Not to nit-pick or anything, but...the Torah is remarkable for how it *shies away* from glorifying either the Jewish people as a whole or individuals. Moral failing is a key theme--just some examples: King David and Bathsheva; Moshe dying outside Israel; the Golden Calf; and of course practicaly the whole of Nevi'im (the Prophets). The first chapter of Mimesis by Norman Auerbach discusses some of this from a literary perspective.
That said, I agree that you need to read the Torah historically--among other ways of reading it.
You're not British, are you? Otherwise you'd know that the Beeb is *not* financed by taxes but by a licence fee that people who own televisions must pay. I don't own a TV and I don't pay a penny.
As for your comments about the BBC's being pro-authoritarian--care to adduce some evidence? The BBC devotes a lot of space, time, money and effort to reviewing the actions of the British government and does so in a (relatively) impartial manner.
I have a sneaking suspicion that by pro-authoritarian, you mean "doesn't support the overthrow of them danged gummints which takes ma gold through the barrel of a gun". In which case I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a middle-class wealthy American who resents paying money to prevent their country falling apart; in which case may I recommend a place on the Freedom Ship or Oceania which are libertarian communities free of all laws...except, of course, they're not.
Your friend may be interested in having a look at KeyQuencer, a shareware program that provides powerful and simple scripting facilities for the mac which are triggered by key-commands.
Oh look, it's an Ineffective Insult...hey, can we have another, please; go on, something like "yeah, and you're all pinko leftie liberals" typed with as much force as you can muster. That's sure to have us all crying.
Well, I'm no particular fan of his, but: a) a comprehensive program of constitutional reform b) a healthy economy (and an independent central bank) c) significant cash injections into the NHS (though not nearly enough yet).
Oh, and by "panty-waist" I presume you mean left-wing and gay. You really don't follow British politics much, do you?
Don't worry, you're not annoying me. Interested to see your answers, and to follow up: 1. Rush Limbaugh is a radio commentator, of sorts. If you want to find out more, I'm sure that there's more than enough info on the Internet to keep you busy. By the way, you didn't say where you get your facts from. 2. Hope you had a pint when you were in London. Have you ever been to continental Europe? It's very different. May I take this opportunity to lay to rest your need to pity those Londoners who looked down on you about being American--they were not jealous. Believe me, they were not. We have Radio 4, Private Eye, great restaurants and the Tube (still great, for all its many faults). We also have Shagger Norris and Red Ken. What more could one ask for? 3. How on earth did you draw conclusions about people in, say, Chad or Israel or Namibia based on a visit to London? How would you define success? And what human rights abuses did you see people putting up with on your visit to London? 4. I've no idea how many hits Slashdot gets on each post, but I'd guess that its in the thousands, and that a significant number are non-American. Actually reading what I'd written would give you a better clue to my likely identity than guessing on the basis that "that's who's usually here". 5. So you have not a SINGLE example to adduce, but are nonetheless able to draw conclusions about an entire nation. By contrast, I have an entire lifetime's worth of evidence (hearsay, I know, but this isn't a court of law) and I can report to you that I have NEVER heard an English person say anything that would give credence to the view that we still rule the world. So, we can go with your complete lack of evidence but evident prejudice in this matter, or you could actually listen to what I'm telling you when I say "The English don't think they still run an Empire". I'd say option two was better...
I've got a suggestion for you: try spending some time on a site like http://news.bbc.co.uk You might find it useful.
Anyway, I'm off to Cassia Oriental http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/food/eatou t/review.html?in_review_id=259535&in_revie w_text_id=206656
I remember reading an excellent article on the subject in Wired a couple of years ago, archived at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.01/barlow.htm l?topic=&topic_set= In looking for that, I came across this older article as well: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/africa.h tml The subject reminds me of reading Molesworth's comments about TV (Who is Molesworth? Read this to find out... http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014118240 7/o/qid=952621680/sr=8-1/026-5273086-090 7466 )
Oh bloody hell, do I really have to be this obvious? Anyway: 1) The bit where I attacked your views came before the sarcasm and the spelling comments. 2) Those were thrown in for fun.
Right, then, let's do this carefully... I said: "I object to... posters who act as though the rest of the world doesn't exist" You replied: "of course the rest of the world exists". I now say: "I complained about those WHO ACT LIKE the ROTW doesn't exist. If I wanted to get pernickety, I'd rephrase and say I object to those who ACT LIKE the ROTW doesn't read or post to Slashdot. That would be you, as evinced by comments like 'It is only by doing this that we can make sure our children grow up in the greatest nation on Earth'.
I said: "Moral guidance from the US?...Did you *read* about the stink that the rest of the world kicked up about WTO?" You replied: "The rest of the world provides a vast market for American corporations to dominate and what I am saying is that we must ensure that this happens through legislation beneficial to US corporations. What else do you think the WTO is for? " To which I say: "Are you claiming that this is an example of moral guidance? Are you claiming that the WTO is a domestic US piece of legislation? Are you claiming that being nice to China is a morally upright thing to do?"
Here are some of the questions that you haven't yet answered that I've already posted: 1 Where *do* you get your facts from, Rush Limbaugh? 2 Have you ever been to Europe? 3 If so, did it change or shape your opinions on how the rest of the world works? 4 Why did you *assume* that I was American, especially given the other things that I'd said? 5 Can you even find an article by an English person doing this? Additionally, I defied you to "adduce a single example of 'England... endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire'."
