Is the Chinese government complicit in "undermining national unity" and "infringing upon national honor and interests"?
Of course it is. In fact this shit happens all over the world. So the very idea of prosecuting the *citizens* of China for being uppity (and often rightly so) is the absolute, utter height of spiteful hypocrisy. [citation needed]
Personal opinion, but I think the reason people are getting upset about all this is the awareness that the popularised Islamic reaction to this is to *be violent*. That worries the rest of us to the extent we are kicking back.
If all that "Jihad" talk in the past, the death threats etc. weren't evident, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. I don't think people would be *bothered* roasting Mohammed, we have better things to do. No matter what your culture, you'll tend to make fun of / criticise things you think are stupid or outrageous.
We make fun of everyone. Jews, Christians, Scientologists.. the latter get a special dose of ridicule because we hear about broken families, brainwashing, etc. (I guess by that standard it's definitely a religion).
So I say to Muslims everywhere, if you *want respect* then look to your own house. Same goes for the Catholic Church, as is very obvious now (as if it ever wasn't). Respect is *earned*, it can't be assumed and certainly not demanded. I think that's basic human nature, don't you?
Funny how different these online revenue models are. Meetup.com charges people who run small communities of interest. Seems to work for them, it's not complicated, though it limits who decides to use the platform. Facebook is different things to different people, so I don't see why they can't charge something for group/event services, and keep individual profile stuff free. You pay for the value-adds. A very old model that works for many. For some reason everything about FB is free, even group tools, which IMO gives them unnecessary headaches.
Problem is, their investors came on expecting a specific scenario. Incredible market penetration leading to astronomical advertising and data leverage opportunities. Even if Zuck wasn't into it, he *has* to be as aggressive in this way as possible, otherwise lose the confidence of investors. It's hard convincing an investor not to chase revenue model X because "it might turn people off". They'd be like, "what did I give you all this money for?"
But who knows, maybe they're starting to get the message - which might prove difficult for FB. They don't want investors realising that maybe they *can't* milk this thing the way they wanted to. Depending on their P/L (no-one seems exactly sure what their profit is) that realisation could mean trouble. But investors don't seem to be looking for an exit yet - or they're counting on an IPO before thinking about it.
If FB, being this unstable child, does IPO then people better watch their stock price like a hawk.
Agree. You could go further and pick a subject of focus for each pair, eg. thighs, arms, bust, etc. to get a more exacting result. It seems they're taking a very long and random path to getting results.
Also when someone thinks "not sexy" it could be any number of factors, even one single factor like "omg that ass - don't want". But when someone thinks "sexy" it's usually the entire package coming together - all factors fit. Therefore a high score is more telling overall than a low score.
Unless they're after specific data about ass/thigh/height etc preferences, may as well just pick the single best model from a list. If they are after that specific data - why not just ask specifically?
Very weird methodology imo. Maybe someone said, "hey RateMyExGF.com is popular, let's do it like that!" Which begs the question, why didn't they just use data from one of those sites? Hasn't this been done to death?
Reading this, I started wondering why no religions form around new scientific discoveries about the origin of life. Widespread spiritual beliefs and offshoots still seem to form in these latter days, like Scientology, but none seem to form around scientific indications of the origin of life. Scientology, for example, prefers to believe in aliens - something unproven - rather than, say, panspermia, which is a more likely origin story.
Why aren't there worshippers of great panspermia being, whose seed rains down on worlds from on high? Or a god who lives behind the curtain of quantum universes? There are many scientific concepts that would accommodate all the god-like powers we wish to attribute to a thinking being that somehow gives a rats about us.
But religions seem to prefer completely inane explanations involving talking animals and other implausible events. So many amazing discoveries made in recent history about where life came from, and nobody wants to worship them.
There may have been a time when their church was above and beyond criticism, but those days are long gone.
Did those days ever exist? The whole idea of the Reformation in the 1500's was to address corruption in the Catholic church.
Show me any institution of organised power (church, government, corporation) which isn't laced with corruption. Power doesn't corrupt IMO, it just attracts corrupt people. The problem is we don't have systems to identify them.
