> I hope that we never have unbiased news. The reason is partly because that is impossible.
no, not impossible, just difficult. it is possible to report news without injecting your own (or your employer's) bias. that's what journalistic ethics is all about - it's what professional journalists are trained to do. it might be unfashionable or career-limiting at the moment in certain alleged news organisations, but that is the ideal that they are supposed to live up to.
> all I ask is that people tell me what their bias is.
even that is difficult. all people have not only opinions, but different ways of seeing. the way you see the world is shaped by your cultural background, your family, the brainwashing you get from media and advertising, your own experiences, and many other things.
more significantly, most people don't even think about the fact that their world-view is socially constructed - they think/assume that it is the "Natural" way of seeing things, if they think about it at all.
for example, americans tend to see welfare as theft from them personally (via taxes) and that the poor are poor because of their own moral failings (i.e. it's their fault) whereas europeans (and australians) tend to see welfare as a necessary part of civilised society and that, while there are some losers who cause or compound their own misery, the poor are poor primarily because of social, physical or economic circumstances (e.g. it's nearly impossible to become rich if you were born poor and you're unwilling to turn to crime).
i.e. the way you see the world is also a bias - and often an unconscious one.
> An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting > loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck. > No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right.
sometimes the middle ground is just plain wrong. sometimes some things are so wrong that the appropriate response IS to shout them down loudly. this is especially true when you are arguing with corporate shills whose beliefs are determined by their pay cheque rather than reason and/or conviction. they wont argue honestly or fairly, they wont bother to remain consistent, they are being paid to destroy your argument and will do it by any means available, fair or foul.
> Anyone can say that OSC is a novice hack. Well, I've read several of those other > SF novelists mentioned in the parent post, whose books I also enjoy. I find that, > lacking the anti-OSC bigotry, it is difficult for me to categorize OSC as a > novice hack. Ender's Game is an award winning SF novel and was once quite > well-regarded by those very deeply interested in the genre.
perhaps so, but the kind of people who think OSC is a great (or even good) writer are the same kind of people who think that David Eddings is a good fantasy author.
> False. There is an absolute truth out there somewhere,
is there? please provide some evidence for this assertion.
> Again, false. Even a ficticious god can have a profound impact on a populace. =)
so? exactly how does that disprove my theory that a god which can't be proved may as well not exist? IMO, it tends to support my theory as it is evidence that a populace can be impacted just as much (or more*) by a non-existent fictional god as it can by one that actually exists.
* actually, much more - since there are no gods that actually exist (at least, none that have either been proven to exist, or for which there is any evidence of their existence), only non-existent, fictional gods.
> Does this mean I should be worshiping gravity?
if you choose to, why not? it's no crazier than worshipping anything/anyone else. however, nothing i said implies that gravity-worship is necessary or desirable.
the fact that something provably does exist (or for which there is evidence of its existence) is not, IMO, sufficient reason to worship it. even the fact that something is able to affect or influence you is not sufficient reason to worship it.
> I'm agnostic (fallen away Catholic), and therefore no "fundi", but IMHO the notion that > deities CAN'T exist is just as foolish and arrogant as asserting they NECESSARILY exist. > Ultimately, neither position is likely to ever be proved or disproved.
a god (or gods) that can't be proved or disproved is the same as a god that is irrelevant. if you can't positively assign any action or attributes to a given god then it may as well not exist.
so, why worship something that is irrelevant? that takes no action? that has no influence or effect on the world?
a god that does nothing is just a theological convenience - to explain why someone's oh-so-powerful deity doesn't strike down unbelievers and support believers.
btw, i'm curious - do american superstitious types believe that the current hurricane disasters are God's punishment for human-caused climate change - God's way of saying "stop using so much oil and gasoline. or else."
> Do you, the reader, know? Not just have a few purported clues and decided > that Professor Plum created the universe with a chainsaw, but actually > KNOW whether God exists?
well, that's probably impossible to know with 100% certainty.....but since there's no actual evidence for the existence of any god or gods, it's a pretty safe bet (99.99999999999....% certainty) that there are none.
that's close enough that, for all intents and purposes, you may as well act as if you were 100% certain.
(the Invisible Pink Unicorn[1], however, is another matter. we have irrefutable proof that She is invisible because we can't see Her:)
> > Furthermore: > > -Nearly all suicide bombers in Israel have been young Arabic Muslim males
> gee, do you think that might possibly be because they were Palestinians? you know, > the people who are fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression of their > homeland?
in any case, what you claim isn't even true.
many of them have been christians (palestine has both christians and muslims), and many of them have been female. several were atheists or undeclared religion. and a few were old.
