Just because the planned obsolescence timer on the chipset has expired, there's still a perfectly good metal case and power supply.
Weird. Seems the only parts I consistently have to take to the trash are the cases and power supplies! They're too big and heavy for it to be economical to ship them to someone who might want them (assuming that person exists). They don't break down into smaller components the way that obsolete and/or broken drives and circuit boards do, and they're not all that aesthetically pleasing. Not like the shiny platters in an HD, or the glistening copper coils of a floppy drive's motor.
There are three gutted 386 cases w/ power supplies sitting out by my trash can right now, and one from a 286. Getting rained on. The drives are now works of art; the boards soon will be (I hope). But there's just not much I can do with a big beige metal box.
My definition of "geek" is somebody who questions all things and tries to find answers for himself.
That's not a bad definition of a geek, but it sorta misses the point. The question had to do with why the popular impression of a geek includes so much superficial baggage. About geeks' religion (little or none), politics (liberal), and physical configuration (invariably young, male and non-athletic).
I don't have an answer as to the religion or politics part (grepya's explanation seems reasonable to me) but I'm guessing the physical stereotype arises from the following: Geek-ness is subtle, and it won't be noticed if there are other, more obvious factors in play. Like special abilities (athletic prowess, artistic talent, social skills), or even physical attributes (gender, race, etc).
An athlete who thinks for himself will probably be seen primarily as an athlete first and foremost. In most people's minds his athlete-ness outshines everything else he does. A female who likes to take things apart and tinker with them will probably be seen merely as a female (it's a perennial problem) by males. Unless she's old, in which case she'll not be seen at all (another perennial problem). Anything else that she is or does is eclipsed by her female-ness.
And so it goes. The only people whose geek-ness shines through will be the ones who don't stand out in other ways. Boring, non-athletic, non-sociable young white guys. It's not their fault - it just is. "Real Geeks" (assuming the definition is correct and they DO question and think for themselves) will know the difference.
If God greated a rock that nobody can lift, could he lift it?
I remember this one from waaay back - only it was slightly rephrased. It went "If Zeus can do anything, can he create a rock that's so heavy even he can't lift it"?
Weird thing is - it DOES have a perfectly logical answer. The answer is YES, because of the first part of the statement (Zeus can do anything). But if he does create this rock, he will then no longer be able to do "anything". More than creating a rock, he creates a limit to his own power. Which he can do, of course (Zeus can do anything). If he wants, he can create a tiny pebble so heavy that even he can't lift it. That would merely mean placing even greater limits on his own power.
All of this stuff is properly addressed in some sort of philosophy class, NOT in a science class.
You can? I can't. Theories can be disproven, if observations counter them. Most believers in the Biblical account of creation would not consider their "theory" disproved even if observed evidence contradicted it. They'd sooner discard their observations than their Holy Book. And science doesn't work that way. If the evidence indicates that your hypothesis (or theory) is flawed, you fix the flaws or discard the hypothesis. You don't discard the evidence. That's why Biblical creation should never be taught in science classes.
I'm certainly no expert, but my understanding is that Tantra has to do with attaining enlightenment through sex. While there is certainly a LOT of sex involved with Tantric practices, the emphasis is on the enlightenment, rather than romantic love or pleasure/gratification.
The enlightenment might be great, but most folks really WANT the romance and/or the gratification.
Organisms have redundancy at the level where viruses don't exist -- virus works at the level below cell, all organism's functions are performed at the level above cell.
Except for single-celled organisms.
...if, say, HIV was transmitted over the air, it would cause huge epidemy and die out just because there will be no people around to carry it.
Well that's not exactly true, but I guess you know that, based on the next sentence:
HIV survived because it's carried without noticeable damage for a long time and has chance to be transmitted before seriously damaging the immune system.
Very true. And it would remain true even if HIV were aerosol-vectored. In this case the vector is less important than the long delay before onset of symptoms and death.
Even quick-killing viruses can survive, provided there is another host organism around. If virus X kills every human it infects, instantly (before it has a chance to spread) it might still remain viable if there's another (non-human) organism that it kills slowly, or that it can infect without killing.
I don't know if there's a parallel in computer viruses. Something that spreads slowly and is nearly undetectable in some systems, but renders others instantly inoperable?
Maybe even code that confers some benefit on (some of) its hosts. One might consider useful applications viruses then. Once they get into your computer, and you see how useful they are, you promote them and/or make copies for others.