For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry.
The problem with religion, is it attracts the kind of person who is searching for The Truth and is willing to passionately latch on to something, whatever it may be, that offers them a palatable answer, without needing a rationale behind it. Believing in something greater, a higher meaning, is a very powerful human need.
I think early religious leaders recognised this as a bit of a problem. If they can so easily attract followers, then so can anyone else. I mean when you're dealing with a species so prone to fervent belief, they're liable to go off believing any old thing willy-nilly. Can't have that if you want to build a following.
Hence the many rules and clauses to guarantee reward and punishment, to keep the flock focussed. And to put enough doubt into others' minds that they'll think twice before drinking someone else's kool-aid, for fear of burning in eternal hell.
Personally, I think God/Allah/Whomever could care less what the details of our little lives are, what we depict or worship, so long as we're good people and help each other out. It amazes me that people can worry SO much about idiotic details like not drawing a picture of someone, while at the same time being complicit in the subjugation and suffering of their fellow human beings.
What I gather from all this, is that human beings find righteousness to be infinitely more attractive than having to worry about being right.
The South Park guys seem to mock anything and everything. However, their targets don't usually threaten with violence, do they?
Of course they do, as do a lot of talk-radio hosts, judges, actors, any public personality. It's ludicrous, but it happens, because some people are psychopaths. Muslims do not have a monopoly on it, not by a long shot. The fact this is of Muslim origin is not significant at all.
You also get angry Christian groups seriously threatening people, particularly doctors performing abortions. Atheists do it too. The common thread is that they are dangerous psychopaths. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intolerance and violence, which is a personal and/or cultural thing, not a religious one.
The Catholic Church is populated by (I assume) the most faithful, pious, dedicated and god-worshipping of us all. Otherwise they wouldn't have been willing to "give up a normal life" for the strict teachings, disciplines and pure lifestyle of the clergy of the Church; nor would the Church have ordained or otherwise embraced them as "holy enough" to do the work of the Church.
This can also be assumed of those who enter into the Islamic clergy.
However, we are now witness to the endemic abuse and dysfunction within the Catholic church, and within Islamic schools as well.
So where is Faith in all this? If God speaks though the agents of the Church, does that make God complicit in paedophilia by His inaction to prevent it, and all other bad deeds done in His name? One would assume not - that His voice was simply not heard by those assumed to be closest to Him.
So if you can't trust the Church, and you can't trust God to do anything about His own institution, where does that leave Faith?
After all this, the answer is simply that Faith is a human need. It has nothing to do with what really exists or how the Universe really works. It's a basic human need, the most fundamental form of which is faith that "life has meaning" or that "it all makes sense". You don't need to be religious to want to feel that. Most people want to feel that in some way.
The other basic human need is fraternity. If you're a member of a group who dresses the same way and preaches the same stuff, it's an awfully powerful emotional high. You feel secure, supported and - sometimes - superior. However, those of the latter disposition are of questionable integrity. Some people just love to feel superior and once in a position of power may abuse it.
All our beliefs and institutions have evolved as expressions of basic human emotional needs and desires. God is a part of this process, in that He is also a manifestation of our needs. That doesn't make religion a bad thing, not at all. But perhaps a realisation of this would make us more *responsible* for ourselves, for our own behaviour, instead of being so willing to blame our weaknesses and transgressions on Something Other.
Why do they want to blame the posters for posting something which was *permitted* to appear on a web site? If you are a well-read "newspaper" and want to be all Web 2.0 and show comments from readers, why isn't the onus on you to moderate comments?
I'm sure "letters to the editor" come in all shapes and sizes. Radio and TV personalities get ripped into and even get death threats. The latter get passed on to police to investigate, as they should. But if I write a letter to some personality or politician accusing them of being a kiddy fiddler, I doubt I'd get into any trouble. It's just my opinion, and it's just a letter.
Suddenly, because it's on a web site, it's a huge issue about slander and libel. The site published it, just as a paper might decide, or not, to publish a letter to the editor. Where's the responsibility of the site owner?