Ready and waiting for your answers to numbers 1 to 5, plus tons of evidence about how the English bang on about the Empire and how it was better in those days...
Whoops, my mistake, I excised the comment about my being English. But why did you *assume* that I was American, especially given the other things that I'd said? It's not the US-centric nature of slashdot I object to (eg content), but posters who act as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. And your view is not the prevailing view, it is just your view (note the 'i'--if you're going to use long words, you need to be able to spell them).
Presumably, you meant to say that you "have nothing personal against the rest of the world"...the rest of what you said is hysterical, at least to me. I can't imagine where you get your idea that merely stating that your opinion is a fact makes it a fact. Moral guidance from the US? Have you *heard* of MAI? Did you *read* about the stink that the rest of the world kicked up about WTO? Moral guidance is not the forte of *any* national government, and the US is included in that number.
I defy you to adduce a single example of 'England... endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire'. Can you even find an article by an English person doing this?
It's lovely to see how confident you are, you cheeky monkey: all this stuff about "Today America is leader of the world" and "[guidance] is our moral duty". It's great. You carry on leading us, dear, that's what we all want and we need it, because let's face it, England and the rest of the world are clearly just Lefty Socialist Reprobate Wimps populated by Shiftless Morons who need A Strong America to Show Them The Way. Thanks a bunch, we're very grateful.
Thank you for providing that wonderful contribution to the debate. What on earth makes you think that slashdot is "aimed at the open-source community here in America"? Did someone from Slashdot tell you that? Or are you in fact talking out of your bottom? Given that Slashdot is on the WWW; given that the open-source movement is inherently non-national; and given that Linux, of particular interest to Slashdotters, was originated by a non-American, do you not think it's time to switch the arsehole off and start talking out of your mouth instead?
In answer to your question: urban Afro-American men are the community in question. And it's not quite as bad as 25-30 years, though it's still appalling.
Please tell me that you didn't say this seriously: "let's face it, would you rather live 25 years in the US or 25 years in some third world hellhole?". OK, fair enough, I've been duped: you must be a troll. You cannot have meant that as a serious comment. Please tell me and the rest of the world that you didn't mean it seriously...
Your US-centricity is not only risible, but laughable as well...how can you respond to a post in which I say that I am English by writing "The success of that company still helps you as an American citizen"?
Here's hoping that you and your family don't get caught out the next time your favourite multi-national employer decides to sack its US workforce to cut payroll bills. That would be awful.
Can I ask: have you ever been to Europe? If so, did it change or shape your opinions on how the rest of the world works?
"...Patents are there to ensure that corporations, the lifeblood of our nation, can protect themselves from their competitors." All this assumes that you're not a troll...Ahem. Which nation would that be? Did you know that WWW in fact stands for World Wide Web? So, incredibly enough, there are lots of people reading Slashdot who aren't Americans!!!
"Anything which allows them to do so is a good thing and should be encouraged by anyone who cares about the future of our great nation. Without these and other measures allowing corporations the freedom to make profit we will end up like the countries of Europe where socialist policies have left children to starve on the streets as their parents aren't allowed to work, all for the sake of the "greater good"." Oh dear dear dear, where *do* you get your facts from, Rush Limbaugh? Petal, did you know that in the USA, a significant part of the population has a life expectancy at birth as low as in the poorest countries in the world? Or that those great corporations that you are so proud of are in fact almost always multi-national entities and have no qualms about exporting Great American Jobs to other parts of the world--India, f'rinstance.
As someone once said: "It's the Right wot gets the power It's the Left wot gets the blame Ain't it all a bleedin' shame?"
I'd like to pick up on the discussion here about individuals' freedom to act. What I find interesting is how this seems so obviously connected with that old problem in MS programs that there is no consistency between them. If the programs are the results of the efforts of thousands of individuals championing their ideas, then it's hardly surprising that features like arranging windows or customising toolbars are handled differently in W, XL and PPT.
It strikes me that to get around this, there are two solutions: control-freakery (hello, Apple) and peer-review (eg Linux). Control-freakery seems more likely to me to produce a consistent feature-set, as it will embody the vision of a smaller group of people, but the features it offers may not be as exciting/innovative, I guess.
Steve
Re:Imaging and the camera
on
Full Moon
·
· Score: 2
"Well then by that reasoning your eyes and brain are in fact not representative of reality." That's one of the central disputes of philosophy generally, and the philosophy of science in particular: what can we know?
"Photos are in fact slices of said reality. If I am driving down the street and get pulled over for speeding at the particular moment in time that the policeman was clocking my speed I was going over the speed limit and therefore I get a ticked. Is that fantasy?" Nope. But you may not have been speeding. There are many layers of abstraction before you get your ticket.
"Images that a camera can take are just about on par with what our eyes see. If you actually look at all the people who have glasses/contacts/blind in the world you start to understand that even the camera's limited ability to represent information is not that bad." Of course, a camera has a limited ability to represent reality--but that's a much weaker claim than what you originally posted. And my points about what's left out of shot, and 2d vs 3d, still stand.
"You can't see everything and are therefore not omniscient that makes you view of reality not possible in your eyes." Couldn't have put it better myself. We cannot be sure that what we're seeing is 'reality'. All we can do is trust. Ever seen a magician? Or a movie?
