This reminds me of the people that say that humans changing the earth aren't natural, therefore it's bad. I always have to wonder what about humans aren't natural, because we are exactly like every other creature on the planet.
Earth is an ecological success story. That is why caution would suggest we not be too aggressive with our changes. Less change means less damage to this successfull situation.
Why should we try and preserve Earth's ecology? What value is there in its destruction? How do we recover that value when its gone?
As for the idea that "any human behaviour is natural because we are part of nature" argument, I'll leave that to the logical-falacy snipers.
I am tired of Flat-Earth global-warming deniers. Your government is wrong on this. Humans *are* affecting the environment. While I agree that the earth is fairly resilient, I think you greatly understimate the damage we are doing. The incidents and scale of our environmental transgressions are too vast to state. If you think we are going to be able to 'keep this course' for many hundreds or thousands of years, you are sadly mistaken.
Right now, the West consumes most the planet's resources -- what resources are there for emerging consumer communities? Answer: Little. We are going to kill most all life on the planet, pump out the gas and make the environment highly toxic in the next few centuries if we dont adjust our course now.
Leave it to representatives to find more ways to tax us
Yes, the evil boogy-tax-man. You yanks kill me with your mccarthy like fear of government. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization. Taxes bring order. Taxes provide stability.
Tax-free places would be chaotic and dangerous.
Libertarians are little more than self-rightious, intellectually dishonest children. Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Opinion dosnt mean that everyone is right. There are many opinions, but only one set of facts. Most americans believe "How could anyone (say the government) possibly make a better decision for your welfare than you?" Holding this opinion is just a facet of USofAmerican's hubris.
You might want to consider that people who are proposing this $10 tax *do* know better than you. *AND* that, in a whole-cost-accounting sense, your getting a great deal by only paying $10.
Consider, if your free market paid for the roads, the pollution and the garbage disposal/pickup... do you think a PC would have a $10 'disposal charge'? It would be more like $100 -- but those services are delivered with nasty nasty taxes, ewwwww.
You're completely missing the point, and probably have a really wrong-headed view of what makes an economy work, or at least what keeps people putting investment money into companies in the first place. EA wouldn't exist at all without its original and ongoing investors.
Your completely missing the point, and probably have a really wrong-headed view of what makes a Community work, or at least what keeps people putting money into companies to exploit other's work in the first place. EA wouldnt exist at all without capital-owners able to construct an economic system where they reap rewards from other people's labour, and are permitted (encouraged) to destory other people's lives.
Have you ever heard that workers create the wealth? We workers Capital-owners (the corporate bosses) cannot be permitted to *USE* our peers as simple tools. We must be given more respect, greater long-term concern.
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Insightful) by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday January 26, @07:44PM (#11486983) What sickens me is that we live in a world with an economic system where the most logical thing to do when your profits are up is to fire workers.
You're completely missing the point, and probably have a really wrong-headed view of what makes an economy work, or at least what keeps people putting investment money into companies in the first place. EA wouldn't exist at all without its original and ongoing investors.
What you're not getting is that the only reason EA's profits grow is because they consistently (or often enough) make the hard descisions to drop (and add) people and resources wherever they think it will impact their bottom line in the right way. They're not right about every decision, but it's the overall approach that works. To assume a causal connection between their bump in profits (which shows up after months of activity and reporting thereon), and the more immediate tactical decision about their overhead and productivity in LA - that suggests a bit of myopia on your part about the scale of their operations, about business competition, about free markets in general, and about highly competitive frivalous industries (like video games) in particular.
The system you decry is the very one that allows us to have an entire industry dedicated to entertaining geeky game players.
Programmers would create games in different economic models. An economy which is ethically bound to support social welfare (like, say, Canada, France, Germany for instance).
If it weren't for that system, those jobs never would have existed in the first place.
Yes. And music wouldnt exist without the RIAA. Film without MPAA. Cheese wouldnt exist without Kraft. No author would find work or publish without HarperCollins.
Not only do the capital owners have no real input in the final product. Their sole purpose is to scheme, fight and elbow other producers (in the ways that make them MORE MONEY, not make BETTER XZYWidgets).
The goals of the Owner class is to make more money. The goals of the worker class is to make the products you covet, and thereby exchange their labour for money.
-
Now, in your mind your racing on about competition breeding innovation. How economies are only efficient with competition and "Freedom". Inspite of the USofAmerican economic dogma you (surely) hold so dear, 'make as much money as you can' goal counter productive.