Of course those posters are complete idiots for making public accusations without proof. If you seriously want someone to be investigated, you go to the police or something, and be prepared to back it up. Not post a comment on a web site. But if you do, and the site is dumb enough to publish everything from the public that comes in, well... of course it's going to be ugly sometimes. That's life for a newspaper, always has been. Moderate it.
So when the Life Guard (Who are Aussie Battlers) racially abused a beach goer and the beachgoer challenged the life guard, he was in effect slighting an Aussie Battler.
Hello, I'm an Australian. You're poorly informed on both counts here.
Life savers are not "Aussie battlers". "Battlers" are generally any middle- or lower-middle-class people who work hard to put food on the table and feel their interests are under-represented in politics, which is true. Politicians use that nickname to make them feel cared for, because, as far as real policy goes, they aren't - otherwise they wouldn't be battling. But that's politics the world over. Anyway read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussie_battler if you're in doubt; there's nothing about life savers there. Well-off kids are allowed to be life savers too.
Now to the riots. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots#Lead_up where it does paint the lifesavers' behaviour as aggressive in that incident. But the context is that groups of Lebanese guys had been, for a long time, harassing and assaulting women on the beach: "There had been numerous assaults in the area and people, particularly women, claimed to have been harassed, almost daily, by "groups of young Lebanese men" attempting to "pick them up" and describing the women as being "Aussie sluts"." I see no evidence of the lifesavers being racist, but the behaviour of the Lebanese gangs definitely *is*. They (and many others) were already angry at the Lebanese gangs for their shitty behaviour. Without those gangs, everyone would be enjoying the beach in peace. The gangs just happen to be Lebanese in this case - big deal. We have nasty Aussie gangs too and nobody like them either.
The general feeling here in Oz, mainly because we do have a diverse society, is this: If your reaction to diversity of opinion and behaviour is to label women as sluts for not covering their bodies, then why not consider PISSING THE FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. I think that about sums it up. We like our country, we welcome different kinds of people. We ARE laid-back, in that we generally don't make a big fuss about things, just enjoy your life and let others enjoy theirs. So we get very angry when people come here from other countries and think they can abuse us or criticise our lifestyle. Basically if you don't like our ways, then you bloody well don't have to live here.
It's always the small minority who spoil it for the vast majority who are very accepting and just want to get on with their lives. In fact I think that's true most the world over, not just here.
It strikes me as odd that all ad systems are client-based javascript stuff and, on top of that, mostly a.js file grabbed from an easily-blocked server. Why doesn't Google, as one example, also provide server-side libraries to deliver ads? With AdBlock you can hide the element from view, but it still gets delivered. That's a kind of compromise.. I mean, the advertiser can be assured the ad was delivered at least.
Especially with google's text ads. I realise grabbing a banner from another server at the back end will delay things a bit, but I'm surprised it hasn't been done to get around ad blockers.
One more thing.. a school bully is such because there's something wrong with his parenting.
I know that's an unpopular thing to say, as parenting is somehow sacrosanct, get of my lawn, etc.
Perhaps about time it stopped being taboo to pull up parents who, often unintentionally of course, just aren't bringing their kid up the right way. If he's a school bully, the parent is doing something wrong. Maybe not their fault - certainly not the kid's fault - but they obviously need help.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, just install TweakUI and un-tick the setting "Autoplay for removable drives" under My Computer -> AutoPlay -> Types
While China has the largest number of coal mining fatalities in the world, the highest road death toll (and actually said to be 40% higher than official figures), the collapse of poorly-built schools in earthquakes, parents rioting in China because of lead poisoning from children's toys - and one could go on and on - you have to ask the question...
Is the Chinese government complicit in "undermining national unity" and "infringing upon national honor and interests"?
Of course it is. In fact this shit happens all over the world. So the very idea of prosecuting the *citizens* of China for being uppity (and often rightly so) is the absolute, utter height of spiteful hypocrisy. [citation needed]
Whole lot of heated discussion.
Personal opinion, but I think the reason people are getting upset about all this is the awareness that the popularised Islamic reaction to this is to *be violent*. That worries the rest of us to the extent we are kicking back.