"I would possibly contend that what you see if of paramount importance to reality. All we have to do is increase our technology to sample more data faster then we have a better picture of reality. Think of this as a limit on the function of reality as x->infinity." This sounds close to one of Kuhn's theories of how science works (can't remember its name, can anyone help?) He said that theories are replaced by other theories that predict the data better each time, but that you never got to perfect descriptions. (I paraphrase badly)
"This is a symptom of data representation and of trying to get something to actually be understood. This is not saying that the x-rays are of little gremlins but of data that isn't 100% perfect." Nope, it's not just that. It's to say that the *representation* of the data is an abstraction that requires conventions and rules to interpret. These rules need not be explict, but they are there--whether we're looking at photos or anything else.
Re:Imaging and the camera
on
Full Moon
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, but your disagreement ain't valid. To take three very well aired examples: many of the greatest painters of the past few centuries have struggled with the central issue of how to represent 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions--from Egyptian art through to Picasso--how they have chosen to do so makes clear the issues involved (and the issue remains live with photography as well); the same example shows that people in different cultures still read images in very different ways (I wonder what proportion of the world has ever taken a photograph?); and finally, as someone famous said (anyone know who?), pictures never show you what's outside the frame, a key source of their artificiality--and you can extend the idea to the fact that they offer you only a moment in time, as well.
These aren't trivial issues, they're central to art and photography, and other fields like medicine. Ask any med student how long it takes them to learn to read X-rays, path specimens etc--we have to adapt to the picture as much as getting the picture to adapt to us.
Rather presumptive of you....I'm over here too. As for litigation as a spectator sport, what about Mr Fayed and Mr Hamilton?
I don't understand what you mean about the legendary status being precisely legendary. Are you trying to say that Apple's work in GUI design *wasn't* all that great? If so, would you care to justify that statement? If not, what did you mean?
And what do you mean by the toys no longer being to kill for? Do you mean that they are no longer right at the cutting edge of design and capability? If so, would you care to justify that statement too, bearing in mind target markets etc etc.
While I'd like to endorse Robin's points about the importance of becoming involved in the political process, I think that his last statement needs weakening. It may not be as much fun, but at least sometimes, at least potentially, politics can be far more rewarding than messing with software. Robert Heinlein once said something to the effect of 'if you think politics is messy, you haven't considered the alternative--war'. Politics may be a force for mediocrity, but it was vital to the establishment of the United States, the emancipation of women and slaves, the creation of the National Health Service in the UK and much much more besides. Much as I enjoy computers, much as I think they're important, they haven't done as much as that--not yet.
So, please, if you can get involved--do so. American democracy is more vibrant than almost any of its European counterparts--you can make a difference.
Oh dear, petal, a slight misunderstanding here... the point about trademarks that you're missing is that *context matters*. If you want to doodle and you create an apple-a-like logo, that's just fine. Stick it onto a software program designed to customise the look-and-feel of an OS and you're slap bang in the middle of Apple's intellectual property territory--especially if you then make it public. What counts is context: if you want to compete with Apple's look and feel for computer operating software, you're probably going to have to come up with your own ideas, and certainly your own logo.
As for your second point--Apple still makes toys to kill for (eg flat panel digital displays that cope with 2 A4 sheets side-by-side, or no-hassles cheap wireless networking). You're acting surprised that it recognises that aesthetics are important. What do you think that Apple's legendary status in GUI design was built around, if not the importance of look-and-feel? It *always* extended to both software and hardware, precisely because Apple retained control over both.
Sheesh, it makes you wonder if it is because the geek community is so notoriously badly groomed that we see so many articles complaining that Apple has invested in the appearance of its machines.
Before getting oh-so-fancy free with your witless little witticisms, you might want to think about the real people you are talking about. Where are the corpses of my grandparents' relatives? I will spell it out for you: THEY ARE ASHES IN POLAND. No grave; few memories; and fools still besmirching their memory.
Infotech, this isn't just a game, you know. Say as much as you like in defence of your ridiculous ideas that one "race" is greater than another, but don't tell me my relatives weren't murdered by the people you admire. That's what you have to live with if you want to hold such repugnant views.
Marvellous. Bigotry and ignorance in a single post. They got there because they were *encouraged* to immigrate to do low-paid work in the 1950s. And you know what? I can't think of a single white Brit I know who'd prefer having you in the country to having them.
Infotech seems to have no problem with the manner in which I responded. Why do you? I haven't said "He's a Nazi", I've challenged his thinking, posing him a series of questions to which he has responded.
"If you will" sounds pompous. It is inappropriate for the audience and context. Actually, it sounds like it may have been lifted from a source text, but I can't be bothered to check. Infotech's arguments have been full of superficially clever reasoning and I was pointing out a parallel between this and the writing style. I am quite capable of using that or, indeed, more complex phraseology, vocabulary and syntax, should the urge, need or desire become very pressing. I am also capable of spelling correctly, and including commas sufficient to render my sentences intelligible, something, my dear chappie, that seems to elude you.
OhMyGod!!! He was in favour of "some form of wealth redistribution"!!! How dreadful. You mean he wanted people not to live in grinding poverty? Good lord, next you'll be telling us he wanted everyone to have access to decent health care, when it's clear that it's much better to have the poor die in gutters while the rich tell them it's their fault for being moral reprobates. Well, thank goodness the US avoided that, eh? After all, everyone's rich now, aren't they? Much more than in Europe, where vicious socialists roam the streets building hospitals and schools.
Thank you for posting a reply. I'm going to work through it in some detail.