It builds instability. It creates consumerist behaviour. USofAmericans have been reduced to mindless consume/slave hydra.
The Community you are creating is worthless. Not only is it devoid of spirtuality, emotion, ethics and social-welfare of any-kind; it is unsustainable. If the abject stupidity doesnt collapse in on itself in an orgy of greed then the physical bounds of the planet will show you that aquiring your Nth pair of RunningShoes is a worthless goal.
How delightful. You seem to have put 2 and 2 together and came up with 3.
Like most in the World (West, South and East), I dont believe unfettered capitalism brings prosperity. Simple. Unfettered Free-Market capitalism is a path to Capitalist-Monarchy. Multinationals are actively trying to remove all relationships between Nation-States and their Economies. Why? So that the Owner-Class can squeeze every(one/thing) else for their own gain.
I dont want an economic system that allows this. International standards of wage, labour and environmental laws need to provide a framework to reach social welfare goals.
Creation of personal wealth is a secondary goal to the betterment of the social welfare.
--
How does "gimme a low price on travel" rationalize with the above? Simple.
IN my post, I was saying that I didnt want nonsense 'value-add' attempts by airlines. I want cheap travel.
The cheapest as can be while still holding to the above wage, labour and environmental conditions.
Everything beyond that is waste. I dont want to pay for it.. because it is bad for the environment to use smoke and mirrors (advertising, 1st/2nd/Nth class, seperate lounges) consumers to try and show "value add".
-
I have to give you credit...take the airline comment and draw your own conclusions and misapply context is very persuasive. Got you a +3 insightfull.
The moral for the consumer is that the quality of air travel will continue to decline.
My #1 concern when travelling - cost. Lower tickets mean I can afford to travel more often. Not only do I want 'low standards' on my flight (i'll pack my own lunch thank you), I ONLY want point-a-to-b-service you CANNOT add value to moving my meat-bag to my vacation destination. While I travel im in the "you cant bother me zone". From the time I wake in the morning of departure to the time I arrive at my destination, I REFUSE to allow any outside insanity to bother me. I flow through the travel process like a ghost, i read, i wait, i munch snakes - i decompress. a 'high value' flight means nothing.
to fly in a small jet where I can feel less like cattle, screened, and herded into these flying apartment buildings
Bah. I will sit cross legged on a floor, with half-height head space if it means i can go abroad for all the vacation time I have (and be able to afford it).
12hrs of discomfort in exchange for the privilage of 2 or 3 weeks abroad every year vs. every 2nd or 3rd year is fine with me.
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
stickers of my own. And whenever I see a Bible, Im going to help "encourage critical thinking."
Are you trying to say were not all individual precious snowflakes created from the loving bosom of an omnipotent person who watches and loves us and awaits our return after our meat-bags expire?
Athiesm and Science are not Religions. As much as theists try repeat it to add gravitas and moral authority to their own beliefs.
-
As for the rest of your commnet, did you read the judge's ruling?
"U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper concluded that the stickers, although worded to avoid religious reference, amounted to an endorsement of "Christian fundamentalist or creationist" beliefs.
"The sticker communicates to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders," he wrote."
This sticker did not materialize in a vacuum. It was placed by a Theist Cult to undermine scientific knowledge.
It is clear that *not* removing them would be (at least) an establishment of religion.
Science is about facts and theories - not beliefs and faith. If a group can foist a blanket over the intellectual pursuits of a minority (reasonable people (athiests)) with a sticker SOULY grounded in their opinion/beliefs/faith than the state would be establishing this religion's beliefs as authority.
fact #2: a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species. Speciation has been observed more than once in the laboratory and in the wild, so this is a fact. Since we call this process 'evolution', that means evolution is a fact. Keep reading for more explanation of this.
For my own information, can you mention a couple cases so I may do some research? Thanks.
When considering creation myths, please consider this one:
When the earth begun there was just water. All the animals lived above it and the sky was beginning to become crowded. They were all curious about what was beneath the water and one day Dayuni'si, the water beetle, volunteered to explore it.
He went everywhere across the surface but he couldn't find any solid ground. He then dived below the surface to the bottom and all he found was mud.
This began to enlarge in size and spread outwards until it became the earth as we know it. After all this had happened, one of the animals attached this new land to the sky with four strings.
Free Download
Click here for info
Many more titles available from EarthBow eBooks
Just after the earth was formed, it was flat and soft so the animals decided to send a bird down to see if it had dried. They eventually returned to the animals with a result.