If all that "Jihad" talk in the past, the death threats etc. weren't evident, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. I don't think people would be *bothered* roasting Mohammed, we have better things to do. No matter what your culture, you'll tend to make fun of / criticise things you think are stupid or outrageous.
We make fun of everyone. Jews, Christians, Scientologists.. the latter get a special dose of ridicule because we hear about broken families, brainwashing, etc. (I guess by that standard it's definitely a religion).
So I say to Muslims everywhere, if you *want respect* then look to your own house. Same goes for the Catholic Church, as is very obvious now (as if it ever wasn't). Respect is *earned*, it can't be assumed and certainly not demanded. I think that's basic human nature, don't you?
China, having long been the underdog, was in a good position to take a few bites as well.
heh.. "a woman's period".. heh.
Funny how different these online revenue models are. Meetup.com charges people who run small communities of interest. Seems to work for them, it's not complicated, though it limits who decides to use the platform. Facebook is different things to different people, so I don't see why they can't charge something for group/event services, and keep individual profile stuff free. You pay for the value-adds. A very old model that works for many. For some reason everything about FB is free, even group tools, which IMO gives them unnecessary headaches.
Problem is, their investors came on expecting a specific scenario. Incredible market penetration leading to astronomical advertising and data leverage opportunities. Even if Zuck wasn't into it, he *has* to be as aggressive in this way as possible, otherwise lose the confidence of investors. It's hard convincing an investor not to chase revenue model X because "it might turn people off". They'd be like, "what did I give you all this money for?"
But who knows, maybe they're starting to get the message - which might prove difficult for FB. They don't want investors realising that maybe they *can't* milk this thing the way they wanted to. Depending on their P/L (no-one seems exactly sure what their profit is) that realisation could mean trouble. But investors don't seem to be looking for an exit yet - or they're counting on an IPO before thinking about it.
If FB, being this unstable child, does IPO then people better watch their stock price like a hawk.
Agree. You could go further and pick a subject of focus for each pair, eg. thighs, arms, bust, etc. to get a more exacting result. It seems they're taking a very long and random path to getting results.
Also when someone thinks "not sexy" it could be any number of factors, even one single factor like "omg that ass - don't want". But when someone thinks "sexy" it's usually the entire package coming together - all factors fit. Therefore a high score is more telling overall than a low score.
Unless they're after specific data about ass/thigh/height etc preferences, may as well just pick the single best model from a list. If they are after that specific data - why not just ask specifically?
Very weird methodology imo. Maybe someone said, "hey RateMyExGF.com is popular, let's do it like that!" Which begs the question, why didn't they just use data from one of those sites? Hasn't this been done to death?
Reading this, I started wondering why no religions form around new scientific discoveries about the origin of life. Widespread spiritual beliefs and offshoots still seem to form in these latter days, like Scientology, but none seem to form around scientific indications of the origin of life. Scientology, for example, prefers to believe in aliens - something unproven - rather than, say, panspermia, which is a more likely origin story.
Why aren't there worshippers of great panspermia being, whose seed rains down on worlds from on high? Or a god who lives behind the curtain of quantum universes? There are many scientific concepts that would accommodate all the god-like powers we wish to attribute to a thinking being that somehow gives a rats about us.
But religions seem to prefer completely inane explanations involving talking animals and other implausible events. So many amazing discoveries made in recent history about where life came from, and nobody wants to worship them.
There may have been a time when their church was above and beyond criticism, but those days are long gone.
Did those days ever exist? The whole idea of the Reformation in the 1500's was to address corruption in the Catholic church.
Show me any institution of organised power (church, government, corporation) which isn't laced with corruption. Power doesn't corrupt IMO, it just attracts corrupt people. The problem is we don't have systems to identify them.
Seems Jung overlooked a few archetypes there...
Ignore him, he's a smed head.
For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry.
The problem with religion, is it attracts the kind of person who is searching for The Truth and is willing to passionately latch on to something, whatever it may be, that offers them a palatable answer, without needing a rationale behind it. Believing in something greater, a higher meaning, is a very powerful human need.