"young arabic muslim males" may make up the largest group of suicide bombers, but that doesn't even come close to "nearly all".
contrary to the propaganda you get in the mainstream media, the only factor common to terrorists and suicide bombers is NOT religious affiliation, but a sense of outrage at foreign occupation of their homeland. they don't give a damn about america's religion or morals, what they care about is that US-forces (and/or US-backed forces) are occupying their land.
but don't take just my word for it - see, for instance the article "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism" in the American Conservative magazine:
you want to stop creating terrorists and suicide bombers? the solution is easy - force israel to get the fuck out of palestine (in the same way that iraq was forced to get the fuck out of kuwait in 1991), and withdraw from iraq and saudi arabia. sure, iraq and saudi will then collapse into civil war - but that's no worse than what is going on there now.
> Here's some sobering facts: > -All of the 9/11 hijackers were male > -All of them were between the age of 20 and 33 > -All of them were Muslim > -All of them came from Arabic nations or states
and all of them had two eyes, two arms, and two legs. those traits are just as specific to terrorists as the others you listed.
in case you miss the point here, there are many thousands of people who match the criteria you listed who are NOT terrorists. it is NOT ok for them to be harassed every time they travel just because it satisifies your sense of racist indignation and xenophobia.
also, the Oklahoma bomber was a white american - perhaps profiling should focus on whites?
> Furthermore: > -Nearly all suicide bombers in Israel have been young Arabic Muslim males
gee, do you think that might possibly be because they were Palestinians? you know, the people who are fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression of their homeland?
> Now, to see the absurdity in ignoring these common traits, imagine the following:
yes, your imaginary scenario really is absurd.
> Reporter: "What can you tell us about the murderer?" > > Commissioner: "Nothing at all. We can't reveal the person's ethnicity, height, weight, age, > sex, national origin, or any other distinguishing features because that might encourage the > public to look suspiciously at [ blah blah blah paranoid ravings deleted blah blah blah ]
looking for a specific individual is NOT the same thing as profiling.
2018 + 1 hour later : new windows virus takes over entire population, turning them into zombies (and causing them to attack their neighbours and eat their brains.)
> Let's see. It is okay to force people to have > abortions but self defence is wrong?
who said anything about forced abortions? i know i never did.
similarly, where did self-defence come into the picture? the original poster talked about murdering people who were in favour of population control - that does not qualify as self-defence.
> Government mandated and mandatory population > control is what I would consider the very > definition of EVIL.
that would be because you're a moron. sorry, it's incurable.
> Think about it. Who decides who gets to have > children?
what? you think that leaving it up to irresponsible and idiot breeders is a good idea? that anyone should be able to have as many babies as they want regardless of the consequences for the planet?
there's more than enough people in the world already. while killing any existing people would be wrong (in every way), there's nothing at all wrong with restricting or limiting the number of new humans that could potentially come into the world. it's not only "not wrong", it's NECESSARY.
amazing! you miraculously know what my version of population control is without me ever posting it. hallelujah! praise the lord!
fwiw, you don't need to enslave anyone for population control, any more than you need to enslave everyone to enforce laws against jaywalking or to regulate other activities that have consequences for other people.
but since you're a redneck retard, you probably find it difficult to grasp such subtleties - if it can't be expressed in a monosyllabic grunt, then it must be ivory-tower evil communist propaganda designed to enslave Mom and Apple Pie
> And so long as folks like me are around, anyone > who tries to enforce breeding limits on their > fellow citizens will find themselves the subject > of a post-natal abortion right quick.
typical redneck knuckle-dragger thinking - murder is perfectly acceptable, but population control is evil evil evil.
what i want to know is, why are cnet articles so ugly (grey background, lots of blank space, weird formatting. they look like what you'd expect to see in lynx, but inside a GUI window) - is it just that they don't format properly in mozilla-based browsers?
i've tried viewing them in mozilla, firefox, and galeon, and they all look the same. i have no idea what they look like in IE because i don't have any windows machines at all....i can't believe that they'd be that ugly in IE, though.
it seems to be specific to cnet - every other web site i go to renders perfectly in firefox.
> That some Creationists have co-opted the term is > unfortunate, but still doesn't make Creationism > equal to Intelligent Design.
"some creationists" have NOT co-opted the term "Intelligent Design". Creationists created the term as a way to dress up their creationist myths in pseudo-scientific babble.
the so-called 'theory' of Intelligent Design only exists because it is a modern, politically correct version of Creationism, designed specifically to avoid criticism of its anti-scientific and anti-rational basis by using pseudo-scientific language rather than overtly religious language.
in short, it's a crock of shit....and worse than that, it's a set of *deliberate* lies.
creationism you can at least excuse on the grounds that some of its adherents genuinely believe in it...but ID is a deliberate lie.