The land was still to wet so they sent the great Buzzard from Galun'lati to prepare it for them.
The buzzard flew down and by the time that he reached the Cherokee land he was so tired that his wings began to hit the ground. Wherever they hit the ground a mountain or valley formed. The Cherokee land still remains the same today with all the land forms that the Buzzard formed.
The animals then decided that it was too dark, so they made the sun and put it on the path in which it still runs today.
The animals could then admire the newly created Earth around them.
-
This is the Cherokee Creation Myth. And Georgia resides in the Lands of Cherokee Nation. Why import a crazy story about snakes and apples and ribs when you can simply listen to the First Peoples -- *THEY* have the right answer to creation... at least the answer we choose if we abandon reason. Let other geographies have their fantasy about God/Adam/Eve - Im sticking with the Cherokee myself (oh, and reason).
Reality, 2005. Slashdot disovers free trade is a plutocratic effort to reduce labour , environmental, safety and health standards to the lowest market-acceptable-price.
Next up: Labour creates wealth. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Story at 23:00.
Funding a single editorial direction from tax revenue is wrong.
fcuk. there is no "single editorial" viewpoint. True journalists are without bias. Simple. By definition. My argument is clear. REAL, UNBIASED journalists cannot exist in a corporate media.
State funded media, where the platform is the sole goal (ie: a community commits to create a medium for public discourse) is an excellent way to provide free editorial direction.
And I did read your post. But you're simply wrong about the idea of more free discourse. Bias doesn't come from profit. It comes from people. That's your error.
And that's the crux of the issue... I think that a strongly held viewpoint is a bias. You seem to think that it's an especially big problem if it's a corporate viewpoint. You're wrong. Corporations are composed of people. People's viewpoints are... people's viewpoints.
Absolutely not. People work as Agents of the Corporation. Their viewpoints are subordinate to the Corporation. If their viewpoint is in conflict, they have no recourse of debate, no higher-standard to argue for -- NOTHING -- its "Thats Company Policy" and the debate is over.
THIS is the issue.
All you can do is come up with "I think an unbiased view is X... WOW! That's exactly what CBC says. They must be unbiased".
Did you even read my post? State Funded media, one devoid of profit motive by the operators are are able to entertain a MORE FREE discourse. For the reasons I cited.
Re read my post. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
That RSF says Canada's press is free is the point. I would agree.
but this thread is discussing the CBC, its Freedom and its value.
This SUPPORTS the CBC the "CBC is Freedom" meme. CanWest re-writing Reuters stories to what purpose, to what end and to who's benefit? CanWest is the self-censoring Corporate Media that CBC is our protection against.
Without CBC, ALL our stories would get the Can-Corporate-Media-West whitewash.
Basically, thanks for proving my point. Im not saying the CBC is perfect, but what its opponents propose is FAR worse in most every regard.
The problem is that it doesn't because it has leftist corporate culture that supresses anything else.
Poppycock. CBCs viewpoint is representative of the community. If you compare *ANY* western media against the pro-private-corporate-consumer viewpoint of the Corporate Media -- AND you agree with this CM -- you will feel CBC is 'leftist'.
Whats special about commercial insterest is commercial interest. In short, dont expect probing investigation into American consumer culture, its crass shallowness, ecological destruction and unsustainable economics from teh CM. Its self-interested, commercial self-censorship.
Do you think CBS is going to investigate General Electric?
Noam Chomsky is an intellectual, a scientist and a academic. If you have issue with his assessments, voice them. If you cant pallet the world he presents, because it conflicts with your dearest dogma, please, spare us the off-hand character assault.
State funded media gives an unfair advantage to one point of view, (in Canada's case the leftist bias of the CBC), at the expense of diversity of views.
All endevour will be tainted with the bias of the players. Bar none. Im not suggesting their is zero bias at the CBC, there probably is. Odds are the bias is derivative of the employees -- university educated intellectuals. Like most of their peers NOT in the CBC, they are *probably* leftists.
However, this doesnt mean that they dont take journalistic responsibility seriously. They certainly take their role more seriously in a traditional sense vs. the players in the "other model" (Corporate Media).
The Corporate Media has the means (no oversight), the motivation (profit) and the mechanics (profit-driven self-centered egos) to be biased to a greater degree (as in greater volume) and towards the goals of Corporate Interest.