I think early religious leaders recognised this as a bit of a problem. If they can so easily attract followers, then so can anyone else. I mean when you're dealing with a species so prone to fervent belief, they're liable to go off believing any old thing willy-nilly. Can't have that if you want to build a following.
Hence the many rules and clauses to guarantee reward and punishment, to keep the flock focussed. And to put enough doubt into others' minds that they'll think twice before drinking someone else's kool-aid, for fear of burning in eternal hell.
Personally, I think God/Allah/Whomever could care less what the details of our little lives are, what we depict or worship, so long as we're good people and help each other out. It amazes me that people can worry SO much about idiotic details like not drawing a picture of someone, while at the same time being complicit in the subjugation and suffering of their fellow human beings.
What I gather from all this, is that human beings find righteousness to be infinitely more attractive than having to worry about being right.
The South Park guys seem to mock anything and everything. However, their targets don't usually threaten with violence, do they?
Of course they do, as do a lot of talk-radio hosts, judges, actors, any public personality. It's ludicrous, but it happens, because some people are psychopaths. Muslims do not have a monopoly on it, not by a long shot. The fact this is of Muslim origin is not significant at all.
You also get angry Christian groups seriously threatening people, particularly doctors performing abortions. Atheists do it too. The common thread is that they are dangerous psychopaths. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intolerance and violence, which is a personal and/or cultural thing, not a religious one.
The Catholic Church is populated by (I assume) the most faithful, pious, dedicated and god-worshipping of us all. Otherwise they wouldn't have been willing to "give up a normal life" for the strict teachings, disciplines and pure lifestyle of the clergy of the Church; nor would the Church have ordained or otherwise embraced them as "holy enough" to do the work of the Church.
This can also be assumed of those who enter into the Islamic clergy.
However, we are now witness to the endemic abuse and dysfunction within the Catholic church, and within Islamic schools as well.
In response to which, the Catholic church tries blaming it all on anything but themselves.
So where is Faith in all this? If God speaks though the agents of the Church, does that make God complicit in paedophilia by His inaction to prevent it, and all other bad deeds done in His name? One would assume not - that His voice was simply not heard by those assumed to be closest to Him.
So if you can't trust the Church, and you can't trust God to do anything about His own institution, where does that leave Faith?
After all this, the answer is simply that Faith is a human need. It has nothing to do with what really exists or how the Universe really works. It's a basic human need, the most fundamental form of which is faith that "life has meaning" or that "it all makes sense". You don't need to be religious to want to feel that. Most people want to feel that in some way.
The other basic human need is fraternity. If you're a member of a group who dresses the same way and preaches the same stuff, it's an awfully powerful emotional high. You feel secure, supported and - sometimes - superior. However, those of the latter disposition are of questionable integrity. Some people just love to feel superior and once in a position of power may abuse it.
All our beliefs and institutions have evolved as expressions of basic human emotional needs and desires. God is a part of this process, in that He is also a manifestation of our needs. That doesn't make religion a bad thing, not at all. But perhaps a realisation of this would make us more *responsible* for ourselves, for our own behaviour, instead of being so willing to blame our weaknesses and transgressions on Something Other.
Why do they want to blame the posters for posting something which was *permitted* to appear on a web site? If you are a well-read "newspaper" and want to be all Web 2.0 and show comments from readers, why isn't the onus on you to moderate comments?
I'm sure "letters to the editor" come in all shapes and sizes. Radio and TV personalities get ripped into and even get death threats. The latter get passed on to police to investigate, as they should. But if I write a letter to some personality or politician accusing them of being a kiddy fiddler, I doubt I'd get into any trouble. It's just my opinion, and it's just a letter.
Suddenly, because it's on a web site, it's a huge issue about slander and libel. The site published it, just as a paper might decide, or not, to publish a letter to the editor. Where's the responsibility of the site owner?
Of course those posters are complete idiots for making public accusations without proof. If you seriously want someone to be investigated, you go to the police or something, and be prepared to back it up. Not post a comment on a web site. But if you do, and the site is dumb enough to publish everything from the public that comes in, well... of course it's going to be ugly sometimes. That's life for a newspaper, always has been. Moderate it.