> It would be better to do away with the PM, and > raise my salary just 50% what that PM was making > to do the same job. This would save the company > quite a bit of dough over the long term and I > would be properly compensated -
sorry, you're not qualified for that kind of project management role - you sound like you're a tech.
as a Project Manager you're supposed to be able to say "yes, of course we can do that" to any brain-damaged idea uttered by senior management or a customer.
as a tech, you're likely to say undesirable things like "no, we can't do that" or "that's the stupidest idea i've heard for a long time" or even the more politic "i'll have to think about that and get back to you".
this kind of unwanted adherence to reality and truth are what disqualifies you.
it's obvious to all but the most retarded specimens that the parent post was so deliberately outrageous that it was not meant literally.
unfortunately, sometimes even the blatantly self-evident things need to be spelt out so that the slack-jawed yokels amongst us might have some chance to understand:
the parent poster's point was that politicians don't and won't give a shit about issues like this unless it affects them personally. until then, anyone affected by it can rot in hell for all they care. as soon as it does affect them personally, they'll do whatever it takes to make sure that they (or their child, other relative or friend) gets what is needed.
whilst this is also something of an exaggeration and generalisation, there is enough truth in the assertion that it is worth considering.
> Like you said, the frozen embryos and the stem > cells taken from them aren't ours to screw > around with like this. They do (and should) > belong to the organism they were taken from.
you're absolutely right.
if i, for instance, needed a new kidney because the two i was born with were completely fucked due to polycystic kidney disease then i and my doctors should be able to decide to take some of my own cells, clone them to produce stem cells and grow me a new 100% compatible kidney with no chance of rejection.
the technology isn't quite there yet for that, but it's not far off (maybe 5 or 10 years) - and banning stem-cell research is just increasing the length of time i have to spend plugged into a dialysis machine just to stay alive.
they're my cells - why shouldn't i be able to have them cloned to help save my own life?
this isn't about "murdering babies" - it's about cloning a patient's own cells in order to produce compatible organs to save their lives.
and it's closer than you think - research with rats has shown that if you clone rat stem cells, wait until they've differentiated, then take the proto-kidney cells and inject them into the rat's abdomen that they will form into several tiny kidneys that attach to the blood vessels and bladder and begin functioning perfectly.
several tiny kidneys may not be as ideal as two full-sized ones but it's a hell of a lot better than either dialysis or a transplant with anti-rejection medication (which suppresses your immune system and increases the risk of infections, diseases, and cancer)
if that were available for human trials, i'd sign up for it in an instant. if nothing else, it would keep me alive and healthy until they were able to grow me a full-sized kidney for implantation - without having huge needles in my arm to plug me into a machine for about 20 hours/week.
> On a sidenote, is anyone going to buy this drive > that is 4gb and costs 100 bucks? I don't think > it's much use to anyone.
actually, it's about $500 when you add the cost of 4GB of RAM to fill it up - and yes, (assuming the thing works reliably) I would buy one of these things. the next time i need to build a high-volume mail server, or a database server where the db can fit in less than 4GB (i.e. almost all web databases), or a file server with a journalling fs which supports an external journal (e.g. XFS).
something like this is ideal for eliminating or reducing particular kinds of I/O bottlenecks.
i'd rather have just a PCI card with RAM and a battery (at least a few days worth of battery backup) on it plus GPL drivers to run it as a non-volatile ramdisk - that would be much faster than going through a SATA interface.....but this thing is a reasonable start.
and yes, it would be good if it had more RAM sockets so it could be 8 or 16 or 32GB or even bigger - but 4GB is actually a lot of memory and is useful for a surprisingly large number of tasks.
> I think this is a phenomenal idea however in > its current form it borders on useless. > (essentially $510 for a 4 GB drive that makes > your OS boot up 5 seconds faster. The > price/performance ratio is way off.)
it's not quite useless. there are a few applications that would really benefit from a device like this. the two most obvious are:
1. mail queue on a mail server. queuing mail is the single biggest bottleneck on any mail server. using a SSD for the queue is a well known trick for increasing mail-server performance....but they cost a couple of thousand $ per gigabyte (at least, they did last time i checked).
approx $500 for 4GB brings this optimisation into the price range of small-medium sized mail servers.
2. the journal partition for journaling file systems that support external journals, eg xfs and ext3.
my point was that there are other costs and factors which need to be taken into account AS WELL AS just the purely monetary.
pollution is a cost. waste is a cost. global warming is a cost. toxic air is a cost. and so on.
failure to take these costs into account when calculating a "break-even" point is both short-sighted and narrow-minded. only idito economists call these things "externals" and ignore them.
> Because, let's face it, it takes energy to make > those cells. It takes money and energy to get > the materials for the cells.
thank you, Captain Obvious!
> And no, it's not like crapping out in the lawn.
using electricity from coal-fired power stations is EXACTLY like crapping on the lawn, except that a) it's not bio-degradable, b) radioactive and other toxic waster ends up in your lungs and in the water and in the ground and in the food chain, c) lawn crap is a short-term problem while coal fire pollution is a long term problem, and d) it smells worse. other than those minor details, it's exactly alike.
most other "conventional" electricity generation methods aren't much better than coal.
the only thing that comes close to being clean is nuclear power, and that's only because it produces such small quantities of waste that it's possible to contain it. in theory, at least. i wouldn't trust any big corporation (especially a U.S. corporation) to actually do the job properly and safely - most likely they'd just ship it to mexico and dump it in a lake because it's cheaper and easier and they can bribe people to get away with it.
but in theory, the waste can be contained.
