I accept your extension, we should ignore almost all record holders. Wow, that guy is faster than the last guy who was really fast? Who gives a shit. That's not producing anything useful for anybody.
What society needs are innovators, analyzers, synthesizers, and creative minds. Not near zombies who can sort character strings and nothing more, or obsessive musclebound athletes most of whom achieve very little of substance once their physical exploits fade.
I encourage you to also watch Word Wars and see what kind of people we're actually talking about here. We'll see how long your "amazement" lasts in the face of reality.
How is recognizing a valid word without knowing anything about it useful, outside of Scrabble and similar contrivances? I watched Word Wars some years ago about competition Scrabble players, and let me tell you, these are not smart people. They are people who have dumped all of their lives and meager talents into memorizing all the "valid" seven character patterns in English. They don't know meanings, they are not particularly literate, they just know what pattern of characters is valid and what pattern isn't. I don't think this is particularly praiseworthy, and to try to look at it physiologically as a special positive aspect seems to me to be in denial of who these people really are what limited abilities they truly have.
The Chinese government itself denies the veracity of the explanations given for the event, so don't pretend you're some anonymous advocate for the feelings of the Chinese. And if you think precision guided munitions supposedly intended for some warehouse can "accidentally" hit an embassy instead, I have a bridge to sell you. Never mind too that nearby civilians witnessed NATO (read US/British) commandos rushing into the rubble immediately after the "accidental" bombing appearing to search for things. What a grand coincidence that they just "happened" to be in the area eh? Oh but these are just allegations.
The point is not that the J-20 is some one for one duplicate of the F-22 (which, save for an egregious failure of the containment of classified data in many different compartmentalized groups, is well nigh impossible), but that the J-20 is closer to the F-22 than the F-117. Canards or no, the J-20 is nowhere near the F-117 as a design.
Your opinion is greatly misinformed. While I too am no fan of religion, to say that it was the catalyst for the colonial oppression of China is woefully ignorant both of that history and the reality of other nations in Asia. Shinto Japan was not colonized. Buddhist Thailand was not colonized. China was weak not because it was religious (which, by most measures, it really wasn't), but because it was dealing with the collapse of a dynasty which had squandered its wealth through corruption and had no military strength or popular support to resist the Europeans. Most Chinese didn't want to fight and die for their foreign oppressors (the Manchus), and so whenever the Europeans came around and said 'give us stuff or else' the government had to acquiesce, because otherwise they would lose face (and even MORE popular support) on the battlefield trying to coax an army that didn't want to fight against a more organized, more loyal, and better equipped force. That's why the Boxer Rebellion was such a boon, because it was a movement that could be manipulated by the Qing without actually *being* the Qing, so when the boxers lost, it didn't directly hurt the image of the Qing, or so they thought. Though of course when the boxers ultimately failed to eject the foreigners, the dynasty crumbled anyway when the popular support shifted to the republican movement (which collapsed into the warlord period... etc. etc.).
The current Chinese stealth aircraft is obviously a copy of the F-22, whereas the aircraft downed in the Balkans is believed to have been a F-117. F-22s were not operationally deployed at that time. So unless the Chinese really sculpted the lion from the paw, you are solidly mistaken.
They have cracked down on the Uighurs, but that's because the Uighurs are in armed resistance. The Chinese do not harass Muslims across the board, the Hui population is pretty much left alone, and, unlike so many other Muslim populations, the Hui keep very much to themselves and don't make any waves. That's why the CCP doesn't harass them.
China today is not the China of the 50s and 60s. They are quite willing to let people be religious so long as in being religious they don't agitate/militate against the state (which includes being the least bit critical).
Pakistan is courting China not just for ongoing material support but as a real and dedicated regional ally against India. China has nearly as bad a relationship with India as Pakistan does, because just as Pakistan has Kashmir in dispute, China has Arunchal Pradesh in dispute. China is merely biding its time to make the most of a future circumstance where it could annex all the territory it has disputed with India without necessarily catalyzing a long term conflict and/or unified international military backlash. China does not, under nearly any circumstance, want to be drawn into a conflict that results in having to occupy more of India than its immediate geopolitical goals.