So when the Life Guard (Who are Aussie Battlers) racially abused a beach goer and the beachgoer challenged the life guard, he was in effect slighting an Aussie Battler.
Hello, I'm an Australian. You're poorly informed on both counts here.
Life savers are not "Aussie battlers". "Battlers" are generally any middle- or lower-middle-class people who work hard to put food on the table and feel their interests are under-represented in politics, which is true. Politicians use that nickname to make them feel cared for, because, as far as real policy goes, they aren't - otherwise they wouldn't be battling. But that's politics the world over. Anyway read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussie_battler if you're in doubt; there's nothing about life savers there. Well-off kids are allowed to be life savers too.
Now to the riots. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots#Lead_up where it does paint the lifesavers' behaviour as aggressive in that incident. But the context is that groups of Lebanese guys had been, for a long time, harassing and assaulting women on the beach: "There had been numerous assaults in the area and people, particularly women, claimed to have been harassed, almost daily, by "groups of young Lebanese men" attempting to "pick them up" and describing the women as being "Aussie sluts"." I see no evidence of the lifesavers being racist, but the behaviour of the Lebanese gangs definitely *is*. They (and many others) were already angry at the Lebanese gangs for their shitty behaviour. Without those gangs, everyone would be enjoying the beach in peace. The gangs just happen to be Lebanese in this case - big deal. We have nasty Aussie gangs too and nobody like them either.
The general feeling here in Oz, mainly because we do have a diverse society, is this: If your reaction to diversity of opinion and behaviour is to label women as sluts for not covering their bodies, then why not consider PISSING THE FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. I think that about sums it up. We like our country, we welcome different kinds of people. We ARE laid-back, in that we generally don't make a big fuss about things, just enjoy your life and let others enjoy theirs. So we get very angry when people come here from other countries and think they can abuse us or criticise our lifestyle. Basically if you don't like our ways, then you bloody well don't have to live here.
It's always the small minority who spoil it for the vast majority who are very accepting and just want to get on with their lives. In fact I think that's true most the world over, not just here.
http://cnlight.manufacturer.globalsources.com/si/6008827309504/pdtl/CFL/1007015602/Flourescent-Lamp.htm 5W Energy Saving Flourescent Lamp with Tri-band Phoshor Tube Teh internets disgrz wit u.
It strikes me as odd that all ad systems are client-based javascript stuff and, on top of that, mostly a .js file grabbed from an easily-blocked server. Why doesn't Google, as one example, also provide server-side libraries to deliver ads? With AdBlock you can hide the element from view, but it still gets delivered. That's a kind of compromise.. I mean, the advertiser can be assured the ad was delivered at least.
Especially with google's text ads. I realise grabbing a banner from another server at the back end will delay things a bit, but I'm surprised it hasn't been done to get around ad blockers.
If I find them passed out or dead around the office, I'll be sure to evacuate!
If you find a woman passed out, you will leave? You definitely work in IT.
(Offensive joke of the day.)
I have a nagging fear that sites like Wikileaks will be put on this blacklist we appear to be getting here. For the children, of course.
Fiona, the three boys and I squashed in together on the sofa and watched the broadcast -- with some trepidation on my part.
If it wasn't for the trepidation, I'd say his day job was Catholic priest.
Four solenoid actuators in the chest and shoulders in front and two solenoids in the back give you the feeling of a simulated gunshot.
But how do they know what a simulated gunshot feels like?
[quote]But a well-placed strike with a hakapik is very quick and effective in trained hands[/quote]
But a well-placed bullet with a gun is very quick and effective in trained hands.
There, fixed that for you.
with free movies and music.
One more thing.. a school bully is such because there's something wrong with his parenting.
I know that's an unpopular thing to say, as parenting is somehow sacrosanct, get of my lawn, etc.
Perhaps about time it stopped being taboo to pull up parents who, often unintentionally of course, just aren't bringing their kid up the right way. If he's a school bully, the parent is doing something wrong. Maybe not their fault - certainly not the kid's fault - but they obviously need help.