State funded media has the means (ombudsman oversight), the motivation (fulfill its neutral mandate), and the mechanics (players with less to personally gain through corruption) to be biased to a smaller degree.
In short, CM is FAR AND AWAY biased and corrupt to support a particular viewpoint. State funded media is designed to tolerate less bias.
Im sorry if the News doesnt reflect your personal viewpoint. Everone is entitled to their opinion, but there is only one set of facts.
Personally I think we should cut all their funding since they run advertisements just like any other station.
Canada has one of the most free press in the world. One of the reasons is that we provide an open INFRASTRUCTURE (cbc) to content. If you cut the funding for CBC, you will have a narrowing of discourse that will hinder our community's ability to communicate.
Free enterprise isnt concerned with truth or equality or insightfullness or universal access.
I would recommend Canada uses the BBC as a model and we Canadians implement a MORE usefull and worthwhile broadcast system.
Commercial interests are anethma to worthwhile broadcasting.
IF your goal is an army of mildly entertained, mildy informed consumers move Canadian Broadcasting regime towards the American model.
If your goal is an informed and engaged public, with a method to sustain a conversation for the participants in public arts and politics Canada should build a BBC-like system.
What do you feel our goal should be?
And before someone says "freedom", i'll provide the preemptive retort. The CBC is evidence that state-funded enterprise can have Freedom. AND that in other places, "a free-press is for those who own one" and therefore devoid of worthwhile Freedom.
Would the US stand by and do nothing if Canada were invaded? How about England or Spain? I doubt that the only reason Canadian or European companies are successful is just because the US would defend their countries.
England, Spain and Canada do not need defending from invasion. The USA's army isnt a defensive force at all. It is an Imperialist Army. The last 100 years of American history has been one of warfare. The USA has been involved in wars of aggression, save the two WW of infighting in post-colonial europe. The world needs to fear invasion FROM the USA.
The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (2%?).
Sure. Right. Good.
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their companies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
Why would we? So we can invade foreign nations? Most of the West has decided it no longer has the stomach for warfare. That fighting for territory is insane on such a small and interconnected planet. Who exactly is the "THEM" that you are afraid of? Further, for instance, if Americans include health-services as part of their tax bill (as an exercise) you will discover you are the most highly taxed. We pay higher taxes, but receive far more social welfare service as 'compensation'. Shhhhs, dont tell everyone.. but it sure is a neat little trick isnt it eh?
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense.
DEFENSE FROM WHOM? This is pure jingo-warmonger fantasy. The USA dosnt create reality -- this is complete neocon nonsense. Our Socialist Democracies dont receive subsidy from US defense. IN FACT(!) the behaviour of the USA has caused nations (china, brazil, india) need to continue to spend as they do instead of writing treaties, organizing bodies and making a transition to a Army-Free future for the planet (a para-military police force controlled by the UN is the sole Army necessary (if we all agree to not build armies, you wont need to defend yourself from anyone.. get it?))
It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Our economies are not in imminent Peril. What are you dreaming about? Take a look at the state of the US economy. Low dollar. Growing unemployment. A collusive and corrupt plutocratic government who has an interest in undermining international labour, environmental, safety and health standards for their paymasters. Multi-Nationals are running wild over the planet and USING the USA as host. When they are finally reigned in, the USA's domestic population will be in for the largest shock. Inspite of mccarthy propaganda Economic Planning is necessary for a community to chart a course of long-term stability and prosperity. When the USA realizes that its "leaders" are taking them for a ride -- and when your economy collapses (think 1930's depression) -- will your citizens consider JUST FOR ONCE that youve been fed a bill of goods? What do you think causes the US dollar to slide 30% in 24 months? Household debt hightest on the planet? A stable and bright economic future? Think again.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military.
Utter nonsense.
Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continen
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the people that say that humans changing the earth aren't natural, therefore it's bad. I always have to wonder what about humans aren't natural, because we are exactly like every other creature on the planet.
Earth is an ecological success story. That is why caution would suggest we not be too aggressive with our changes. Less change means less damage to this successfull situation.
Why should we try and preserve Earth's ecology? What value is there in its destruction? How do we recover that value when its gone?
As for the idea that "any human behaviour is natural because we are part of nature" argument, I'll leave that to the logical-falacy snipers.
Even if global warming were true for example (which it's not)
The concensus amoungst scientists say you are wrong.