> These shingles, for example, [...]
where to start? there's so much that is just plain wrong which is revealed by your words. batteries are a small part of the cost of a solar power setup compared to the cost of PV cells....and batteries are used in pretty nearly every solar setup, except for immediate pumping and similar applications. you factor it in to the capacity planning calculations.
apart from that, the only other thing i can say is that the best response to the situation you describe is to come up with an energy budget that sees you living within your means. some things should not be put "on credit" for the next generation to sort out....the fact is, unless WE (the currently living generations) sort it out, this will probably be the last generation with the luxury of having the time and resources and energy to be able to work it out.
worrying obsessively about "breaking even" is like worrying that the cost of sewerage processing is too expensive - as if just crapping on the lawn is an option because it's a lot cheaper. that's not an option you have, and it's not an option you SHOULD have because it affects your neighbours as well as yourself.
doing things the cheap and nasty way has its own costs.
or, more precisely, not every cost is financial.
btw, this is a general principle, not specifically in reference to these $157 shingles. i also think they're too expensive. there are, however, much cheaper ways of getting solar or other alternative power.
> The GPL does not gaurauntee that I will make > contributions; rather it garauntees I will > not. I can't use it, so I'm not going to > improve it.
yes, i understood your point, no need to belabour it.
you seem to have missed my point, though, which was that there are many more programmers who *won't* contribute to BSD-licensed projects because they don't want to contribute to something which *could* be stolen and made proprietary - they see that as wasting their effort, throwing their time away, and being exploited by parasites.
note that "could" is significant - it doesn't matter whether it actually is stolen or not, the potential is enough of a disincentive.
> So there's a nice one that's GPL licensed. > But I really want to build graph-drawing > ability right into my software, and I'm not > going to open the stats part, so I can't use > it
that's the GPL working as designed. if you're not prepared to share then you're not allowed to use the code. write your own or find some other library - it may not be as good as the GPL lib, but that's the price you pay for not participating in the free software game. only those willing to share are allowed to play.
> Yeah, their are developers doing stuff on > their own time and unwilling to take the > chance that someone else will make a buck > off their work (why, I don't know).
it's not about making a buck, it's about reciprocity. it's about not wanting to be exploited by leeches and parasites - i.e. "if you're willing to share, welcome and feel free to use my stuff. if not, then write your own".
> Really, I think the fear that someone will > take the whole thing and sell it as their > own proprietary version is overrated.
why overrated? it happens all the time. there are thieves out there who will do whatever they can get away with if it will make them a quick buck. it happens to BSD licensed projects (in which case it's legal) and it even happens to GPL code (in which case it's not legal, and it is possible to enforce compliance with the license).
the BSD license has no problem with that kind of exploitation. in fact, it doesn't even see it as exploitation - that's just the software being used as intended by the developers. that's fine, that's the way it's supposed to work. no problem.
the GPL license, however, does see that as exploitation. if you want to use GPL code then you have to be willing to share. if you don't want to or can't do that then you don't get to use the code.
> But I'd argue their are many more like me who > can't touch GPLd code, but will happily > contribute to BSD projects;
no, there are far fewer who can't touch GPL. very few programmers actually sell (or intend to sell) proprietary software. most programmers are in-house programmers.
in fact, there's probably more amateur/hobbyist programmers than retail shelfware programmers.
> I'm not suggesting that the GPL prevents > progress; only that if your goal is maximum > rate of progress, BSD might be a better choice, > because more developers are able to contribute.
only the developers who DON'T CARE that their contributions can be taken into a proprietary derivative by future unknown third-party without any compensation at all (and yes, the chance of getting back improvements which is guaranteed by the GPL *does* qualify as compensation, even if the chance is minimal or remote).
there may be lots of programmers who don't care, but there are many more who DO care, who won't contribute purely for that reason.....or who will make a GPL derivative/fork of the BSD-licensed original, which is far from an optimal result.
in that case, either the GPL version is significantly better than the BSD, so it ends up replacing it (an acceptable, but not good, outcome) or it isn't, in which case it vanishes into irrelevance taking the contribution along with it (a completely useless outcome).
Slashdot Mirror
> I hope that we never have unbiased news. The reason is partly because that is impossible.
no, not impossible, just difficult. it is possible to report news without injecting your own (or your employer's) bias. that's what journalistic ethics is all about - it's what professional journalists are trained to do. it might be unfashionable or career-limiting at the moment in certain alleged news organisations, but that is the ideal that they are supposed to live up to.