Linguists are nerds. They're language nerds. And every bit as obsessive about language as certain other nerd subtypes are obsessive about, say f'rinstance, operating systems.
If one were gonna go for the latin-sounding plural, viri would be the choice.
cactus -> cacti fungus -> fungi virus -> viri
Or one could just say viruses. That's what we call them at the Diagnostic Virology Laboratory.
No, it's not Abian. I regret to inform you that Alexander Abian died just last week. I looked, briefly, for an obit on the web, but couldn't find one. While many knew him only as "that crackpot who wanted to blow up the moon", it should be noted that he was also a well-liked professor of mathematics.
Since I couldn't find an online obit, here's a link to Abian's web page.
The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate.
What? I thought movie ratings were guidelines, not laws. Is it really a crime in some communities to allow underage people to see certain films?
My understanding is that it's theater policy, not law. About on a par with the no-throwing-popcorn policy, and the no-talking-during-the-film policy. IOW they could order you out of the theater for violating the rule, but they couldn't charge you with a crime. Nor could they be charged with a crime if they permit underage folx to see an R or NC-17 film.
Am I mistaken? Do some communities actually have laws to back up the movie ratings? Maybe it's time to be afraid...
Sure. But is it the right tool for the job? This particular use of lying, while perhaps well-intentioned, might be compared to using a hammer where a fine-adjustment tool would be more appropriate (my HD will never be the same).
Katz is a wordsmith. Rather than his transparent lies, he might have told the long-suffering theater employees what he told us. That these age restrictions are stupid, and that they signal far worse abuses to come.
It might not have got the kids into the theater (does that matter? Seems they've seen the movie already, in bootlegged form) but it may have had more profound results. We in this forum have heard the message (over and over!). The theater employees - and more importantly the managers - haven't. Or they have, but only from those who cry out for MORE restrictions. Instead of countering that propaganda with some of his own, Katz told a few lies and essentially caved to the restrictions. Instead of a bug fix, he got a work-around. The restrictions are still in place.
All that acting (and musical) talent! Not to mention a fun story and awesome effects (esp. on a big movie-theater screen - I'll readily admit it looks like a cheap video game on a regular TV screen).
That having been said, I agree that a remake or sequel is probably a Bad Idea. There's so little to gain and so much that could go horribly wrong. But I'd still be first in line to see it when it comes to my town!
One more bit of Tron trivia... the French artist and Metal Hurlant heavy-hitter Moebius did a lot of the preproduction design stuff for the film. No wonder I loved it!
-Drox (proud owner of an original 1982 Tron beach towel)
As a sociology proffessor once siad "You can turn fish into fish stew, but you cant turn fish stew into fish"
That sounds much like what was explained to me as the First Rule of Tinkering. i.e. keep all of the pieces.
Humans have, thus far, done a lousy job of hacking the planet. We've lost far too many of the pieces, and we're losing more. If we can rebuild some of the ones we've (inadvertently or deliberately) destroyed, we and our world will be better for it.
As with much tinkering, it's a good idea, before proceeding, to consider the consequences of ones actions. No one considered the consequences of destroying these birds. Is anyone going to consider the consequences of restoring them? What's the point of bringing back the extinct birds if there's no longer any suitable habitat left for them to live in?
IMHO this problem needs to be attacked on two fronts. Sure, clone the extinct critters. Stockpile endangered species' eggs and sperm in freezers. But at the same time, work to preserve habitat so that there will be a place for them to live should these efforts succeed.
Maybe those scientists should wait 25 years (or more) if their goal is to "restore" the Huais (sp?) into the ecosystem.
Why wait? In the ~70 years since their extinction their (former) habitat may have already changed enough in their absence so that it no longer supports them. The longer one waits, the less likely success will be.
If the first few tries fail (due to the limits of current technology) by all means keep trying. But to just give up and wait for technology to catch up is pointless.
The technology used to put men on the moon was pathetic compared to what we have now. But if we'd waited, we'd never have done it. Despite improved technology, humans haven't walked on the moon in decades. And (Ross Perot voice here) that's just sad!
Pardon my digression - I just watched "From The Earth to the Moon" again.
Nah... Yahoo's not dying. But it is (IMHO) suffering. Too much trying to be all things to all people. Sure people will continue to use it, but not because they like it. More like it's the path of least resistance.
Maybe said shopper was buying Weight Loss Formula for herself, and chips for someone back home.
Was said shopper overweight? Maybe the Weight Loss Formula was for someone at home, and the chips were for herself.