"The definition of race is quite malleable." I don't think you mean malleable--you mean vague. There is no agreed definition of race, among biologists, lawyers, or any other group of experts. Where I used the word malleable, I meant something entirely different, which we'll get to later.
"We all know this. We could say that the basic categories of caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid and australoid exist, and would be quite accurate (but for bone struture only)." We could say that but we'd be wrong. There is no generally accepted scheme for categorising bone structures, and never has been. Where would Inuit fit in? Ethiopians have utterly different bone structures from Xhosa, much more so than the difference between either group and "caucasoids". You assume your endpoint.
"But the problem is that variations of each of these races exist, as do combinations of them. This creates a hazy line between one and another. I know this. Every biologist knows this. Still, it does not compromise my position." You find it a problem. Most of the rest of the world does not.
"Races are distinguished by the frequency with which alleles manifest themselves in the phenotype. That is, what is "expressed" by ones genes." What is expressed by one's genes is DNA. I'd let you get away with saying proteins but nothing more than that. Have you ever studied molecular biology? It's a long and tortuous journey from expression of DNA through to hair colour. And of course, most human characteristics are the result of the interaction of many genes and many environmental factors, which makes unpicking it all incredibly complicated. I'd love to know how you *know* that races are distinguished on the basis of phenotypic allele variation. Sound like an unjustified assertion to me.
"For example: Can blue eyes be said to be a chracteristic of the Aryan, or European, race if while 30% of it's population expresses that trait,.0001% of the Negroe race expresses the same? Of course you can." Erm...this really doesn't follow, unless you are defining a race as a sub-population sharing X features at a frequency greater than the rest of the population, and defining that frequency. Even then, you're not actually getting very far, as you have to say why you choose the features you do. And you have no basis for choosing.
"Even though there might be more differences within races than between them, that isn't important." Yes it is. Because you want to use eugenics or genocide to decide who can reproduce. But you'll be getting rid of lots and lots of people who are better (using whatever arbitrary measure of better you've got) than the ones left behind. Put it this way. I give you two buckets: each contains a mixture of diamonds and glass pieces roughly the same size. I tell you that you have 10 minutes to sort them. What you're proposing is the equivalent of working out which bucket has on average the more diamonds and just keeping that one, rather than sorting through and picking out the diamonds. Babies and bathwater, infotech. And of *course*, humans are infinitely more precious than diamonds. "While variation exists within groups, the important thing to remember is the average difference. Perhaps this is an inflammatory example (Sorry if it is). If a population of 1 million nerps (fictional creatures) exist and 80 % of them have an IQ of >100, but a few of them are extremely dull, and have an IQ of Surely it can be said that they differ from a population of 1 million perns, 80 % of which have an IQ of 110." Sorry, but absolutely not. Have you done any statistics? What about variance? You assume that causation and correlation are one and the same, and they are not.
"This can therefore be considered a racial characteristic.(That should answer your within group variation question as well)" Sorry, you fell at the first hurdle. Average has many different definitions, of which x-bar is only one, and where variance is high, x-bar's significance is low. Plus, you conflate causation and correlation.
"The most consistent way to classify races is by bone structure. In itself, this is a far more complicated area than simple eye color, but the idea is the same. Caucasians are not entirely white. Caucasians include Indians, Arabs and other Semitic peoples as well. Further analysis includes blood characteristics (Arabs and Semites are prone to getting sickle-cell anemia because of these differences, but the remaining Caucasians do not), and other methods. But the most efficient way is by appearance. The majority of characteristics which mark the differences between the races are summed up fairly accurately this way." Well, is it bone structure or appearance? They're not the same, y'know. And what's the difference between Arabs and Semites? And why do you think that Arabs and Indians are both Semites elsewhere. It all seems very confused. Perhaps there isn't much point in trying to do all of this classification.
"Yes, I understand the implications of this. Basically, it is my position that we should use our biological resources to improve the quality of humans born onto this earth, much the same as those who want to eradicate genetic diseases. That is the implication." Now we get to the nub of the problem. You don't know the difference between malleability and heritability, do you? Here's a clue: I have very bad eyes. Eyesight has a fairly strong heritable component. But glasses mean I can see! Without the need for breeding my parents differently or anything!!! And how do you determine quality? What possible basis have you got?
"National Socialism is the application of the laws of nature to politics. Sorry if there are any typos, but I'm quite pressed for time today." Believe me, it's not the typos I'm bothered about. It's the science. Well, the lack of it.
This is completely wrong. Non-Jews aren't refused; it is that all Jews are *guaranteed*. For your information, the criteria used to determine who is a Jew for the purposes of immigration at present are derived from the criteria used by the Nazis, which are not *not* NOT the same as the religious criteria. If the Nazis would have murdered someone for Jewish blood, then Israel offers them a refugee. If this gets up your nose, too bad, frankly.
"To believe in the childish notion that every ***featherless biped*** is equal to every other such animal is a little oversimplistic." Too right!!! Kangaroos are not equal to humans!!! Chimps and gorillas are different from each other!!! Thank you, mr ac. You have made my day. I will smirk and smirk and smirk at you and your stupidity. Are you really sure, by the way, that you want to be encouraging people to read Darwin? Have you read much Darwin yourself? It's not greatly supportive of your stance, y'know. Social Darwinism != Darwinism != current thinking about evolution
Slashdot Mirror
Not to nit-pick or anything, but...the Torah is remarkable for how it *shies away* from glorifying either the Jewish people as a whole or individuals. Moral failing is a key theme--just some examples: King David and Bathsheva; Moshe dying outside Israel; the Golden Calf; and of course practicaly the whole of Nevi'im (the Prophets). The first chapter of Mimesis by Norman Auerbach discusses some of this from a literary perspective.