> all I ask is that people tell me what their bias is.
even that is difficult. all people have not only opinions, but different ways of
seeing. the way you see the world is shaped by your cultural background, your family, the brainwashing you get from media and advertising, your own experiences, and many other things.
more significantly, most people don't even think about the fact that their world-view is socially constructed - they think/assume that it is the "Natural" way of seeing things, if they think about it at all.
for example, americans tend to see welfare as theft from them personally (via taxes) and that the poor are poor because of their own moral failings (i.e. it's their fault) whereas europeans (and australians) tend to see welfare as a necessary part of civilised society and that, while there are some losers who cause or compound their own misery, the poor are poor primarily because of social, physical or economic circumstances (e.g. it's nearly impossible to become rich if you were born poor and you're unwilling to turn to crime).
i.e. the way you see the world is also a bias - and often an unconscious one.
> An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting
> loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck.
> No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right.
sometimes the middle ground is just plain wrong. sometimes some things are so wrong that the appropriate response IS to shout them down loudly. this is especially true when you are arguing with corporate shills whose beliefs are determined by their pay cheque rather than reason and/or conviction. they wont argue honestly or fairly, they wont bother to remain consistent, they are being paid to destroy your argument and will do it by any means available, fair or foul.
> Anyone can say that OSC is a novice hack. Well, I've read several of those other
> SF novelists mentioned in the parent post, whose books I also enjoy. I find that,
> lacking the anti-OSC bigotry, it is difficult for me to categorize OSC as a
> novice hack. Ender's Game is an award winning SF novel and was once quite
> well-regarded by those very deeply interested in the genre.
perhaps so, but the kind of people who think OSC is a great (or even good) writer are the same kind of people who think that David Eddings is a good fantasy author.
i think that says it all, really.
> False. There is an absolute truth out there somewhere,
is there? please provide some evidence for this assertion.
> Again, false. Even a ficticious god can have a profound impact on a populace. =)
so? exactly how does that disprove my theory that a god which can't be proved may as well not exist? IMO, it tends to support my theory as it is evidence that a populace can be impacted just as much (or more*) by a non-existent fictional god as it can by one that actually exists.
* actually, much more - since there are no gods that actually exist (at least, none that have either been proven to exist, or for which there is any evidence of their existence), only non-existent, fictional gods.
> Does this mean I should be worshiping gravity?
if you choose to, why not? it's no crazier than worshipping anything/anyone else. however, nothing i said implies that gravity-worship is necessary or desirable.
the fact that something provably does exist (or for which there is evidence of its existence) is not, IMO, sufficient reason to worship it. even the fact that something is able to affect or influence you is not sufficient reason to worship it.
> I'm agnostic (fallen away Catholic), and therefore no "fundi", but IMHO the notion that
:)
> deities CAN'T exist is just as foolish and arrogant as asserting they NECESSARILY exist.
> Ultimately, neither position is likely to ever be proved or disproved.
a god (or gods) that can't be proved or disproved is the same as a god that is irrelevant. if you can't positively assign any action or attributes to a given god then it may as well not exist.
so, why worship something that is irrelevant? that takes no action? that has no influence or effect on the world?
a god that does nothing is just a theological convenience - to explain why someone's oh-so-powerful deity doesn't strike down unbelievers and support believers.
btw, i'm curious - do american superstitious types believe that the current hurricane disasters are God's punishment for human-caused climate change - God's way of saying "stop using so much oil and gasoline. or else."
> Do you, the reader, know? Not just have a few purported clues and decided
> that Professor Plum created the universe with a chainsaw, but actually
> KNOW whether God exists?
well, that's probably impossible to know with 100% certainty.....but since there's no actual evidence for the existence of any god or gods, it's a pretty safe bet (99.99999999999....% certainty) that there are none.
that's close enough that, for all intents and purposes, you may as well act as if you were 100% certain.
(the Invisible Pink Unicorn[1], however, is another matter. we have irrefutable proof that She is invisible because we can't see Her
[1] http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/
> > Furthermore:
> > -Nearly all suicide bombers in Israel have been young Arabic Muslim males
> gee, do you think that might possibly be because they were Palestinians? you know,
> the people who are fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression of their
> homeland?
in any case, what you claim isn't even true.
many of them have been christians (palestine has both christians and muslims), and many of them have been female. several were atheists or undeclared religion. and a few were old.
"young arabic muslim males" may make up the largest group of suicide bombers, but that doesn't even come close to "nearly all".
contrary to the propaganda you get in the mainstream media, the only factor common to terrorists and suicide bombers is NOT religious affiliation, but a sense of outrage at foreign occupation of their homeland. they don't give a damn about america's religion or morals, what they care about is that US-forces (and/or US-backed forces) are occupying their land.
but don't take just my word for it - see, for instance the article "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism" in the American Conservative magazine:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
you want to stop creating terrorists and suicide bombers? the solution is easy - force israel to get the fuck out of palestine (in the same way that iraq was forced to get the fuck out of kuwait in 1991), and withdraw from iraq and saudi arabia. sure, iraq and saudi will then collapse into civil war - but that's no worse than what is going on there now.