While most of us probably live alone and buy provisions only for ourselves, some people have to shop for others. This may mean taking into account different dietary needs and preferences. Like Weight Loss Formula and bags and bags of chips.
Yeah right. She probably glutted out on the chips, and then tried to undo the damage w/ the weight-loss stuff.
Oh well.
Union, trade association or PAC?
on
GEEK Unions?
·
· Score: 1
Given the diverse political views of geeks, the idea of a geek Union seems unworkable. Where's the unity?
IMHO Unions work best when they simply protect their members from on-the-job abuses rather than drifting into politics. Imagine belonging to (and paying dues to) an organization whose politics you abhor, just to keep your job and benefits. This is what happens when Unions go Horribly Wrong.
Katz wrote of a geek Union forming to battle the various corporation thundering onto the internet. Would you really want your Union to engage in suce a battle? A lot of us grumble about faceless corporate money-grubbers invading our playground, while at the same time being aware that those very corporations keep many of us afloat financially. Geeks may indeed command more respect these days, but it's largely a function of money, not knowledge (respect from other geeks being a notable exception). A geek Union seeking to drive corporate interests from the internet might well be shooting itself in its figurative foot. Not that Unions have never done that before...
We may already have what we need - a means of keeping each other informed when boneheaded politicians and media figures propose bad legislation (CDA anyone?) so that (somewhat) unified action can be taken to oppose it. No meetings or dues required, no all-or-nothing political agenda. Just information. What one does with it is up to each individual, as it should be.
We have the internet - now all we have to do is use it.
Fine, so the kid goes to the books and looks up history of erotic art or dozens of other books about famous painters who happened to think that the naked human body was a beautiful thing and painted it as such.
Why not? It was good enough for me:-)
...and I turned out okay (I know, they ALL say that...).
They also just voted to require the ten commandments be put in schools, so they have some experience with unconstitutional legislation.
Not exactly. The vote was to allow, not to require the display of the Ten Commandments. While it may still be unconstitutional (these being public schools and all) it's far less glaringly so. After all, far worse things that the Ten Commandments are routinely foisted on students. Like "Coke Day".
My personal opinion is that it's okay to allow the display of the Ten Commandments, or the Wiccan Rede, or the Ayatollah Khomeini's death-order fatwa on Salman Rushdie or the Coca-Cola logo. It's a free country after all. But that freedom should apply to any dissenters as well. If material is displayed for educational purposes, that's one thing. Learn about the world, including the world's religions and carbonated beverages. But it's quite another if the material is on display to be honored or worshipped. The latter should not be tolerated in tax-funded schools.
As for why our so-called leaders voted for this, it's nothing to do with actually passing it (they know it's probably unconstitutional) and everything to do with looking good and pure and moral for a certain portion of their constituents.
I really don't want to wake up some morning in forty years to read about some A.I./robot who...(snip)...tak[es] a high-powered mining laser to the top of the Washington Monument...
Unless you read it in The Onion, in which case you could have a good laugh along w/ the rest of us.
...and torch[es] a good section of D.C.
D.C. has a good section? Remember, this is the town where all our purchased^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H elected officials are. It might be kinda satisfying to see some of them get the business end of a high-powered laser.
The dictionary entry indicates that Slashdot is a noun, yet definitions 3 and 4 are clearly verbs.
Main Entry: Slashdot Pronunciation: 'slash dot Function: noun Etymology: Midwestern American English (Holland, MI) Date: 1996? 1. News for nerds, stuff that matters 2. Microsoft bashing for enlightened folk 3. To criticize cuttingly 4. to reduce sharply
I'm so glad they've ditched those unpronounceable names. As if chemistry weren't tough enough already! And even better than the names is that they've now got some nice two-letter symbols, rather than those three-letter starts-with-a-U symbols that all start to look alike.
The politics aside ("Seaborgium" is a nice name, but even "element 106" is preferable to "Unnilhexium"), I think this is a big improvement.
Whaddaya think... 20 years before they get 'round to slapping a "real" name and a proper two-letter symbol onto element 118?
cpt kangarooski wrote: Okay, then we don't air it in Colorado.
No! No! No! (tho' apart from that one line, I mostly agree w/ the post)
Several posts here have claimed it's not censorship unless the content is completely suppressed, whereas Buffy was merely postponed in some markets (The U.S.).
I beg to differ. What WB did may have been ineffective censorship, but it's still censorship, and it's still a Bad Thing. Instead of keeping the program from U.S. viewers, they've kept it from U.S. viewers who don't have easy access to the Web. This is not an improvement. Nor would it be an improvement to merely keep the program from Colorado viewers who don't have easy access to the Web.