I am tired of Flat-Earth global-warming deniers. Your government is wrong on this. Humans *are* affecting the environment. While I agree that the earth is fairly resilient, I think you greatly understimate the damage we are doing. The incidents and scale of our environmental transgressions are too vast to state. If you think we are going to be able to 'keep this course' for many hundreds or thousands of years, you are sadly mistaken.
Right now, the West consumes most the planet's resources -- what resources are there for emerging consumer communities? Answer: Little. We are going to kill most all life on the planet, pump out the gas and make the environment highly toxic in the next few centuries if we dont adjust our course now.
Your equilibrium fantasy is just that -- fiction.
Leave it to representatives to find more ways to tax us
Yes, the evil boogy-tax-man. You yanks kill me with your mccarthy like fear of government. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization. Taxes bring order. Taxes provide stability.
Tax-free places would be chaotic and dangerous.
Libertarians are little more than self-rightious, intellectually dishonest children. Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Opinion dosnt mean that everyone is right. There are many opinions, but only one set of facts. Most americans believe "How could anyone (say the government) possibly make a better decision for your welfare than you?" Holding this opinion is just a facet of USofAmerican's hubris.
You might want to consider that people who are proposing this $10 tax *do* know better than you. *AND* that, in a whole-cost-accounting sense, your getting a great deal by only paying $10.
Consider, if your free market paid for the roads, the pollution and the garbage disposal/pickup... do you think a PC would have a $10 'disposal charge'? It would be more like $100 -- but those services are delivered with nasty nasty taxes, ewwwww.
vii) Have a free press.
Reporters without borders index has USofA @ 17th. Canada, 5th.
You're completely missing the point, and probably have a really wrong-headed view of what makes an economy work, or at least what keeps people putting investment money into companies in the first place. EA wouldn't exist at all without its original and ongoing investors.
Your completely missing the point, and probably have a really wrong-headed view of what makes a Community work, or at least what keeps people putting money into companies to exploit other's work in the first place. EA wouldnt exist at all without capital-owners able to construct an economic system where they reap rewards from other people's labour, and are permitted (encouraged) to destory other people's lives.
Have you ever heard that workers create the wealth? We workers Capital-owners (the corporate bosses) cannot be permitted to *USE* our peers as simple tools. We must be given more respect, greater long-term concern.
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Insightful)
by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday January 26, @07:44PM (#11486983)
What sickens me is that we live in a world with an economic system where the most logical thing to do when your profits are up is to fire workers.
You're completely missing the point, and probably have a really wrong-headed view of what makes an economy work, or at least what keeps people putting investment money into companies in the first place. EA wouldn't exist at all without its original and ongoing investors.
What you're not getting is that the only reason EA's profits grow is because they consistently (or often enough) make the hard descisions to drop (and add) people and resources wherever they think it will impact their bottom line in the right way. They're not right about every decision, but it's the overall approach that works. To assume a causal connection between their bump in profits (which shows up after months of activity and reporting thereon), and the more immediate tactical decision about their overhead and productivity in LA - that suggests a bit of myopia on your part about the scale of their operations, about business competition, about free markets in general, and about highly competitive frivalous industries (like video games) in particular.
The system you decry is the very one that allows us to have an entire industry dedicated to entertaining geeky game players.
Programmers would create games in different economic models. An economy which is ethically bound to support social welfare (like, say, Canada, France, Germany for instance).
If it weren't for that system, those jobs never would have existed in the first place.
Yes. And music wouldnt exist without the RIAA. Film without MPAA. Cheese wouldnt exist without Kraft. No author would find work or publish without HarperCollins.
Not only do the capital owners have no real input in the final product. Their sole purpose is to scheme, fight and elbow other producers (in the ways that make them MORE MONEY, not make BETTER XZYWidgets).
The goals of the Owner class is to make more money. The goals of the worker class is to make the products you covet, and thereby exchange their labour for money.
-
Now, in your mind your racing on about competition breeding innovation. How economies are only efficient with competition and "Freedom". Inspite of the USofAmerican economic dogma you (surely) hold so dear, 'make as much money as you can' goal counter productive.
It builds instability. It creates consumerist behaviour. USofAmericans have been reduced to mindless consume/slave hydra.
The Community you are creating is worthless. Not only is it devoid of spirtuality, emotion, ethics and social-welfare of any-kind; it is unsustainable. If the abject stupidity doesnt collapse in on itself in an orgy of greed then the physical bounds of the planet will show you that aquiring your Nth pair of RunningShoes is a worthless goal.