Your surmise is correct. That's what happened when the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed during the conflict in the Balkans. A stealth aircraft had recently been shot down and the Chinese were known to have collected a ton of parts from the wreckage, and they were being held in the embassy awaiting extraction to China. Whoops, a whole ton of precision guided ordnance accidentally wiped it out. Fancy that.
This is sort of like complaining that there are no 'real' Democrats now that the Democratic Party no longer supports slavery or the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Being able to critically evaluate and improve the purpose of both individuals and groups is one of the most fundamental drives that has improved the quality of human lives and is the motivating force of civilization itself. So yeah, I don't have any sympathy for all the butthurt oldfags that are all made because Anonymous has changed. By any measure the change has been a good one, and no rational person would oppose the continuation of good changes on the grounds that it simply offends somebody's personal definitions.
You are getting modded up because your opinion is rather novel vs. 'the admins are dicks' theory, and for the purposes of full disclosure to which I also ascribe.
However, I think you really underestimate the indexing of human knowledge. There are hundreds of thousands of stubs on Wikipedia that need expanding, especially outside of the Western sphere. I have a feeling that just because you don't spend a lot of time studying Asian or African topics that nobody does and therefore their expansion isn't needed. I'm rather quite a sinophile, I can assure you that Wikipedia's coverage of Chinese history, culture, and notable figures alone is respectable but far from complete. I can also tell you that Wikipedia's coverage of more minor cultures in Asia and elsewhere borders on poor. Thankfully this improves all the time, but the point is that your 'work is done' theory is very Western-centric I think.
So you're trying to discount the Stanford Experiment because leadership creates the bias in an environment that subordinates emulate? Isn't that, you know, the whole point? Have you ever heard of Adrian Schoolcraft? Corruption and abuse are practically inherent in the leadership of large police departments, and if you want examples after you're done with Adrian Schoolcraft you can find metric fucktons for every major city in the US.
My sig should be an IQ test, I swear (why does everybody seem to miss the importance and meaning of 'labelled'?). It's a critique of liberals, specifically how they are all about freedom and change until it's something they don't like such as deregulating business or repealing gun control, then suddenly more of the same is a great idea and fuck freedom too. I don't like conservatives either, but at least they are more philosophically consistent.
Seriously, STFU. You're asking for a citation on The Stanford Experiment? That *is* the citation, numbnuts. It's probably one of the most significant sociological experiments after Milgram. Think of how much research gets done at Stanford, and yet there is one exercise known as *The* Stanford Experiment? Get a clue and stop pretending your lazy ignorance is some kind of deep and meaningful criticism.
Speaking as a 3rd generation native of the area, let me clarify. Renton wants to think that it is South Bellevue, but everybody else knows it's really North Kent. Watch a few episodes of Almost Live if you need further context.
Shhh, don't remind people about the bell curve, it might hurt their self esteem to remember that they aren't all super genius wunderkind. Not to mention it's bad for the politics of equality as an end to be achieved.
Liberals are a subset of society. What they label society by extension also labels, if only in part. There is no contradiction.
Further, your reading comprehension is rather poor if you think the antecedent for "it is usually liberals that do this" is anything like "make the loud and insistent claims that they are in favor of fewer laws and less restrictions on individuals". I was saying that liberals claim libertarians are conservatives because they (libertarians) believe in the same freedoms that conservatives do, while denying the restrictions that conservatives also desire, which would be in line with 'liberalism' so it is invisible to liberals who (although rightly) think such a perspective is only natural.
I'm not particularly calling out conservatives because the very nature of conservatives, the definition of the word, is the resistance to change and the preservation of old order/status quo. It would be rather silly to criticize them for doing their stated goal. Yes, all the blather from the right about liberty and freedom seems to only apply to people who live like Ward and June Cleaver, but considering that they make no secret that their framework for liberty and freedom is 'traditional values' which is philosophically coherent and consistent with the goals implicit in a movement labelled 'conservative'.
Liberals are much more hypocritical because they are supposed to oppose status quo systems and advocate for freedom from tradition for its own sake. They do this right up until it becomes about freedom for business owners, and then everything comes to a screeching halt. For some reason business owners are not people, and their rights, property, and lives are to be subjected to nearly any whim of the majority by way of the whole power of the state. If they could they would silence them, rob from them, dictate to them everything they should do and not do, all because they have obviously forfeited their humanity by daring to contribute to the economy by running a business.