> Here's some sobering facts:
> -All of the 9/11 hijackers were male
> -All of them were between the age of 20 and 33
> -All of them were Muslim
> -All of them came from Arabic nations or states
and all of them had two eyes, two arms, and two legs. those traits are just as specific to terrorists as the others you listed.
in case you miss the point here, there are many thousands of people who match the criteria you listed who are NOT terrorists. it is NOT ok for them to be harassed every time they travel just because it satisifies your sense of racist indignation and xenophobia.
also, the Oklahoma bomber was a white american - perhaps profiling should focus on whites?
> Furthermore:
> -Nearly all suicide bombers in Israel have been young Arabic Muslim males
gee, do you think that might possibly be because they were Palestinians? you know, the people who are fighting against Israeli occupation and oppression of their homeland?
> Now, to see the absurdity in ignoring these common traits, imagine the following:
yes, your imaginary scenario really is absurd.
> Reporter: "What can you tell us about the murderer?"
>
> Commissioner: "Nothing at all. We can't reveal the person's ethnicity, height, weight, age,
> sex, national origin, or any other distinguishing features because that might encourage the
> public to look suspiciously at [ blah blah blah paranoid ravings deleted blah blah blah ]
looking for a specific individual is NOT the same thing as profiling.
moron.
2018 + 1 hour later : new windows virus takes over entire population, turning them into zombies (and causing them to attack their neighbours and eat their brains.)
it is the guiding principle behind Fox News.
> Let's see. It is okay to force people to have
> abortions but self defence is wrong?
who said anything about forced abortions? i know i never did.
similarly, where did self-defence come into the picture? the original poster talked about murdering people who were in favour of population control - that does not qualify as self-defence.
> Government mandated and mandatory population
> control is what I would consider the very
> definition of EVIL.
that would be because you're a moron. sorry, it's incurable.
> Think about it. Who decides who gets to have
> children?
what? you think that leaving it up to irresponsible and idiot breeders is a good idea? that anyone should be able to have as many babies as they want regardless of the consequences for the planet?
there's more than enough people in the world already. while killing any existing people would be wrong (in every way), there's nothing at all wrong with restricting or limiting the number of new humans that could potentially come into the world. it's not only "not wrong", it's NECESSARY.
amazing! you miraculously know what my version of population control is without me ever posting it. hallelujah! praise the lord!
fwiw, you don't need to enslave anyone for population control, any more than you need to enslave everyone to enforce laws against jaywalking or to regulate other activities that have consequences for other people.
but since you're a redneck retard, you probably find it difficult to grasp such subtleties - if it can't be expressed in a monosyllabic grunt, then it must be ivory-tower evil communist propaganda designed to enslave Mom and Apple Pie
> The inescapable conclusion is that GWB is NOT
> the incompetent evil genius (sic)
nobody says he's an evil genius, incompetent or otherwise.
evil, yes. incompetent, yes. genius? you've got to be kidding.
what Bush is is just a puppet with Cheney's hand up his butt.
> indicative of a trend towards a silent audience
> demand for wholesome, informative movies rather
> than violent and crass fare?
what the hell are you talking about, man?
this is penguin porn.
penguin. porn.
> as opposed to another one where Michael Moore
> makes fun of people he disagrees with.
you forgot to finish your sentence:
"as opposed to another one where Michael Moore makes fun of people he disagrees with by exposing their lies to public scrutiny."
> And so long as folks like me are around, anyone
> who tries to enforce breeding limits on their
> fellow citizens will find themselves the subject
> of a post-natal abortion right quick.
typical redneck knuckle-dragger thinking - murder is perfectly acceptable, but population control is evil evil evil.
moron!
what i want to know is, why are cnet articles so ugly (grey background, lots of blank space, weird formatting. they look like what you'd expect to see in lynx, but inside a GUI window) - is it just that they don't format properly in mozilla-based browsers?
i've tried viewing them in mozilla, firefox, and galeon, and they all look the same. i have no idea what they look like in IE because i don't have any windows machines at all....i can't believe that they'd be that ugly in IE, though.
it seems to be specific to cnet - every other web site i go to renders perfectly in firefox.
> That some Creationists have co-opted the term is
> unfortunate, but still doesn't make Creationism
> equal to Intelligent Design.
"some creationists" have NOT co-opted the term "Intelligent Design". Creationists created the term as a way to dress up their creationist myths in pseudo-scientific babble.
the so-called 'theory' of Intelligent Design only exists because it is a modern, politically correct version of Creationism, designed specifically to avoid criticism of its anti-scientific and anti-rational basis by using pseudo-scientific language rather than overtly religious language.
in short, it's a crock of shit....and worse than that, it's a set of *deliberate* lies.
creationism you can at least excuse on the grounds that some of its adherents genuinely believe in it...but ID is a deliberate lie.