You must reconsider that your alligience to Unf
How delightful. You seem to have put 2 and 2 together and came up with 3.
Like most in the World (West, South and East), I dont believe unfettered capitalism brings prosperity. Simple. Unfettered Free-Market capitalism is a path to Capitalist-Monarchy. Multinationals are actively trying to remove all relationships between Nation-States and their Economies. Why? So that the Owner-Class can squeeze every(one/thing) else for their own gain.
I dont want an economic system that allows this. International standards of wage, labour and environmental laws need to provide a framework to reach social welfare goals.
Creation of personal wealth is a secondary goal to the betterment of the social welfare.
--
How does "gimme a low price on travel" rationalize with the above? Simple.
IN my post, I was saying that I didnt want nonsense 'value-add' attempts by airlines. I want cheap travel.
The cheapest as can be while still holding to the above wage, labour and environmental conditions.
Everything beyond that is waste. I dont want to pay for it.. because it is bad for the environment to use smoke and mirrors (advertising, 1st/2nd/Nth class, seperate lounges) consumers to try and show "value add".
-
I have to give you credit...take the airline comment and draw your own conclusions and misapply context is very persuasive. Got you a +3 insightfull.
Good show. But,
No. Dont hate the player, hate the game.
If a multi-national does something good. Great. Great.
But, predominantly, Multi-nationals are in the business of reducing wages, labour and environmental standards, and exploitation.
Like, say 99%. So, in this case, maybe someone has done something 'good'. but, that doesnt excuse the other bads that their peers do.
Generalizations and stereo-types are usefull and real. Just because Oprah says they are Bad m'kay, doesnt mean that they arent reality.
Sorry.
The moral for the consumer is that the quality of air travel will continue to decline.
My #1 concern when travelling - cost. Lower tickets mean I can afford to travel more often. Not only do I want 'low standards' on my flight (i'll pack my own lunch thank you), I ONLY want point-a-to-b-service you CANNOT add value to moving my meat-bag to my vacation destination. While I travel im in the "you cant bother me zone". From the time I wake in the morning of departure to the time I arrive at my destination, I REFUSE to allow any outside insanity to bother me. I flow through the travel process like a ghost, i read, i wait, i munch snakes - i decompress. a 'high value' flight means nothing.
to fly in a small jet where I can feel less like cattle, screened, and herded into these flying apartment buildings
Bah. I will sit cross legged on a floor, with half-height head space if it means i can go abroad for all the vacation time I have (and be able to afford it).
12hrs of discomfort in exchange for the privilage of 2 or 3 weeks abroad every year vs. every 2nd or 3rd year is fine with me.
Hm, that gives me an idea.
Im going to make some wallet-sized
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
stickers of my own. And whenever I see a Bible, Im going to help "encourage critical thinking."
They also never talk about how, as theories go, evolution (as the origin of species) is pretty weak
Its certainly the strongest theory we have. Do you not concur?
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_fra nken.html
you'll probably like this.
Are you trying to say were not all individual precious snowflakes created from the loving bosom of an omnipotent person who watches and loves us and awaits our return after our meat-bags expire?
Oh dear - please tell me Im not alone.
And since athiesm is just another religion
Athiesm and Science are not Religions. As much as theists try repeat it to add gravitas and moral authority to their own beliefs.
-
As for the rest of your commnet, did you read the judge's ruling?
"U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper concluded that the stickers, although worded to avoid religious reference, amounted to an endorsement of "Christian fundamentalist or creationist" beliefs.
"The sticker communicates to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders," he wrote."
This sticker did not materialize in a vacuum. It was placed by a Theist Cult to undermine scientific knowledge.
It is clear that *not* removing them would be (at least) an establishment of religion.
Science is about facts and theories - not beliefs and faith. If a group can foist a blanket over the intellectual pursuits of a minority (reasonable people (athiests)) with a sticker SOULY grounded in their opinion/beliefs/faith than the state would be establishing this religion's beliefs as authority.
fact #2: a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species. Speciation has been observed more than once in the laboratory and in the wild, so this is a fact. Since we call this process 'evolution', that means evolution is a fact. Keep reading for more explanation of this.
For my own information, can you mention a couple cases so I may do some research? Thanks.
When considering creation myths, please consider this one:
When the earth begun there was just water. All the animals lived above it and the sky was beginning to become crowded. They were all curious about what was beneath the water and one day Dayuni'si, the water beetle, volunteered to explore it.