Corporations are run by and employ people, and it is their freedom which is compromised. A person does not (or should not have to) give up their rights, citizenship, and personhood just because they own a business, and if many liberals had their way this is exactly what would happen. They advocate censoring business owners and their interests just because they don't like their political influence. Well, it's not really freedom of speech if that freedom suddenly evaporates for business owners.
I'm not confusing libertarians with conservatives, I'm saying that other people do, hence the use of 'labelled'. And as your breakdown implies, it is usually liberals that do this, because they are just as bigoted as 'conservatives' in the end and only believe in freedom for some, not all. My sig is a critique of liberal hypocrisy.
Blanket rules like only allowing sound from the visible tab are rather bad for things like internet radio, so being able to select tab by tab which should output sound and which shouldn't sounds great. It would be best if it were off by default so that you don't get spammed by audio ads.
Ignore the idiot who doesn't know where his shift key is. It's not the same. Most wireless networks broadcast a beacon signal that informs nearby receivers the name of the network and other information. Triangulating this signal which is public in its very nature is neither illegal nor unethical.
Google was capturing the packets being broadcast within the networks themselves by other clients. So a system authenticating with a server in plain text (which happens too often) would have the authenticating information (user/password) intercepted. Depending on the view one takes of open networks, this probably violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or at least its spirit.
In case MS does take theirs down, don't forget the biggest and oldest community-built database of wireless networks: Wigle.net
Long before MS, Google, or Skyhook wardrivers have been working in concert on their own time and dime to contribute over 40 million geolocated networks worldwide. A few thousand of those were first done by me in fact, though I haven't contributed in years.
Could use some kind of miniaturized hall effect drive or some other electrodynamic propulsion. I'm not sure if it would scale down to this size, but theoretically electrodynamic tethering could make a system mobile with no propellant at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I accept your extension, we should ignore almost all record holders. Wow, that guy is faster than the last guy who was really fast? Who gives a shit. That's not producing anything useful for anybody.
What society needs are innovators, analyzers, synthesizers, and creative minds. Not near zombies who can sort character strings and nothing more, or obsessive musclebound athletes most of whom achieve very little of substance once their physical exploits fade.
I encourage you to also watch Word Wars and see what kind of people we're actually talking about here. We'll see how long your "amazement" lasts in the face of reality.
How is recognizing a valid word without knowing anything about it useful, outside of Scrabble and similar contrivances? I watched Word Wars some years ago about competition Scrabble players, and let me tell you, these are not smart people. They are people who have dumped all of their lives and meager talents into memorizing all the "valid" seven character patterns in English. They don't know meanings, they are not particularly literate, they just know what pattern of characters is valid and what pattern isn't. I don't think this is particularly praiseworthy, and to try to look at it physiologically as a special positive aspect seems to me to be in denial of who these people really are what limited abilities they truly have.
The Chinese government itself denies the veracity of the explanations given for the event, so don't pretend you're some anonymous advocate for the feelings of the Chinese. And if you think precision guided munitions supposedly intended for some warehouse can "accidentally" hit an embassy instead, I have a bridge to sell you. Never mind too that nearby civilians witnessed NATO (read US/British) commandos rushing into the rubble immediately after the "accidental" bombing appearing to search for things. What a grand coincidence that they just "happened" to be in the area eh? Oh but these are just allegations.
Please. Pull the other one.
The point is not that the J-20 is some one for one duplicate of the F-22 (which, save for an egregious failure of the containment of classified data in many different compartmentalized groups, is well nigh impossible), but that the J-20 is closer to the F-22 than the F-117. Canards or no, the J-20 is nowhere near the F-117 as a design.