That said, I agree that you need to read the Torah historically--among other ways of reading it.
You're not British, are you? Otherwise you'd know that the Beeb is *not* financed by taxes but by a licence fee that people who own televisions must pay. I don't own a TV and I don't pay a penny.
As for your comments about the BBC's being pro-authoritarian--care to adduce some evidence? The BBC devotes a lot of space, time, money and effort to reviewing the actions of the British government and does so in a (relatively) impartial manner.
I have a sneaking suspicion that by pro-authoritarian, you mean "doesn't support the overthrow of them danged gummints which takes ma gold through the barrel of a gun". In which case I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a middle-class wealthy American who resents paying money to prevent their country falling apart; in which case may I recommend a place on the Freedom Ship or Oceania which are libertarian communities free of all laws...except, of course, they're not.
Your friend may be interested in having a look at KeyQuencer, a shareware program that provides powerful and simple scripting facilities for the mac which are triggered by key-commands.
While of course, the US is well known for a very positive record on all matters to do with race and ethni...hold on, something's not quite right here.
Sad to say, we're all crap, no matter what country we live in.
Oh look, it's an Ineffective Insult...hey, can we have another, please; go on, something like "yeah, and you're all pinko leftie liberals" typed with as much force as you can muster. That's sure to have us all crying.
Well, I'm no particular fan of his, but:
a) a comprehensive program of constitutional reform
b) a healthy economy (and an independent central bank)
c) significant cash injections into the NHS (though not nearly enough yet).
Oh, and by "panty-waist" I presume you mean left-wing and gay. You really don't follow British politics much, do you?
Don't worry, you're not annoying me. Interested to see your answers, and to follow up:
u t/review.html?in_review_id=259535&in_revie w_text_id=206656
1. Rush Limbaugh is a radio commentator, of sorts. If you want to find out more, I'm sure that there's more than enough info on the Internet to keep you busy. By the way, you didn't say where you get your facts from.
2. Hope you had a pint when you were in London. Have you ever been to continental Europe? It's very different. May I take this opportunity to lay to rest your need to pity those Londoners who looked down on you about being American--they were not jealous. Believe me, they were not. We have Radio 4, Private Eye, great restaurants and the Tube (still great, for all its many faults). We also have Shagger Norris and Red Ken. What more could one ask for?
3. How on earth did you draw conclusions about people in, say, Chad or Israel or Namibia based on a visit to London? How would you define success? And what human rights abuses did you see people putting up with on your visit to London?
4. I've no idea how many hits Slashdot gets on each post, but I'd guess that its in the thousands, and that a significant number are non-American. Actually reading what I'd written would give you a better clue to my likely identity than guessing on the basis that "that's who's usually here".
5. So you have not a SINGLE example to adduce, but are nonetheless able to draw conclusions about an entire nation. By contrast, I have an entire lifetime's worth of evidence (hearsay, I know, but this isn't a court of law) and I can report to you that I have NEVER heard an English person say anything that would give credence to the view that we still rule the world. So, we can go with your complete lack of evidence but evident prejudice in this matter, or you could actually listen to what I'm telling you when I say "The English don't think they still run an Empire". I'd say option two was better...
I've got a suggestion for you: try spending some time on a site like http://news.bbc.co.uk
You might find it useful.
Anyway, I'm off to Cassia Oriental
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/food/eato
Yum.
I remember reading an excellent article on the subject in Wired a couple of years ago, archived at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.01/barlow.htm l?topic=&topic_set= h tml 0 7/o/qid=952621680/sr=8-1/026-5273086-090 7466 )
In looking for that, I came across this older article as well:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/africa.
The subject reminds me of reading Molesworth's comments about TV (Who is Molesworth? Read this to find out... http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/01411824
Oh bloody hell, do I really have to be this obvious? Anyway:
... posters who act as though the rest of the world doesn't exist"
...Did you *read* about the stink that the rest of the world kicked up about WTO?"
... endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire'."
1) The bit where I attacked your views came before the sarcasm and the spelling comments.
2) Those were thrown in for fun.
Right, then, let's do this carefully...
I said: "I object to
You replied: "of course the rest of the world exists".
I now say: "I complained about those WHO ACT LIKE the ROTW doesn't exist. If I wanted to get pernickety, I'd rephrase and say I object to those who ACT LIKE the ROTW doesn't read or post to Slashdot. That would be you, as evinced by comments like 'It is only by doing this that we can make sure our children grow up in the greatest nation on Earth'.
I said: "Moral guidance from the US?
You replied: "The rest of the world provides a vast market for American corporations to dominate and what I am saying is that we must ensure that this happens through legislation beneficial to US corporations. What else do you think the WTO is for? "
To which I say: "Are you claiming that this is an example of moral guidance? Are you claiming that the WTO is a domestic US piece of legislation? Are you claiming that being nice to China is a morally upright thing to do?"
