropriate? When "he" says no, you are supposed to punch him? What if the idiot is not male? Doesn't punching young girls violate the code of fascist chivalry? But, I digress... my answer is: Yes, it is appropriate (and expectable) for the US Military to attack Afganistan, if indeed the US wishes to remain in power. And, as anyone who has read a sentance of Machiavelli knows, a ruling class will not simply "do nothing" and let its power wither away. However, not necessarily "wishing" or expecting the US government to "do nothing", I do oppose their war efforts, and the existance of the State here in america. Because, as Tolstoy put it, Government is violence. There is no way the government could impose it's repressive "democratic" law, without coercion (i.e., the force of violence). It is true that sometimes "negotiations" are used instead of "coercion", but the difference between them is as great as the difference between demanding something, and pointing to the gun at one's side, and demanding something and holding the gun at another's face. If, at this point, you punch me in the face, I would probably run away from you before steps 5-8 were repeated too many times... Yet, I don't think you would get me to strike back as I do not believe in fighting authority through violence and I am not very strong, and would get my ass kicked anyway.
Yes! IceWM, which is a GNOME complient windowmanager, Has mini-icon support. Unfortunately there is no way currently to get it to use all of the GNOME icons by default... I am going to have to gripe at Marko about that. There should be at least a patch or something that does that. However, given the praise IceWM gets as being GNOME freindly, it should be enabled by default.
Wait a minute! This is not an anonymous coward!... It was CmdrTaco all along... "And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you lowsy nerds!"--CmdrTaco
The events that occured in WWII were horrible. Necessary precautions should be taken place to make sure they do not happen again. What I do not understand is how preventing French citizens from purchasing this war memorabilia will do so. If there is a risk of similar events taking place again, it is unlikely that it will be in the name of nazis and that it will be inspired by war memoribilia. So I guess my question is how is it that this censorship prevents racism?
This is definately a step in the right direction. The right direction of course being defined as technology that is more open. However, I do think that there needs to be technology that is even more open and free. The whole lose it if you turn it off thing and pay-per-download thing, they still appear to be closed off. And besides, are the specifications for this stuff open to all of the public? I wouldn't think so. However all of that crap will not come until later. Until then this is a good step.
this is not a troll. Okay? You may think it is a stupid question but it is not a troll. "Please note that I in no way support child porn. I am just bringing up an interesting question." I thought that was interesting as well btw but keep this in mind: Even though those under 18 can legally have sex they cannot view porn legally. I am not sure about the *creation* of porn though.
Hey, why didn't they use NetPD to get those sicko kiddie pr0n viewers' names, adresses, and phone numbers? That would be great. I would love to call those guys. h0h0h0h0
Well with napster it doesn't take much time at all to find an mp3. Lets say i wanted to find the song "baby got back". It would probably take 1 minute at the most. Try it. As far as downloading goes, if you are bandwith rich, downloading can actually be *faster* than ripping.
however, compiling a kernel is *still* a pain because of that size limit. I wish it would go away... do any efforts to get rid of the size limit exist?
The same comments could have been said about PC software in the early 80s. There wasn't really any good PC software then. It was useful. But there simply wasn't much that was produced. Now there are a lot of good, useful, free software apps. Unfortunately, free software--although it has existed in some form for some time--is just now getting the popularity it needs and deserves. It could be said that it is a *new* thing. Just like PC software in the 80s. I am sure that in ten to twenty years you will see more completed, good, useful free software. Why? Because it takes time to develop any software. Free or restricted.
That is not accurate. I, as do many, believe that non-biological inteligence is possible and likely. However that is not the issue at hand. The issue is did EBEs contact earth. The possibility for other, more bizzare, forms of life is irrelevent to that issue.
First of all I would like to start off by saying that this post is not intended to debate weather or not "close encouters" are actually contact with Extra-terrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs). I am also not accusing those who do not believe that "close encouters" are actually contact with EBEs of being irrational. Many people, even on this forum, act as if those who believe in alien contact with earth are crazy or have no rational basis for thier beliefs. For example if I were to examine the Majestic-12 documents, examine the evidence that supports those documents, examine the evidence that does not support those documents, and then conclude that the Majestic-12 was an actual secret government organisation, many would act as if I were a paranoid schizophrenic. This would not be correct. It is obvious that just because one concludes that the Majestic-12 was an actual organization they are not necessarily a paranoid schizophrenic. Such treatment would be wrong. I am sure some will try to use the lack of UFO evidence in these photos, not as "proof" or "evidence" that UFO/EBE believers are crazy, but as fuel, or an irrational confirmation, to their beliefs (or subconscience prejeduce against UFO/EBE believers). On a somewhat un related topic to what I discussed above, what do these photos mean in the debate against EBE contact with earth? The Answer is absolutely nothing. They are completely irrelevent. Now if they actually contained photos of UFOs or EBEs they would not be irrelevent. Why is this? The argument against EBE contact is likely to be "These photos show nothing out of the ordinary. Area 51 is (looks) just like any other Military base." This is true, however, it is irrelevent. It is irrelevent because the existence of Area 51 has been denied for years. Now that the existence of Area 51 has been declassified it is likely that any secret operations that took place at Area 51 have been discontinued. Before it was declassified they could have "gotten away" with continuing any secret ops. Why? Even though area 51 was under much scrutiny, the scrutinizers [in the public's eye] are paranoid manic depressive scizophrenics with ADHD and multiple personalities. Or is other words the public didn't take such scrutiny seriously because it viewed the scruntinizers as crazy. After all if the government denies it than it cannot possibly be true. Now that Area 51 officially exists, they cannot possibly continue any activities that officially do not exist. Or in other words, it is just any other base. Thank you for listening to my rambling.