Your opinion is greatly misinformed. While I too am no fan of religion, to say that it was the catalyst for the colonial oppression of China is woefully ignorant both of that history and the reality of other nations in Asia. Shinto Japan was not colonized. Buddhist Thailand was not colonized. China was weak not because it was religious (which, by most measures, it really wasn't), but because it was dealing with the collapse of a dynasty which had squandered its wealth through corruption and had no military strength or popular support to resist the Europeans. Most Chinese didn't want to fight and die for their foreign oppressors (the Manchus), and so whenever the Europeans came around and said 'give us stuff or else' the government had to acquiesce, because otherwise they would lose face (and even MORE popular support) on the battlefield trying to coax an army that didn't want to fight against a more organized, more loyal, and better equipped force. That's why the Boxer Rebellion was such a boon, because it was a movement that could be manipulated by the Qing without actually *being* the Qing, so when the boxers lost, it didn't directly hurt the image of the Qing, or so they thought. Though of course when the boxers ultimately failed to eject the foreigners, the dynasty crumbled anyway when the popular support shifted to the republican movement (which collapsed into the warlord period... etc. etc.).
The current Chinese stealth aircraft is obviously a copy of the F-22, whereas the aircraft downed in the Balkans is believed to have been a F-117. F-22s were not operationally deployed at that time. So unless the Chinese really sculpted the lion from the paw, you are solidly mistaken.
They have cracked down on the Uighurs, but that's because the Uighurs are in armed resistance. The Chinese do not harass Muslims across the board, the Hui population is pretty much left alone, and, unlike so many other Muslim populations, the Hui keep very much to themselves and don't make any waves. That's why the CCP doesn't harass them.
China today is not the China of the 50s and 60s. They are quite willing to let people be religious so long as in being religious they don't agitate/militate against the state (which includes being the least bit critical).
Pakistan is courting China not just for ongoing material support but as a real and dedicated regional ally against India. China has nearly as bad a relationship with India as Pakistan does, because just as Pakistan has Kashmir in dispute, China has Arunchal Pradesh in dispute. China is merely biding its time to make the most of a future circumstance where it could annex all the territory it has disputed with India without necessarily catalyzing a long term conflict and/or unified international military backlash. China does not, under nearly any circumstance, want to be drawn into a conflict that results in having to occupy more of India than its immediate geopolitical goals.
Your surmise is correct. That's what happened when the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed during the conflict in the Balkans. A stealth aircraft had recently been shot down and the Chinese were known to have collected a ton of parts from the wreckage, and they were being held in the embassy awaiting extraction to China. Whoops, a whole ton of precision guided ordnance accidentally wiped it out. Fancy that.
Whoosh.
The linked article is for a game.
No true Scotsman, eh Anon?
This is sort of like complaining that there are no 'real' Democrats now that the Democratic Party no longer supports slavery or the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Being able to critically evaluate and improve the purpose of both individuals and groups is one of the most fundamental drives that has improved the quality of human lives and is the motivating force of civilization itself. So yeah, I don't have any sympathy for all the butthurt oldfags that are all made because Anonymous has changed. By any measure the change has been a good one, and no rational person would oppose the continuation of good changes on the grounds that it simply offends somebody's personal definitions.
You are getting modded up because your opinion is rather novel vs. 'the admins are dicks' theory, and for the purposes of full disclosure to which I also ascribe.
However, I think you really underestimate the indexing of human knowledge. There are hundreds of thousands of stubs on Wikipedia that need expanding, especially outside of the Western sphere. I have a feeling that just because you don't spend a lot of time studying Asian or African topics that nobody does and therefore their expansion isn't needed. I'm rather quite a sinophile, I can assure you that Wikipedia's coverage of Chinese history, culture, and notable figures alone is respectable but far from complete. I can also tell you that Wikipedia's coverage of more minor cultures in Asia and elsewhere borders on poor. Thankfully this improves all the time, but the point is that your 'work is done' theory is very Western-centric I think.
So you're trying to discount the Stanford Experiment because leadership creates the bias in an environment that subordinates emulate? Isn't that, you know, the whole point? Have you ever heard of Adrian Schoolcraft? Corruption and abuse are practically inherent in the leadership of large police departments, and if you want examples after you're done with Adrian Schoolcraft you can find metric fucktons for every major city in the US.
My sig should be an IQ test, I swear (why does everybody seem to miss the importance and meaning of 'labelled'?). It's a critique of liberals, specifically how they are all about freedom and change until it's something they don't like such as deregulating business or repealing gun control, then suddenly more of the same is a great idea and fuck freedom too. I don't like conservatives either, but at least they are more philosophically consistent.