Here are some of the questions that you haven't yet answered that I've already posted:
1 Where *do* you get your facts from, Rush Limbaugh?
2 Have you ever been to Europe?
3 If so, did it change or shape your opinions on how the rest of the world works?
4 Why did you *assume* that I was American, especially given the other things that I'd said?
5 Can you even find an article by an English person doing this?
Additionally, I defied you to "adduce a single example of 'England
Ready and waiting for your answers to numbers 1 to 5, plus tons of evidence about how the English bang on about the Empire and how it was better in those days...
Whoops, my mistake, I excised the comment about my being English. But why did you *assume* that I was American, especially given the other things that I'd said? It's not the US-centric nature of slashdot I object to (eg content), but posters who act as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. And your view is not the prevailing view, it is just your view (note the 'i'--if you're going to use long words, you need to be able to spell them).
... endlessly going on about the "good old days" of Empire'. Can you even find an article by an English person doing this?
Presumably, you meant to say that you "have nothing personal against the rest of the world"...the rest of what you said is hysterical, at least to me. I can't imagine where you get your idea that merely stating that your opinion is a fact makes it a fact. Moral guidance from the US? Have you *heard* of MAI? Did you *read* about the stink that the rest of the world kicked up about WTO? Moral guidance is not the forte of *any* national government, and the US is included in that number.
I defy you to adduce a single example of 'England
It's lovely to see how confident you are, you cheeky monkey: all this stuff about "Today America is leader of the world" and "[guidance] is our moral duty". It's great. You carry on leading us, dear, that's what we all want and we need it, because let's face it, England and the rest of the world are clearly just Lefty Socialist Reprobate Wimps populated by Shiftless Morons who need A Strong America to Show Them The Way. Thanks a bunch, we're very grateful.
Thank you for providing that wonderful contribution to the debate. What on earth makes you think that slashdot is "aimed at the open-source community here in America"? Did someone from Slashdot tell you that? Or are you in fact talking out of your bottom? Given that Slashdot is on the WWW; given that the open-source movement is inherently non-national; and given that Linux, of particular interest to Slashdotters, was originated by a non-American, do you not think it's time to switch the arsehole off and start talking out of your mouth instead?
In answer to your question: urban Afro-American men are the community in question. And it's not quite as bad as 25-30 years, though it's still appalling.
Please tell me that you didn't say this seriously: "let's face it, would you rather live 25 years in the US or 25 years in some third world hellhole?". OK, fair enough, I've been duped: you must be a troll. You cannot have meant that as a serious comment. Please tell me and the rest of the world that you didn't mean it seriously...
Your US-centricity is not only risible, but laughable as well...how can you respond to a post in which I say that I am English by writing "The success of that company still helps you as an American citizen"?
Here's hoping that you and your family don't get caught out the next time your favourite multi-national employer decides to sack its US workforce to cut payroll bills. That would be awful.
Can I ask: have you ever been to Europe? If so, did it change or shape your opinions on how the rest of the world works?
"...Patents are there to ensure that corporations, the lifeblood of our nation, can protect themselves from their competitors."
All this assumes that you're not a troll...Ahem. Which nation would that be? Did you know that WWW in fact stands for World Wide Web? So, incredibly enough, there are lots of people reading Slashdot who aren't Americans!!!
"Anything which allows them to do so is a good thing and should be encouraged by anyone who cares about the future of our great nation. Without these and other measures allowing corporations the freedom to make profit we will end up like the countries of Europe where socialist policies have left children to starve on the streets as their parents aren't allowed to work, all for the sake of the "greater good"."
Oh dear dear dear, where *do* you get your facts from, Rush Limbaugh? Petal, did you know that in the USA, a significant part of the population has a life expectancy at birth as low as in the poorest countries in the world? Or that those great corporations that you are so proud of are in fact almost always multi-national entities and have no qualms about exporting Great American Jobs to other parts of the world--India, f'rinstance.
As someone once said:
"It's the Right wot gets the power
It's the Left wot gets the blame
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame?"
I'd like to pick up on the discussion here about individuals' freedom to act. What I find interesting is how this seems so obviously connected with that old problem in MS programs that there is no consistency between them. If the programs are the results of the efforts of thousands of individuals championing their ideas, then it's hardly surprising that features like arranging windows or customising toolbars are handled differently in W, XL and PPT.
It strikes me that to get around this, there are two solutions: control-freakery (hello, Apple) and peer-review (eg Linux). Control-freakery seems more likely to me to produce a consistent feature-set, as it will embody the vision of a smaller group of people, but the features it offers may not be as exciting/innovative, I guess.
Steve
"Well then by that reasoning your eyes and brain are in fact not representative of reality."
That's one of the central disputes of philosophy generally, and the philosophy of science in particular: what can we know?
"Photos are in fact slices of said reality. If I am driving down the street and get pulled over for speeding at the particular moment in time that the policeman was clocking my speed I was going over the speed limit and therefore I get a ticked. Is that fantasy?"
Nope. But you may not have been speeding. There are many layers of abstraction before you get your ticket.
"Images that a camera can take are just about on par with what our eyes see. If you actually look at all the people who have glasses/contacts/blind in the world you start to understand that even the camera's limited ability to represent information is not that bad."
Of course, a camera has a limited ability to represent reality--but that's a much weaker claim than what you originally posted. And my points about what's left out of shot, and 2d vs 3d, still stand.
"You can't see everything and are therefore not omniscient that makes you view of reality not possible in your eyes."
Couldn't have put it better myself. We cannot be sure that what we're seeing is 'reality'. All we can do is trust. Ever seen a magician? Or a movie?
