Watterson said he quit because he had become bored with the medium and wanted to try something on a larger scale. So where is it?!?
Beautifully illustrated and well written children's books. Parents read his stories to their children. How much larger than influencing growing minds can you get?
Strange rumors are whispered in the land of a power called "Mac & Tosh." Users of the power can see these WMV demons you refer to without the use of a box with windows on it. Practicioners of the "Mac & Tosh" though face a hard road costing much moola and derision from others.
Hey man, you don't have to make apologies for suggesting Devine Providence. Just because because I'm a Lib doesn't mean I go into apoplectic fits. I actually have much respect for religious people.
Soo.... Whew... Lots.... Thanks for the reply, though I doubt I reply in kind.
My first reply gave the Falwell and Coulter quotes. Thurmond was a segregationist. Helms was a segregationist. And there's Lott's infamous speech last December. Now, I'm not calling all Conservatives racists, but we are talking about Conservative Senators in powerful positions.
I acknowledge that there are Leftists and wackos on my side who are racist against whites, Israelis, and probably Polynesian pigmies, too. They tend to not get repeatedly elected to the US Senate by Liberals, though.
And racism isn't the only thing. Conservatives pressured Dole into giving back a small contribution from the Log Cabin Republicans. Now, this is a stretch but this is my thinking - Contributions are seen as political speech, and some powerful groups on the Right suppressed the Log Cabins' speech. Sure, it was the Right's perogerative, but it greatly implies a bigotry.
Err... Abortion. Sticky subject, always a messy topic. Suffice to say, I and many Libs I know feel that abortion is overused, and it would be much better for those children to not be conceived.
The secular materialism of our culture, reinforced by the leftist cultural elites (movies, TV, music, etc) have convinced people to dump their kids in day care to pursue careers, usually in the pursuit of material possessions or societal status (selfish reasons). Children need their parents and one of them should be home with them.
I agree that latch-key kids are a problem. My own sister is a single mom, and she has to find a sitter every day so she can work. It's not something she wants to do. She doesn't do it because of TV, movies, or music. She does it out of economic necessity. I don't even know any couples who can *afford* to keep one parent home. These aren't materialistic people. They don't live outside their means. Of course a living wage would solve the problem, but Conservatives tend to be against wage increases because of a mistaken idea that jobs are lost.
Okay, so there are too many abortions, and too many children born to teens. But Conservatives are against condoms in schools or teaching kids about masturbation? It's not directly a human right, but it contributes to abuses.
How about my right to live in a clean environment? Last I checked, grandfathering in several thousand factories and plants from new guidelines doesn't improve my environment.
Free speach? Ashcroft said ""To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." Not a ringing endorsement of free speech and criticism of one's government.
Where's the Convservative equivalent of the ACLU? I ask because most people say the ACLU is a Liberal group.
If I were gay, there are vocal Conservative groups that would want to keep me out of the armed services, out of teaching, off television, and most frightening, from having sex with consenting males. Why can't consenting adults have sex with one another?
Haven't had time to read the whole thing. Yes, we're both stubborn.
Two quick points:
- some wild statements from unidentified "Conservative Christian leaders."
It was Jerry Falwell saying "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals".
- Coulter, a well selling Conservative pundit who said in her September 14, 2001 column:
"[The bombs falling on Afghanistan] should have been ours. I want them to be ours.
This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.
We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.
The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling."
In closing the column: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
This is Slashdot. Of course I'm opioniated and self-righteous.
Wish you had read the THREE posts above yours about why my list includes what it includes. They were all posted before you posted your response.
No, I'm not a woman. I do however get offended when it's said that women don't care or understand the politics of diamonds, and the one's who do aren't worth marrying. That is what was being said and modded up as 'Insightful.' It's just fucking wrong.
I hope I would not make the mistake that an individual would care less about human rights because they are conservative. I wasn't talking about individuals though. As a political group, Liberals support human rights more than Conservatives.
I'm glad you don't support the death penalty, give to children with AIDS, and help the homeless. Many of your fellow Conservatives believe *strongly* in the death penalty. A Conservative Christian leader has said AIDS is God's punishment. Conservatives are known for wanting to kill social welfare programs. A notable Conservative pundit is on the record saying we should bomb countries and convert them to Christianity. As a Southerner, I can point to a long list of pro-Segragation, anti-Civil Rights Conservatives.
Perhaps Conservatives as a group do believe as strongly as Liberals in human rights. If so, then Falwell, Coulter, and Thurmond didn't get the memo.