If this succeeds in establishing a precedent, I wonder how long it will be before Seattle or Kent come after Bill Nye and John Keister?
After all they did things like Cops in Ballard and Cops in Kent among many others.
[I'm going to pretend my laziness is insight]
Seriously, STFU. You're asking for a citation on The Stanford Experiment? That *is* the citation, numbnuts. It's probably one of the most significant sociological experiments after Milgram. Think of how much research gets done at Stanford, and yet there is one exercise known as *The* Stanford Experiment? Get a clue and stop pretending your lazy ignorance is some kind of deep and meaningful criticism.
Speaking as a 3rd generation native of the area, let me clarify. Renton wants to think that it is South Bellevue, but everybody else knows it's really North Kent. Watch a few episodes of Almost Live if you need further context.
Shhh, don't remind people about the bell curve, it might hurt their self esteem to remember that they aren't all super genius wunderkind. Not to mention it's bad for the politics of equality as an end to be achieved.
Liberals are a subset of society. What they label society by extension also labels, if only in part. There is no contradiction.
Further, your reading comprehension is rather poor if you think the antecedent for "it is usually liberals that do this" is anything like "make the loud and insistent claims that they are in favor of fewer laws and less restrictions on individuals". I was saying that liberals claim libertarians are conservatives because they (libertarians) believe in the same freedoms that conservatives do, while denying the restrictions that conservatives also desire, which would be in line with 'liberalism' so it is invisible to liberals who (although rightly) think such a perspective is only natural.
I'm not particularly calling out conservatives because the very nature of conservatives, the definition of the word, is the resistance to change and the preservation of old order/status quo. It would be rather silly to criticize them for doing their stated goal. Yes, all the blather from the right about liberty and freedom seems to only apply to people who live like Ward and June Cleaver, but considering that they make no secret that their framework for liberty and freedom is 'traditional values' which is philosophically coherent and consistent with the goals implicit in a movement labelled 'conservative'.
Liberals are much more hypocritical because they are supposed to oppose status quo systems and advocate for freedom from tradition for its own sake. They do this right up until it becomes about freedom for business owners, and then everything comes to a screeching halt. For some reason business owners are not people, and their rights, property, and lives are to be subjected to nearly any whim of the majority by way of the whole power of the state. If they could they would silence them, rob from them, dictate to them everything they should do and not do, all because they have obviously forfeited their humanity by daring to contribute to the economy by running a business.
Corporations are run by and employ people, and it is their freedom which is compromised. A person does not (or should not have to) give up their rights, citizenship, and personhood just because they own a business, and if many liberals had their way this is exactly what would happen. They advocate censoring business owners and their interests just because they don't like their political influence. Well, it's not really freedom of speech if that freedom suddenly evaporates for business owners.
I'm not confusing libertarians with conservatives, I'm saying that other people do, hence the use of 'labelled'. And as your breakdown implies, it is usually liberals that do this, because they are just as bigoted as 'conservatives' in the end and only believe in freedom for some, not all. My sig is a critique of liberal hypocrisy.
Blanket rules like only allowing sound from the visible tab are rather bad for things like internet radio, so being able to select tab by tab which should output sound and which shouldn't sounds great. It would be best if it were off by default so that you don't get spammed by audio ads.
If you think your 1040 is a big deal, try an SF86.
Ignore the idiot who doesn't know where his shift key is. It's not the same. Most wireless networks broadcast a beacon signal that informs nearby receivers the name of the network and other information. Triangulating this signal which is public in its very nature is neither illegal nor unethical.
Google was capturing the packets being broadcast within the networks themselves by other clients. So a system authenticating with a server in plain text (which happens too often) would have the authenticating information (user/password) intercepted. Depending on the view one takes of open networks, this probably violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or at least its spirit.
In case MS does take theirs down, don't forget the biggest and oldest community-built database of wireless networks: Wigle.net
Long before MS, Google, or Skyhook wardrivers have been working in concert on their own time and dime to contribute over 40 million geolocated networks worldwide. A few thousand of those were first done by me in fact, though I haven't contributed in years.
Could use some kind of miniaturized hall effect drive or some other electrodynamic propulsion. I'm not sure if it would scale down to this size, but theoretically electrodynamic tethering could make a system mobile with no propellant at all.