"I would possibly contend that what you see if of paramount importance to reality. All we have to do is increase our technology to sample more data faster then we have a better picture of reality.
Think of this as a limit on the function of reality as x->infinity."
This sounds close to one of Kuhn's theories of how science works (can't remember its name, can anyone help?) He said that theories are replaced by other theories that predict the data better each time, but that you never got to perfect descriptions. (I paraphrase badly)
"This is a symptom of data representation and of trying to get something to actually be understood. This is not saying that the x-rays are of little gremlins but of data that isn't 100% perfect."
Nope, it's not just that. It's to say that the *representation* of the data is an abstraction that requires conventions and rules to interpret. These rules need not be explict, but they are there--whether we're looking at photos or anything else.
Sorry, but your disagreement ain't valid. To take three very well aired examples: many of the greatest painters of the past few centuries have struggled with the central issue of how to represent 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions--from Egyptian art through to Picasso--how they have chosen to do so makes clear the issues involved (and the issue remains live with photography as well); the same example shows that people in different cultures still read images in very different ways (I wonder what proportion of the world has ever taken a photograph?); and finally, as someone famous said (anyone know who?), pictures never show you what's outside the frame, a key source of their artificiality--and you can extend the idea to the fact that they offer you only a moment in time, as well.
These aren't trivial issues, they're central to art and photography, and other fields like medicine. Ask any med student how long it takes them to learn to read X-rays, path specimens etc--we have to adapt to the picture as much as getting the picture to adapt to us.
Rather presumptive of you....I'm over here too. As for litigation as a spectator sport, what about Mr Fayed and Mr Hamilton?
I don't understand what you mean about the legendary status being precisely legendary. Are you trying to say that Apple's work in GUI design *wasn't* all that great? If so, would you care to justify that statement? If not, what did you mean?
And what do you mean by the toys no longer being to kill for? Do you mean that they are no longer right at the cutting edge of design and capability? If so, would you care to justify that statement too, bearing in mind target markets etc etc.
While I'd like to endorse Robin's points about the importance of becoming involved in the political process, I think that his last statement needs weakening. It may not be as much fun, but at least sometimes, at least potentially, politics can be far more rewarding than messing with software. Robert Heinlein once said something to the effect of 'if you think politics is messy, you haven't considered the alternative--war'. Politics may be a force for mediocrity, but it was vital to the establishment of the United States, the emancipation of women and slaves, the creation of the National Health Service in the UK and much much more besides. Much as I enjoy computers, much as I think they're important, they haven't done as much as that--not yet.
So, please, if you can get involved--do so. American democracy is more vibrant than almost any of its European counterparts--you can make a difference.
Oh dear, petal, a slight misunderstanding here... the point about trademarks that you're missing is that *context matters*. If you want to doodle and you create an apple-a-like logo, that's just fine. Stick it onto a software program designed to customise the look-and-feel of an OS and you're slap bang in the middle of Apple's intellectual property territory--especially if you then make it public. What counts is context: if you want to compete with Apple's look and feel for computer operating software, you're probably going to have to come up with your own ideas, and certainly your own logo.
As for your second point--Apple still makes toys to kill for (eg flat panel digital displays that cope with 2 A4 sheets side-by-side, or no-hassles cheap wireless networking). You're acting surprised that it recognises that aesthetics are important. What do you think that Apple's legendary status in GUI design was built around, if not the importance of look-and-feel? It *always* extended to both software and hardware, precisely because Apple retained control over both.
Sheesh, it makes you wonder if it is because the geek community is so notoriously badly groomed that we see so many articles complaining that Apple has invested in the appearance of its machines.
Before getting oh-so-fancy free with your witless little witticisms, you might want to think about the real people you are talking about. Where are the corpses of my grandparents' relatives? I will spell it out for you: THEY ARE ASHES IN POLAND. No grave; few memories; and fools still besmirching their memory.
Infotech, this isn't just a game, you know. Say as much as you like in defence of your ridiculous ideas that one "race" is greater than another, but don't tell me my relatives weren't murdered by the people you admire. That's what you have to live with if you want to hold such repugnant views.
Marvellous. Bigotry and ignorance in a single post. They got there because they were *encouraged* to immigrate to do low-paid work in the 1950s. And you know what? I can't think of a single white Brit I know who'd prefer having you in the country to having them.
Infotech seems to have no problem with the manner in which I responded. Why do you? I haven't said "He's a Nazi", I've challenged his thinking, posing him a series of questions to which he has responded.
"If you will" sounds pompous. It is inappropriate for the audience and context. Actually, it sounds like it may have been lifted from a source text, but I can't be bothered to check. Infotech's arguments have been full of superficially clever reasoning and I was pointing out a parallel between this and the writing style. I am quite capable of using that or, indeed, more complex phraseology, vocabulary and syntax, should the urge, need or desire become very pressing. I am also capable of spelling correctly, and including commas sufficient to render my sentences intelligible, something, my dear chappie, that seems to elude you.
OhMyGod!!! He was in favour of "some form of wealth redistribution"!!! How dreadful. You mean he wanted people not to live in grinding poverty? Good lord, next you'll be telling us he wanted everyone to have access to decent health care, when it's clear that it's much better to have the poor die in gutters while the rich tell them it's their fault for being moral reprobates. Well, thank goodness the US avoided that, eh? After all, everyone's rich now, aren't they? Much more than in Europe, where vicious socialists roam the streets building hospitals and schools.
Hello infotech.