(And no need for forgiveness. I was raised in a Christian home, and Christ's teachings influenced my personal code.)
And to counteract your anecdotal evidence, here's mine:
Half the women I've had conversations with regarding marriage have said they don't care for diamonds. A decent portion of my married friends opted for a different gem. With several serious girlfriends when marriage came up, they all said they didn't want a diamond. I guess I live in some strange population island of un-brainwashed women.
I'm not disagreeing that many women want diamonds and buy the 'Diamonds are forever' line. I disagree with the assertion that there is a scarcity of women who don't want diamonds. There seems to be many, many men on Slashdot who object to blood diamonds and Debeers. Women are not so different from men as to not understand the politics and ethical problems of the situation.
And if she loves you, and you are sincere with your concern, why wouldn't she be willing to compromise with you on it? And if you can't work out a compromise over a symbol of love, what will you do with more serious disagreements like a living will, having children, or moving away from friends and family?
Oh, shit, just remembered, "women (*ahem* not girls)" was part of my point. It wasn't ad hominem at all.
If you are having trouble finding *girls* who don't care about blood diamonds, perhaps your problems is that you're looking at *girls.* Find a *woman.* It's more likely she would have the intellectual and emotional maturity to discuss and comprise on the diamond issue.
Ummm.... Yah, Utah and Montana might be a little hard. They are out there. Hell, you even admit to finding two.
There is another alternative - visit an antique store or estate auction in search of an older diamond. One which might have less blood associated with it.
Sorry about the tone of the OP. I get annoyed easily.
See KiahZero's reply. He/she/it was spot on. I'm on the liberal side of moderate, so off the top of my head "liberal" groups came to mind. It wasn't a commentary on who's moral and just. Human rights, though, tend to more a focus for the left than the right.
Of course, religion, particularly Christianity (as implied by your list), is not controlled by the left or the right. The poster I originially replied to could easily find a woman at a church who would agree with him that diamonds are an unneccessary part of marriage.
I really wasn't attacking women who like diamonds. I was attacking posts saying that there's a scarcity of women who either don't care for diamonds or don't care that the diamond trade is dirty.
All you're points are excellent and spot on. Wish I could mod you up.
Do you want to marry a women who won't seriously acknowledge a genuine concern of yours and then try to find a compromise?
It isn't hard to say "Honey, I love you and want to share the rest of my life with you, but I have serious moral problems with buying a diamond. Why don't we go down to the jeweler and work out a compromise?"
Re:The names may change, but
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're verging on incoherent, but you're looking for a place where there are women (*ahem* not girls) who don't like diamonds and/or who would reject a diamond because of its surrounding politics?
Try any of the following: 1) Local chapter of ACLU 2) Local Amnestry group 3) Local artist or arts school 4) Any town with a healthy population of liberals
It really says something about Slashdot that a moderater scored you as 'Insightful.' Such a sad, sad group of boys.
Oo! Oo! Or you could try explaining your position to your fiancee. I recall learning somewhere that women are people who are as intelligent as guys. Assuming you're an intelligent guy, one would hope your fiancee is at least as intelligent as you are, and would share your concerns over blood diamonds.
I dare you to say that VaTech is the most beautiful campus in the middle of a January snow storm when you live in West AJ and have to walk up and down iced over flights of stairs to the campus' other side at 8:30 in the morning.
Not to start a flame war, but I've always found UVA or Wm & Mary more beautiful. And I say that as someone who has spent time on all three campuses.
If you really want a beautiful school, try Mary Baldwin college. Located on a hill it's historic white halls have a view of a lovely small town and the mountains bordering the Shenandoah Valley. Plus the hill keeps many of the all female student body in shape - *very* beautiful school.
I know I should'nt feed you, but Slashdot is more diverse? I guess all the 'Macs are gay', 'Mac users can't understand a two button mouse', or the 'The caps lock is defective. Any *real* Unix system would switch it with CTRL' posts don't really exist here.
I'm sorry you got tired of Macslash. I can't understand how you can think this place is better. And I wasn't even talking to you in the first place.
It would be a nice discussion to have, but it's a troll because the article is a book review that never even mentions Unix (aside from an unrelated book title).
If you want a real and insightful discussion, i.e. one devoid of the flaming and evangelizing of/., visit Plastic, write up a submission about what is and isn't Unixy in OS X, and hopefully it'll get posted. Or try MacSlash.
Could you provide to a link saying it will work? The conventional wisdom from all the reviews of iLife, other users, and Apple's site is that iDVD will not burn to external drives.