I am not trying to troll, but is anyone else sick of hearing about these annoucements for linux software? First of all the software is proprietary. Even though that *may* help linux, I think we can all agree that free alternatives are prefered. Second, this is not freshmeat. Groundbreaking software announcements are cool. But this is just yet another proprietary software port. On a completely unrelated topic, are there any free renderers? Anyone know of any projects to make one?
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't strongly feel the need to respond to this... but nevertheless....
"The reason I think these theories tend to be so popular(relatively speaking) with the youth is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about basic aspects of human nature."
I would disagree with this... I would say that "The reason I think these theories (i.e., ones which advocate authority) tend to be so popular (relatively speaking) with aggressive and fearful personalities, is that they can only exist when there is an ignorance about the basic aspects of human nature". Now I would agree that human nature is not inherently "good", but I would also add that human nature is not inherently "bad" either, as the human psyche does not function in terms of what is "good" or "bad". Human being have real motives for what they do. George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, local neighborhood theives and thugs, social reformers, charity workers, revolutionaries, etc, all have their own personal drives and motives for doing what they do. Osama Bin Laden is not a terrorist because he is just a "bad" person, but because he has, what is basically, the fascist mindset (i.e., one which is both reactionary (and, therefore authoritarian) and rebellious). He sees a military/financial power oppressing "his" people, so he, like the pro-War americans, wants to bring the US to it's knees in submission. The reason why revolution by the oppressed people is possible, is not because it is the "good" people who are oppressed, but because they are not in positions of power, and therefore have the capacity for creative disobedience. I agree that the world is "full of wonderfully architected social theories and most of them fail under the stress of human behaviour", and therefore, I think it is necessary, that any revolution must not be based on the ideology of a vanduard elite, but must spring naturally from the frustration of an oppressed people. Actually, "anarchy" is a social structure, but it is not one which is architected. It is whatever social structure which is created by people who refuse to submit to repression. And "the authoritarians" do come in and attempt to "send you back to work". It has happened in history a number of times. And maybe destructive barbarism will defeat humanity once and for all... But that shouldn't stop people from resisting it.
"You say govt is violence. Lack of government is anarchy. See how much violence you get there. Just the lesser of two evils."
Seeing how I am an anarchist, this is not really a good argument to use against me. "See how much violence you get there"? Get where? Where is anarchy? Anarchy is the absence of authority. Currently, even in places in the world were a stable authority has collapsed and lesser authorities are violently competing for power, there is no where where there is no social authority. Authority <b>IS</b> violence! It is impossible to maintain the existence of a social authority without violence. As Alexander Berkman said:
"Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery and murder. It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that. Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you."
And please don't use that dreadful all-incluseive "we"... Niether you nor I had anything to do with the decision making process of the US government.
Actually, it should be noted that: I am far from rich, and the shirt I am wearing is polyester/cotton.
Is military force appropriate? When "he" says no, you are supposed to punch him? What if the idiot is not male? Doesn't punching young girls violate the code of fascist chivalry? But, I digress... my answer is: Yes, it is appropriate (and expectable) for the US Military to attack Afganistan, if indeed the US wishes to remain in power. And, as anyone who has read a sentance of Machiavelli knows, a ruling class will not simply "do nothing" and let its power wither away. However, not necessarily "wishing" or expecting the US government to "do nothing", I do oppose their war efforts, and the existance of the State here in america. Because, as Tolstoy put it, Government is violence. There is no way the government could impose it's repressive "democratic" law, without coercion (i.e., the force of violence). It is true that sometimes "negotiations" are used instead of "coercion", but the difference between them is as great as the difference between demanding something, and pointing to the gun at one's side, and demanding something and holding the gun at another's face. If, at this point, you punch me in the face, I would probably run away from you before steps 5-8 were repeated too many times... Yet, I don't think you would get me to strike back as I do not believe in fighting authority through violence and I am not very strong, and would get my ass kicked anyway.
I do not want to come off as a karma whore, but I will give sexual favors to anyone who mods this up.
Yes! IceWM, which is a GNOME complient windowmanager, Has mini-icon support. Unfortunately there is no way currently to get it to use all of the GNOME icons by default... I am going to have to gripe at Marko about that. There should be at least a patch or something that does that. However, given the praise IceWM gets as being GNOME freindly, it should be enabled by default.
Did they take pictures of Cydoina and/or the face?