.0001% of the Negroe race expresses the same? Of course you can."
Thank you for posting a reply. I'm going to work through it in some detail.
"The definition of race is quite malleable."
I don't think you mean malleable--you mean vague. There is no agreed definition of race, among biologists, lawyers, or any other group of experts. Where I used the word malleable, I meant something entirely different, which we'll get to later.
"We all know this. We could say that the basic categories of caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid and australoid exist, and would be quite accurate (but for bone struture only)."
We could say that but we'd be wrong. There is no generally accepted scheme for categorising bone structures, and never has been. Where would Inuit fit in? Ethiopians have utterly different bone structures from Xhosa, much more so than the difference between either group and "caucasoids". You assume your endpoint.
"But the problem is that variations of each of these races exist, as do combinations of them. This creates a hazy line between one and another. I know this. Every biologist knows this. Still, it does not compromise my position."
You find it a problem. Most of the rest of the world does not.
"Races are distinguished by the frequency with which alleles manifest themselves in the phenotype. That is, what is "expressed" by ones genes."
What is expressed by one's genes is DNA. I'd let you get away with saying proteins but nothing more than that. Have you ever studied molecular biology? It's a long and tortuous journey from expression of DNA through to hair colour. And of course, most human characteristics are the result of the interaction of many genes and many environmental factors, which makes unpicking it all incredibly complicated. I'd love to know how you *know* that races are distinguished on the basis of phenotypic allele variation. Sound like an unjustified assertion to me.
"For example: Can blue eyes be said to be a chracteristic of the Aryan, or European, race if while 30% of it's population expresses that trait,
Erm...this really doesn't follow, unless you are defining a race as a sub-population sharing X features at a frequency greater than the rest of the population, and defining that frequency. Even then, you're not actually getting very far, as you have to say why you choose the features you do. And you have no basis for choosing.
"Even though there might be more differences within races than between them, that isn't important."
Yes it is. Because you want to use eugenics or genocide to decide who can reproduce. But you'll be getting rid of lots and lots of people who are better (using whatever arbitrary measure of better you've got) than the ones left behind. Put it this way. I give you two buckets: each contains a mixture of diamonds and glass pieces roughly the same size. I tell you that you have 10 minutes to sort them. What you're proposing is the equivalent of working out which bucket has on average the more diamonds and just keeping that one, rather than sorting through and picking out the diamonds. Babies and bathwater, infotech. And of *course*, humans are infinitely more precious than diamonds.
"While variation exists within groups, the important thing to remember is the average difference. Perhaps this is an inflammatory example (Sorry if it is). If a population of 1 million nerps (fictional creatures) exist and 80 % of them have an IQ of >100, but a few of them are extremely dull, and have an IQ of Surely it can be said that they differ from a population of 1 million perns, 80 % of which have an IQ of 110."
Sorry, but absolutely not. Have you done any statistics? What about variance? You assume that causation and correlation are one and the same, and they are not.
"This can therefore be considered a racial characteristic.(That should answer your within group variation question as well)"
Sorry, you fell at the first hurdle. Average has many different definitions, of which x-bar is only one, and where variance is high, x-bar's significance is low. Plus, you conflate causation and correlation.
"The most consistent way to classify races is by bone structure. In itself, this is a far more complicated area than simple eye color, but the idea is the same. Caucasians are not entirely white. Caucasians include Indians, Arabs and other Semitic peoples as well. Further analysis includes blood characteristics (Arabs and Semites are prone to getting sickle-cell anemia because of these differences, but the remaining Caucasians do not), and other methods. But the most efficient way is by appearance. The majority of characteristics which mark the differences between the races are summed up fairly accurately this way."
Well, is it bone structure or appearance? They're not the same, y'know. And what's the difference between Arabs and Semites? And why do you think that Arabs and Indians are both Semites elsewhere. It all seems very confused. Perhaps there isn't much point in trying to do all of this classification.
"Yes, I understand the implications of this. Basically, it is my position that we should use our biological resources to improve the quality of humans born onto this earth, much the same as those who want to eradicate genetic diseases. That is the implication."
Now we get to the nub of the problem. You don't know the difference between malleability and heritability, do you? Here's a clue: I have very bad eyes. Eyesight has a fairly strong heritable component. But glasses mean I can see! Without the need for breeding my parents differently or anything!!! And how do you determine quality? What possible basis have you got?
"National Socialism is the application of the laws of nature to politics. Sorry if there are any typos, but I'm quite pressed for time today."
Believe me, it's not the typos I'm bothered about. It's the science. Well, the lack of it.
This is completely wrong. Non-Jews aren't refused; it is that all Jews are *guaranteed*. For your information, the criteria used to determine who is a Jew for the purposes of immigration at present are derived from the criteria used by the Nazis, which are not *not* NOT the same as the religious criteria. If the Nazis would have murdered someone for Jewish blood, then Israel offers them a refugee. If this gets up your nose, too bad, frankly.
"To believe in the childish notion that every ***featherless biped*** is equal to every other such animal is a little oversimplistic."
Too right!!! Kangaroos are not equal to humans!!! Chimps and gorillas are different from each other!!!
Thank you, mr ac. You have made my day. I will smirk and smirk and smirk at you and your stupidity.
Are you really sure, by the way, that you want to be encouraging people to read Darwin? Have you read much Darwin yourself? It's not greatly supportive of your stance, y'know. Social Darwinism != Darwinism != current thinking about evolution