Nice strawman. It has nothing to do with freedom of expresssion. The right to free speech is not a right to distribution. I made no claims that people *should'nt* put up blogs or create websites for their art. I said that as a member of the audience, giving every half-assed artist easy access to my eyeballs will be counter productive.
See? Nothing about stopping people from making art.
Good artists get the audiences. Not just good pop artists with national backing. Not just artists who appeal to the 12-20 y/os.
Sure, everyone can point to Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Arnold Schwartzenneger and claim the sky's falling.
Any honest person will also observe that many talented artists are readily available: Terry Gilliam, David Mamet, 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', 'Bend It Like Beckham,' Radiohead, Yo Yo Ma, Sleater Kinney, Kevin Spacey, Mel Brooks, Chuck Palahniuk, Douglas Copland, Kenneth Follet, the guy who wrote The West Wing, the artist who draws Boondocks. And those are just widely known artists off the top of my head. I could fill another two paragraphs with high quality local artists who regularly pack local bars or fill gallery walls in a city with an average age over 35. Nevermind that art house movies and small character driven dramas are still produced in and outside of Hollywood.
All it takes is opening your eyes and getting past the artists that marketing shoves down our throats. It takes the merest sliver of time to find true art in any community.
For example, imagine a site where you could submit a site for an indie piece of art which can been reviewed by peers. With something like this, it should be quite easy to weed out the less interesting material and get to the good stuff.
You mean like the "ease" of reading Slashdot where good comments get burried and trolls run wild? How is this site going to find art I like? Won't a peer reviewed site suffer many of the same problems as the marketplace - easily accessible competant pieces rise to the top, more complicated pieces get modded down by people who don't understand it?
Unfortunately, it used to be that good artists were the only ones who could get an audience. Now with the internet, every crap artist with angsty poems can easily put up a site. There is such a thing as bad art, and there is a damned lot of it.
The real paradigm of the artist is starving. And like someone else said, every other person already is an artist.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the "didn't get the joke" moderation?
Watterson said he quit because he had become bored with the medium and wanted to try something on a larger scale. So where is it?!?
Beautifully illustrated and well written children's books. Parents read his stories to their children. How much larger than influencing growing minds can you get?
Strange rumors are whispered in the land of a power called "Mac & Tosh." Users of the power can see these WMV demons you refer to without the use of a box with windows on it. Practicioners of the "Mac & Tosh" though face a hard road costing much moola and derision from others.
Hey man, you don't have to make apologies for suggesting Devine Providence. Just because because I'm a Lib doesn't mean I go into apoplectic fits. I actually have much respect for religious people.
Soo.... Whew... Lots.... Thanks for the reply, though I doubt I reply in kind.
My first reply gave the Falwell and Coulter quotes. Thurmond was a segregationist. Helms was a segregationist. And there's Lott's infamous speech last December. Now, I'm not calling all Conservatives racists, but we are talking about Conservative Senators in powerful positions.
I acknowledge that there are Leftists and wackos on my side who are racist against whites, Israelis, and probably Polynesian pigmies, too. They tend to not get repeatedly elected to the US Senate by Liberals, though.
And racism isn't the only thing. Conservatives pressured Dole into giving back a small contribution from the Log Cabin Republicans. Now, this is a stretch but this is my thinking - Contributions are seen as political speech, and some powerful groups on the Right suppressed the Log Cabins' speech. Sure, it was the Right's perogerative, but it greatly implies a bigotry.
Err... Abortion. Sticky subject, always a messy topic. Suffice to say, I and many Libs I know feel that abortion is overused, and it would be much better for those children to not be conceived.
The secular materialism of our culture, reinforced by the leftist cultural elites (movies, TV, music, etc) have convinced people to dump their kids in day care to pursue careers, usually in the pursuit of material possessions or societal status (selfish reasons). Children need their parents and one of them should be home with them.
I agree that latch-key kids are a problem. My own sister is a single mom, and she has to find a sitter every day so she can work. It's not something she wants to do. She doesn't do it because of TV, movies, or music. She does it out of economic necessity. I don't even know any couples who can *afford* to keep one parent home. These aren't materialistic people. They don't live outside their means. Of course a living wage would solve the problem, but Conservatives tend to be against wage increases because of a mistaken idea that jobs are lost.
Okay, so there are too many abortions, and too many children born to teens. But Conservatives are against condoms in schools or teaching kids about masturbation? It's not directly a human right, but it contributes to abuses.
How about my right to live in a clean environment? Last I checked, grandfathering in several thousand factories and plants from new guidelines doesn't improve my environment.