> It would be better to do away with the PM, and
> raise my salary just 50% what that PM was making
> to do the same job. This would save the company
> quite a bit of dough over the long term and I
> would be properly compensated -
sorry, you're not qualified for that kind of project management role - you sound like you're a tech.
as a Project Manager you're supposed to be able to say "yes, of course we can do that" to any brain-damaged idea uttered by senior management or a customer.
as a tech, you're likely to say undesirable things like "no, we can't do that" or "that's the stupidest idea i've heard for a long time" or even the more politic "i'll have to think about that and get back to you".
this kind of unwanted adherence to reality and truth are what disqualifies you.
it's obvious to all but the most retarded specimens that the parent post was so deliberately outrageous that it was not meant literally.
unfortunately, sometimes even the blatantly self-evident things need to be spelt out so that the slack-jawed yokels amongst us might have some chance to understand:
the parent poster's point was that politicians don't and won't give a shit about issues like this unless it affects them personally. until then, anyone affected by it can rot in hell for all they care. as soon as it does affect them personally, they'll do whatever it takes to make sure that they (or their child, other relative or friend) gets what is needed.
whilst this is also something of an exaggeration and generalisation, there is enough truth in the assertion that it is worth considering.
hope that helps. have a nice day.
> Like you said, the frozen embryos and the stem
> cells taken from them aren't ours to screw
> around with like this. They do (and should)
> belong to the organism they were taken from.
you're absolutely right.
if i, for instance, needed a new kidney because the two i was born with were completely fucked due to polycystic kidney disease then i and my doctors should be able to decide to take some of my own cells, clone them to produce stem cells and grow me a new 100% compatible kidney with no chance of rejection.
the technology isn't quite there yet for that, but it's not far off (maybe 5 or 10 years) - and banning stem-cell research is just increasing the length of time i have to spend plugged into a dialysis machine just to stay alive.
they're my cells - why shouldn't i be able to have them cloned to help save my own life?
this isn't about "murdering babies" - it's about cloning a patient's own cells in order to produce compatible organs to save their lives.
and it's closer than you think - research with rats has shown that if you clone rat stem cells, wait until they've differentiated, then take the proto-kidney cells and inject them into the rat's abdomen that they will form into several tiny kidneys that attach to the blood vessels and bladder and begin functioning perfectly.
several tiny kidneys may not be as ideal as two full-sized ones but it's a hell of a lot better than either dialysis or a transplant with anti-rejection medication (which suppresses your immune system and increases the risk of infections, diseases, and cancer)
if that were available for human trials, i'd sign up for it in an instant. if nothing else, it would keep me alive and healthy until they were able to grow me a full-sized kidney for implantation - without having huge needles in my arm to plug me into a machine for about 20 hours/week.
> On a sidenote, is anyone going to buy this drive
> that is 4gb and costs 100 bucks? I don't think
> it's much use to anyone.
actually, it's about $500 when you add the cost of 4GB of RAM to fill it up - and yes, (assuming the thing works reliably) I would buy one of these things. the next time i need to build a high-volume mail server, or a database server where the db can fit in less than 4GB (i.e. almost all web databases), or a file server with a journalling fs which supports an external journal (e.g. XFS).
something like this is ideal for eliminating or reducing particular kinds of I/O bottlenecks.
i'd rather have just a PCI card with RAM and a battery (at least a few days worth of battery backup) on it plus GPL drivers to run it as a non-volatile ramdisk - that would be much faster than going through a SATA interface.....but this thing is a reasonable start.
and yes, it would be good if it had more RAM sockets so it could be 8 or 16 or 32GB or even bigger - but 4GB is actually a lot of memory and is useful for a surprisingly large number of tasks.
> I think this is a phenomenal idea however in
> its current form it borders on useless.
> (essentially $510 for a 4 GB drive that makes
> your OS boot up 5 seconds faster. The
> price/performance ratio is way off.)
it's not quite useless. there are a few applications that would really benefit from a device like this. the two most obvious are:
1. mail queue on a mail server. queuing mail is the single biggest bottleneck on any mail server. using a SSD for the queue is a well known trick for increasing mail-server performance....but they cost a couple of thousand $ per gigabyte (at least, they did last time i checked).
approx $500 for 4GB brings this optimisation into the price range of small-medium sized mail servers.
2. the journal partition for journaling file systems that support external journals, eg xfs and ext3.
> Break even point is important.
i never said it wasn't.
my point was that there are other costs and factors which need to be taken into account AS WELL AS just the purely monetary.
pollution is a cost. waste is a cost. global warming is a cost. toxic air is a cost. and so on.
failure to take these costs into account when calculating a "break-even" point is both short-sighted and narrow-minded. only idito economists call these things "externals" and ignore them.
> Because, let's face it, it takes energy to make
> those cells. It takes money and energy to get
> the materials for the cells.
thank you, Captain Obvious!