He went everywhere across the surface but he couldn't find any solid ground. He then dived below the surface to the bottom and all he found was mud.
This began to enlarge in size and spread outwards until it became the earth as we know it. After all this had happened, one of the animals attached this new land to the sky with four strings.
Free Download
Click here for info
Many more titles available from
EarthBow eBooks
Just after the earth was formed, it was flat and soft so the animals
decided to send a bird down to see if it had dried. They eventually returned to the animals with a result.
The land was still to wet so they sent the great Buzzard from Galun'lati to prepare it for them.
The buzzard flew down and by the time that he reached the Cherokee land he was so tired that his wings began to hit the ground. Wherever they hit the ground a mountain or valley formed. The Cherokee land still remains the same today with all the land forms that the Buzzard formed.
The animals then decided that it was too dark, so they made the sun and put it on the path in which it still runs today.
The animals could then admire the newly created Earth around them.
-
This is the Cherokee Creation Myth. And Georgia resides in the Lands of Cherokee Nation. Why import a crazy story about snakes and apples and ribs when you can simply listen to the First Peoples -- *THEY* have the right answer to creation... at least the answer we choose if we abandon reason. Let other geographies have their fantasy about God/Adam/Eve - Im sticking with the Cherokee myself (oh, and reason).
Thank-you.
There is a Zeroth Law of Robotics;
Zeroth Law: A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
introducted by asimov in 1985.
If they make them in Italy - yes.
Newsflash:
Reality, 2005. Slashdot disovers free trade is a plutocratic effort to reduce labour , environmental, safety and health standards to the lowest market-acceptable-price.
Next up: Labour creates wealth. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Story at 23:00.
Wow. A corporation has policy. What Insight.
Funding a single editorial direction from tax revenue is wrong.
fcuk. there is no "single editorial" viewpoint. True journalists are without bias. Simple. By definition. My argument is clear. REAL, UNBIASED journalists cannot exist in a corporate media.
State funded media, where the platform is the sole goal (ie: a community commits to create a medium for public discourse) is an excellent way to provide free editorial direction.
And I did read your post. But you're simply wrong about the idea of more free discourse. Bias doesn't come from profit. It comes from people. That's your error.
Profit is self-interest. Self interest is bias.
Has anyone seen or have info about this jacket with the display on the back? Cool.
And that's the crux of the issue... I think that a strongly held viewpoint is a bias. You seem to think that it's an especially big problem if it's a corporate viewpoint. You're wrong. Corporations are composed of people. People's viewpoints are... people's viewpoints.
Absolutely not. People work as Agents of the Corporation. Their viewpoints are subordinate to the Corporation. If their viewpoint is in conflict, they have no recourse of debate, no higher-standard to argue for -- NOTHING -- its "Thats Company Policy" and the debate is over.
THIS is the issue.
All you can do is come up with "I think an unbiased view is X... WOW! That's exactly what CBC says. They must be unbiased".
Did you even read my post? State Funded media, one devoid of profit motive by the operators are are able to entertain a MORE FREE discourse. For the reasons I cited.
Re read my post. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
That RSF says Canada's press is free is the point. I would agree.
but this thread is discussing the CBC, its Freedom and its value.
This SUPPORTS the CBC the "CBC is Freedom" meme. CanWest re-writing Reuters stories to what purpose, to what end and to who's benefit? CanWest is the self-censoring Corporate Media that CBC is our protection against.
Without CBC, ALL our stories would get the Can-Corporate-Media-West whitewash.
Basically, thanks for proving my point. Im not saying the CBC is perfect, but what its opponents propose is FAR worse in most every regard.
The problem is that it doesn't because it has leftist corporate culture that supresses anything else.
Poppycock. CBCs viewpoint is representative of the community. If you compare *ANY* western media against the pro-private-corporate-consumer viewpoint of the Corporate Media -- AND you agree with this CM -- you will feel CBC is 'leftist'.
Whats special about commercial insterest is commercial interest. In short, dont expect probing investigation into American consumer culture, its crass shallowness, ecological destruction and unsustainable economics from teh CM. Its self-interested, commercial self-censorship.
Do you think CBS is going to investigate General Electric?
Noam Chomsky is an intellectual, a scientist and a academic. If you have issue with his assessments, voice them. If you cant pallet the world he presents, because it conflicts with your dearest dogma, please, spare us the off-hand character assault.
State funded media gives an unfair advantage to one point of view, (in Canada's case the leftist bias of the CBC), at the expense of diversity of views.