Free speach? Ashcroft said ""To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." Not a ringing endorsement of free speech and criticism of one's government.
Where's the Convservative equivalent of the ACLU? I ask because most people say the ACLU is a Liberal group.
If I were gay, there are vocal Conservative groups that would want to keep me out of the armed services, out of teaching, off television, and most frightening, from having sex with consenting males. Why can't consenting adults have sex with one another?
Haven't had time to read the whole thing. Yes, we're both stubborn.
Two quick points:
- some wild statements from unidentified "Conservative Christian leaders."
It was Jerry Falwell saying "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals".
- Coulter, a well selling Conservative pundit who said in her September 14, 2001 column:
"[The bombs falling on Afghanistan] should have been ours. I want them to be ours.
This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.
We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.
The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling."
In closing the column:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
More later - Tata!
This is Slashdot. Of course I'm opioniated and self-righteous.
Wish you had read the THREE posts above yours about why my list includes what it includes. They were all posted before you posted your response.
No, I'm not a woman. I do however get offended when it's said that women don't care or understand the politics of diamonds, and the one's who do aren't worth marrying. That is what was being said and modded up as 'Insightful.' It's just fucking wrong.
I hope I would not make the mistake that an individual would care less about human rights because they are conservative. I wasn't talking about individuals though. As a political group, Liberals support human rights more than Conservatives.
I'm glad you don't support the death penalty, give to children with AIDS, and help the homeless. Many of your fellow Conservatives believe *strongly* in the death penalty. A Conservative Christian leader has said AIDS is God's punishment. Conservatives are known for wanting to kill social welfare programs. A notable Conservative pundit is on the record saying we should bomb countries and convert them to Christianity. As a Southerner, I can point to a long list of pro-Segragation, anti-Civil Rights Conservatives.
Perhaps Conservatives as a group do believe as strongly as Liberals in human rights. If so, then Falwell, Coulter, and Thurmond didn't get the memo.
(And no need for forgiveness. I was raised in a Christian home, and Christ's teachings influenced my personal code.)
And to counteract your anecdotal evidence, here's mine:
Half the women I've had conversations with regarding marriage have said they don't care for diamonds. A decent portion of my married friends opted for a different gem. With several serious girlfriends when marriage came up, they all said they didn't want a diamond. I guess I live in some strange population island of un-brainwashed women.
I'm not disagreeing that many women want diamonds and buy the 'Diamonds are forever' line. I disagree with the assertion that there is a scarcity of women who don't want diamonds. There seems to be many, many men on Slashdot who object to blood diamonds and Debeers. Women are not so different from men as to not understand the politics and ethical problems of the situation.
And if she loves you, and you are sincere with your concern, why wouldn't she be willing to compromise with you on it? And if you can't work out a compromise over a symbol of love, what will you do with more serious disagreements like a living will, having children, or moving away from friends and family?
Oh, shit, just remembered, "women (*ahem* not girls)" was part of my point. It wasn't ad hominem at all.
If you are having trouble finding *girls* who don't care about blood diamonds, perhaps your problems is that you're looking at *girls.* Find a *woman.* It's more likely she would have the intellectual and emotional maturity to discuss and comprise on the diamond issue.
Ahhh... But without the ad hominem appeal, it would've died a lonely +3 (Insightful).
Ummm.... Yah, Utah and Montana might be a little hard. They are out there. Hell, you even admit to finding two.
There is another alternative - visit an antique store or estate auction in search of an older diamond. One which might have less blood associated with it.
Sorry about the tone of the OP. I get annoyed easily.
See a post above yours from KiahZero.
I'm liberal. Ask me to name organizations that are frequented by women who would object to blood diamonds, and liberal organizations come to mind.
My, aren't we a bit touchy . . .
See KiahZero's reply. He/she/it was spot on. I'm on the liberal side of moderate, so off the top of my head "liberal" groups came to mind. It wasn't a commentary on who's moral and just. Human rights, though, tend to more a focus for the left than the right.
Of course, religion, particularly Christianity (as implied by your list), is not controlled by the left or the right. The poster I originially replied to could easily find a woman at a church who would agree with him that diamonds are an unneccessary part of marriage.
I really wasn't attacking women who like diamonds. I was attacking posts saying that there's a scarcity of women who either don't care for diamonds or don't care that the diamond trade is dirty.
All you're points are excellent and spot on. Wish I could mod you up.
Do you want to marry a women who won't seriously acknowledge a genuine concern of yours and then try to find a compromise?