> And no, it's not like crapping out in the lawn.
using electricity from coal-fired power stations is EXACTLY like crapping on the lawn, except that a) it's not bio-degradable, b) radioactive and other toxic waster ends up in your lungs and in the water and in the ground and in the food chain, c) lawn crap is a short-term problem while coal fire pollution is a long term problem, and d) it smells worse. other than those minor details, it's exactly alike.
most other "conventional" electricity generation methods aren't much better than coal.
the only thing that comes close to being clean is nuclear power, and that's only because it produces such small quantities of waste that it's possible to contain it. in theory, at least. i wouldn't trust any big corporation (especially a U.S. corporation) to actually do the job properly and safely - most likely they'd just ship it to mexico and dump it in a lake because it's cheaper and easier and they can bribe people to get away with it.
but in theory, the waste can be contained.
> These shingles, for example, [...]
where to start? there's so much that is just plain wrong which is revealed by your words. batteries are a small part of the cost of a solar power setup compared to the cost of PV cells....and batteries are used in pretty nearly every solar setup, except for immediate pumping and similar applications. you factor it in to the capacity planning calculations.
apart from that, the only other thing i can say is that the best response to the situation you describe is to come up with an energy budget that sees you living within your means. some things should not be put "on credit" for the next generation to sort out....the fact is, unless WE (the currently living generations) sort it out, this will probably be the last generation with the luxury of having the time and resources and energy to be able to work it out.
some things are worth paying for.
worrying obsessively about "breaking even" is like worrying that the cost of sewerage processing is too expensive - as if just crapping on the lawn is an option because it's a lot cheaper. that's not an option you have, and it's not an option you SHOULD have because it affects your neighbours as well as yourself.
doing things the cheap and nasty way has its own costs.
or, more precisely, not every cost is financial.
btw, this is a general principle, not specifically in reference to these $157 shingles. i also think they're too expensive. there are, however, much cheaper ways of getting solar or other alternative power.
> The GPL does not gaurauntee that I will make
> contributions; rather it garauntees I will
> not. I can't use it, so I'm not going to
> improve it.
yes, i understood your point, no need to belabour it.
you seem to have missed my point, though, which was that there are many more programmers who *won't* contribute to BSD-licensed projects because they don't want to contribute to something which *could* be stolen and made proprietary - they see that as wasting their effort, throwing their time away, and being exploited by parasites.
note that "could" is significant - it doesn't matter whether it actually is stolen or not, the potential is enough of a disincentive.
> So there's a nice one that's GPL licensed.
> But I really want to build graph-drawing
> ability right into my software, and I'm not
> going to open the stats part, so I can't use
> it
that's the GPL working as designed. if you're not prepared to share then you're not allowed to use the code. write your own or find some other library - it may not be as good as the GPL lib, but that's the price you pay for not participating in the free software game. only those willing to share are allowed to play.
> Yeah, their are developers doing stuff on
> their own time and unwilling to take the
> chance that someone else will make a buck
> off their work (why, I don't know).
it's not about making a buck, it's about reciprocity. it's about not wanting to be exploited by leeches and parasites - i.e. "if you're willing to share, welcome and feel free to use my stuff. if not, then write your own".
> Really, I think the fear that someone will
> take the whole thing and sell it as their
> own proprietary version is overrated.
why overrated? it happens all the time. there are thieves out there who will do whatever they can get away with if it will make them a quick buck. it happens to BSD licensed projects (in which case it's legal) and it even happens to GPL code (in which case it's not legal, and it is possible to enforce compliance with the license).
the BSD license has no problem with that kind of exploitation. in fact, it doesn't even see it as exploitation - that's just the software being used as intended by the developers. that's fine, that's the way it's supposed to work. no problem.
the GPL license, however, does see that as exploitation. if you want to use GPL code then you have to be willing to share. if you don't want to or can't do that then you don't get to use the code.
> But I'd argue their are many more like me who
> can't touch GPLd code, but will happily
> contribute to BSD projects;
no, there are far fewer who can't touch GPL. very few programmers actually sell (or intend to sell) proprietary software. most programmers are in-house programmers.
in fact, there's probably more amateur/hobbyist programmers than retail shelfware programmers.
> I'm not suggesting that the GPL prevents
> progress; only that if your goal is maximum
> rate of progress, BSD might be a better choice,
> because more developers are able to contribute.
only the developers who DON'T CARE that their contributions can be taken into a proprietary derivative by future unknown third-party without any compensation at all (and yes, the chance of getting back improvements which is guaranteed by the GPL *does* qualify as compensation, even if the chance is minimal or remote).
there may be lots of programmers who don't care, but there are many more who DO care, who won't contribute purely for that reason.....or who will make a GPL derivative/fork of the BSD-licensed original, which is far from an optimal result.
in that case, either the GPL version is significantly better than the BSD, so it ends up replacing it (an acceptable, but not good, outcome) or it isn't, in which case it vanishes into irrelevance taking the contribution along with it (a completely useless outcome).