All endevour will be tainted with the bias of the players. Bar none. Im not suggesting their is zero bias at the CBC, there probably is. Odds are the bias is derivative of the employees -- university educated intellectuals. Like most of their peers NOT in the CBC, they are *probably* leftists.
However, this doesnt mean that they dont take journalistic responsibility seriously. They certainly take their role more seriously in a traditional sense vs. the players in the "other model" (Corporate Media).
The Corporate Media has the means (no oversight), the motivation (profit) and the mechanics (profit-driven self-centered egos) to be biased to a greater degree (as in greater volume) and towards the goals of Corporate Interest.
State funded media has the means (ombudsman oversight), the motivation (fulfill its neutral mandate), and the mechanics (players with less to personally gain through corruption) to be biased to a smaller degree.
In short, CM is FAR AND AWAY biased and corrupt to support a particular viewpoint. State funded media is designed to tolerate less bias.
Im sorry if the News doesnt reflect your personal viewpoint. Everone is entitled to their opinion, but there is only one set of facts.
Personally I think we should cut all their funding since they run advertisements just like any other station.
Canada has one of the most free press in the world. One of the reasons is that we provide an open INFRASTRUCTURE (cbc) to content. If you cut the funding for CBC, you will have a narrowing of discourse that will hinder our community's ability to communicate.
Free enterprise isnt concerned with truth or equality or insightfullness or universal access.
I would recommend Canada uses the BBC as a model and we Canadians implement a MORE usefull and worthwhile broadcast system.
Commercial interests are anethma to worthwhile broadcasting.
IF your goal is an army of mildly entertained, mildy informed consumers move Canadian Broadcasting regime towards the American model.
If your goal is an informed and engaged public, with a method to sustain a conversation for the participants in public arts and politics Canada should build a BBC-like system.
What do you feel our goal should be?
And before someone says "freedom", i'll provide the preemptive retort. The CBC is evidence that state-funded enterprise can have Freedom. AND that in other places, "a free-press is for those who own one" and therefore devoid of worthwhile Freedom.
Would the US stand by and do nothing if Canada were invaded? How about England or Spain? I doubt that the only reason Canadian or European companies are successful is just because the US would defend their countries.
England, Spain and Canada do not need defending from invasion. The USA's army isnt a defensive force at all. It is an Imperialist Army. The last 100 years of American history has been one of warfare. The USA has been involved in wars of aggression, save the two WW of infighting in post-colonial europe. The world needs to fear invasion FROM the USA.
The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (2%?).
Sure. Right. Good.
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their companies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
Why would we? So we can invade foreign nations? Most of the West has decided it no longer has the stomach for warfare. That fighting for territory is insane on such a small and interconnected planet. Who exactly is the "THEM" that you are afraid of? Further, for instance, if Americans include health-services as part of their tax bill (as an exercise) you will discover you are the most highly taxed. We pay higher taxes, but receive far more social welfare service as 'compensation'. Shhhhs, dont tell everyone.. but it sure is a neat little trick isnt it eh?
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense.
DEFENSE FROM WHOM? This is pure jingo-warmonger fantasy. The USA dosnt create reality -- this is complete neocon nonsense. Our Socialist Democracies dont receive subsidy from US defense. IN FACT(!) the behaviour of the USA has caused nations (china, brazil, india) need to continue to spend as they do instead of writing treaties, organizing bodies and making a transition to a Army-Free future for the planet (a para-military police force controlled by the UN is the sole Army necessary (if we all agree to not build armies, you wont need to defend yourself from anyone.. get it?))
It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Our economies are not in imminent Peril. What are you dreaming about? Take a look at the state of the US economy. Low dollar. Growing unemployment. A collusive and corrupt plutocratic government who has an interest in undermining international labour, environmental, safety and health standards for their paymasters. Multi-Nationals are running wild over the planet and USING the USA as host. When they are finally reigned in, the USA's domestic population will be in for the largest shock. Inspite of mccarthy propaganda Economic Planning is necessary for a community to chart a course of long-term stability and prosperity. When the USA realizes that its "leaders" are taking them for a ride -- and when your economy collapses (think 1930's depression) -- will your citizens consider JUST FOR ONCE that youve been fed a bill of goods? What do you think causes the US dollar to slide 30% in 24 months? Household debt hightest on the planet? A stable and bright economic future? Think again.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military.
Utter nonsense.
Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continen