It isn't hard to say "Honey, I love you and want to share the rest of my life with you, but I have serious moral problems with buying a diamond. Why don't we go down to the jeweler and work out a compromise?"
You're verging on incoherent, but you're looking for a place where there are women (*ahem* not girls) who don't like diamonds and/or who would reject a diamond because of its surrounding politics?
Try any of the following:
1) Local chapter of ACLU
2) Local Amnestry group
3) Local artist or arts school
4) Any town with a healthy population of liberals
It really says something about Slashdot that a moderater scored you as 'Insightful.' Such a sad, sad group of boys.
Oo! Oo! Or you could try explaining your position to your fiancee. I recall learning somewhere that women are people who are as intelligent as guys. Assuming you're an intelligent guy, one would hope your fiancee is at least as intelligent as you are, and would share your concerns over blood diamonds.
I dare you to say that VaTech is the most beautiful campus in the middle of a January snow storm when you live in West AJ and have to walk up and down iced over flights of stairs to the campus' other side at 8:30 in the morning.
Not to start a flame war, but I've always found UVA or Wm & Mary more beautiful. And I say that as someone who has spent time on all three campuses.
If you really want a beautiful school, try Mary Baldwin college. Located on a hill it's historic white halls have a view of a lovely small town and the mountains bordering the Shenandoah Valley. Plus the hill keeps many of the all female student body in shape - *very* beautiful school.
I know I should'nt feed you, but Slashdot is more diverse? I guess all the 'Macs are gay', 'Mac users can't understand a two button mouse', or the 'The caps lock is defective. Any *real* Unix system would switch it with CTRL' posts don't really exist here.
I'm sorry you got tired of Macslash. I can't understand how you can think this place is better. And I wasn't even talking to you in the first place.
It would be a nice discussion to have, but it's a troll because the article is a book review that never even mentions Unix (aside from an unrelated book title).
/., visit Plastic, write up a submission about what is and isn't Unixy in OS X, and hopefully it'll get posted. Or try MacSlash.
If you want a real and insightful discussion, i.e. one devoid of the flaming and evangelizing of
Best of luck!
Could you provide to a link saying it will work? The conventional wisdom from all the reviews of iLife, other users, and Apple's site is that iDVD will not burn to external drives.
This raises a question - Is it ethical to regularly listen to TAL in any broadcast form without contributing to it or your local public station?
Nice strawman. It has nothing to do with freedom of expresssion. The right to free speech is not a right to distribution. I made no claims that people *should'nt* put up blogs or create websites for their art. I said that as a member of the audience, giving every half-assed artist easy access to my eyeballs will be counter productive.
See? Nothing about stopping people from making art.
Good artists get the audiences. Not just good pop artists with national backing. Not just artists who appeal to the 12-20 y/os.
Sure, everyone can point to Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Arnold Schwartzenneger and claim the sky's falling.
Any honest person will also observe that many talented artists are readily available: Terry Gilliam, David Mamet, 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', 'Bend It Like Beckham,' Radiohead, Yo Yo Ma, Sleater Kinney, Kevin Spacey, Mel Brooks, Chuck Palahniuk, Douglas Copland, Kenneth Follet, the guy who wrote The West Wing, the artist who draws Boondocks. And those are just widely known artists off the top of my head. I could fill another two paragraphs with high quality local artists who regularly pack local bars or fill gallery walls in a city with an average age over 35. Nevermind that art house movies and small character driven dramas are still produced in and outside of Hollywood.
All it takes is opening your eyes and getting past the artists that marketing shoves down our throats. It takes the merest sliver of time to find true art in any community.
For example, imagine a site where you could submit a site for an indie piece of art which can been reviewed by peers. With something like this, it should be quite easy to weed out the less interesting material and get to the good stuff.
You mean like the "ease" of reading Slashdot where good comments get burried and trolls run wild? How is this site going to find art I like? Won't a peer reviewed site suffer many of the same problems as the marketplace - easily accessible competant pieces rise to the top, more complicated pieces get modded down by people who don't understand it?
It's substantially more effecient to just throw your statements out to the street on trash day under your coffee grinds.
Coffee grinds? Try rancid chicken fat and fish viscera. Turns the stomach of any would be identity theives.
Unfortunately, it used to be that good artists were the only ones who could get an audience. Now with the internet, every crap artist with angsty poems can easily put up a site. There is such a thing as bad art, and there is a damned lot of it.
The real paradigm of the artist is starving. And like someone else said, every other person already is an artist.