Wait a minute! This is not an anonymous coward! ... It was CmdrTaco all along... "And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you lowsy nerds!"--CmdrTaco
The events that occured in WWII were horrible. Necessary precautions should be taken place to make sure they do not happen again. What I do not understand is how preventing French citizens from purchasing this war memorabilia will do so. If there is a risk of similar events taking place again, it is unlikely that it will be in the name of nazis and that it will be inspired by war memoribilia. So I guess my question is how is it that this censorship prevents racism?
This is definately a step in the right direction. The right direction of course being defined as technology that is more open. However, I do think that there needs to be technology that is even more open and free. The whole lose it if you turn it off thing and pay-per-download thing, they still appear to be closed off. And besides, are the specifications for this stuff open to all of the public? I wouldn't think so. However all of that crap will not come until later. Until then this is a good step.
this is not a troll. Okay? You may think it is a stupid question but it is not a troll. "Please note that I in no way support child porn. I am just bringing up an interesting question." I thought that was interesting as well btw but keep this in mind: Even though those under 18 can legally have sex they cannot view porn legally. I am not sure about the *creation* of porn though.
Hey, why didn't they use NetPD to get those sicko kiddie pr0n viewers' names, adresses, and phone numbers? That would be great. I would love to call those guys. h0h0h0h0
Well with napster it doesn't take much time at all to find an mp3. Lets say i wanted to find the song "baby got back". It would probably take 1 minute at the most. Try it. As far as downloading goes, if you are bandwith rich, downloading can actually be *faster* than ripping.
I actually do have a PPC. It is not my main workstation however. The PPC kernel is buggy as hell. For iMacs anyway.
yes :)
however, compiling a kernel is *still* a pain because of that size limit. I wish it would go away... do any efforts to get rid of the size limit exist?
The same comments could have been said about PC software in the early 80s. There wasn't really any good PC software then. It was useful. But there simply wasn't much that was produced. Now there are a lot of good, useful, free software apps. Unfortunately, free software--although it has existed in some form for some time--is just now getting the popularity it needs and deserves. It could be said that it is a *new* thing. Just like PC software in the 80s. I am sure that in ten to twenty years you will see more completed, good, useful free software. Why? Because it takes time to develop any software. Free or restricted.
Hey! Why did they post this but decline my submission weeks earlier that had a link to a similar article from Scientific American?
That is not accurate. I, as do many, believe that non-biological inteligence is possible and likely. However that is not the issue at hand. The issue is did EBEs contact earth. The possibility for other, more bizzare, forms of life is irrelevent to that issue.
First of all I would like to start off by saying that this post is not intended to debate weather or not "close encouters" are actually contact with Extra-terrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs). I am also not accusing those who do not believe that "close encouters" are actually contact with EBEs of being irrational. Many people, even on this forum, act as if those who believe in alien contact with earth are crazy or have no rational basis for thier beliefs. For example if I were to examine the Majestic-12 documents, examine the evidence that supports those documents, examine the evidence that does not support those documents, and then conclude that the Majestic-12 was an actual secret government organisation, many would act as if I were a paranoid schizophrenic. This would not be correct. It is obvious that just because one concludes that the Majestic-12 was an actual organization they are not necessarily a paranoid schizophrenic. Such treatment would be wrong. I am sure some will try to use the lack of UFO evidence in these photos, not as "proof" or "evidence" that UFO/EBE believers are crazy, but as fuel, or an irrational confirmation, to their beliefs (or subconscience prejeduce against UFO/EBE believers). On a somewhat un related topic to what I discussed above, what do these photos mean in the debate against EBE contact with earth? The Answer is absolutely nothing. They are completely irrelevent. Now if they actually contained photos of UFOs or EBEs they would not be irrelevent. Why is this? The argument against EBE contact is likely to be "These photos show nothing out of the ordinary. Area 51 is (looks) just like any other Military base." This is true, however, it is irrelevent. It is irrelevent because the existence of Area 51 has been denied for years. Now that the existence of Area 51 has been declassified it is likely that any secret operations that took place at Area 51 have been discontinued. Before it was declassified they could have "gotten away" with continuing any secret ops. Why? Even though area 51 was under much scrutiny, the scrutinizers [in the public's eye] are paranoid manic depressive scizophrenics with ADHD and multiple personalities. Or is other words the public didn't take such scrutiny seriously because it viewed the scruntinizers as crazy. After all if the government denies it than it cannot possibly be true. Now that Area 51 officially exists, they cannot possibly continue any activities that officially do not exist. Or in other words, it is just any other base. Thank you for listening to my rambling.
Download download download. Don't use mirrors. We need to fill up the logs. What are they going to do sue everyone that has downloaded it?
I am not trying to troll, but is anyone else sick of hearing about these annoucements for linux software? First of all the software is proprietary. Even though that *may* help linux, I think we can all agree that free alternatives are prefered. Second, this is not freshmeat. Groundbreaking software announcements are cool. But this is just yet another proprietary software port. On a completely unrelated topic, are there any free renderers? Anyone know of any projects to make one?