Completely suppressing content (rather than merely limiting it to particular markets) happens all the time. It's the reason we don't see hour after hour of crappy, unfunny outtakes. Someone (a censor?) decided those scenes were not up to a show's usual standards (TV has standards? I can't believe I'm typing this!) and decided to remove them. It may be censorship, but at least it's consistent. No one gets to see the flubbed lines and embarassing mistakes.
What disturbs me about this BtVS incident is not that the network decided not to air the episode, but more that they did air it in some markets and not in others. It annoys me that some network exec gets to decide that this program is good enough for Canadian viewers, but not good enough for me and my country(wo)men. Excuse me, but I'd like to be the one who decides what is and isn't appropriate material for me to watch, and when it's okay for me to watch it.
I don't care one bit about Buffy and her exploits. I've never even seen the show. The fact that someone else has tried to dictate whether I have the opportunity to view them (even though it appears that, to a large extent, they've failed)... that I do care about.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the planned obsolescence timer on the chipset has expired, there's still a perfectly good metal case and power supply.
Weird. Seems the only parts I consistently have to take to the trash are the cases and power supplies! They're too big and heavy for it to be economical to ship them to someone who might want them (assuming that person exists). They don't break down into smaller components the way that obsolete and/or broken drives and circuit boards do, and they're not all that aesthetically pleasing. Not like the shiny platters in an HD, or the glistening copper coils of a floppy drive's motor.
There are three gutted 386 cases w/ power supplies sitting out by my trash can right now, and one from a 286. Getting rained on. The drives are now works of art; the boards soon will be (I hope). But there's just not much I can do with a big beige metal box.
Ideas, anyone?
My definition of "geek" is somebody who questions all things and tries to find answers for himself.
That's not a bad definition of a geek, but it sorta misses the point. The question had to do with why the popular impression of a geek includes so much superficial baggage. About geeks' religion (little or none), politics (liberal), and physical configuration (invariably young, male and non-athletic).
I don't have an answer as to the religion or politics part (grepya's explanation seems reasonable to me) but I'm guessing the physical stereotype arises from the following: Geek-ness is subtle, and it won't be noticed if there are other, more obvious factors in play. Like special abilities (athletic prowess, artistic talent, social skills), or even physical attributes (gender, race, etc).
An athlete who thinks for himself will probably be seen primarily as an athlete first and foremost. In most people's minds his athlete-ness outshines everything else he does. A female who likes to take things apart and tinker with them will probably be seen merely as a female (it's a perennial problem) by males. Unless she's old, in which case she'll not be seen at all (another perennial problem). Anything else that she is or does is eclipsed by her female-ness.
And so it goes. The only people whose geek-ness shines through will be the ones who don't stand out in other ways. Boring, non-athletic, non-sociable young white guys. It's not their fault - it just is. "Real Geeks" (assuming the definition is correct and they DO question and think for themselves) will know the difference.
If God greated a rock that nobody can lift, could he lift it?
I remember this one from waaay back - only it was slightly rephrased. It went "If Zeus can do anything, can he create a rock that's so heavy even he can't lift it"?
Weird thing is - it DOES have a perfectly logical answer. The answer is YES, because of the first part of the statement (Zeus can do anything). But if he does create this rock, he will then no longer be able to do "anything". More than creating a rock, he creates a limit to his own power. Which he can do, of course (Zeus can do anything). If he wants, he can create a tiny pebble so heavy that even he can't lift it. That would merely mean placing even greater limits on his own power.
All of this stuff is properly addressed in some sort of philosophy class, NOT in a science class.
I can see including creation as another theory...
You can? I can't. Theories can be disproven, if observations counter them. Most believers in the Biblical account of creation would not consider their "theory" disproved even if observed evidence contradicted it. They'd sooner discard their observations than their Holy Book. And science doesn't work that way. If the evidence indicates that your hypothesis (or theory) is flawed, you fix the flaws or discard the hypothesis. You don't discard the evidence. That's why Biblical creation should never be taught in science classes.
Not because it's wrong (who am I to say?)
But because it's unscientific.
I'm certainly no expert, but my understanding is that Tantra has to do with attaining enlightenment through sex. While there is certainly a LOT of sex involved with Tantric practices, the emphasis is on the enlightenment, rather than romantic love or pleasure/gratification.
The enlightenment might be great, but most folks really WANT the romance and/or the gratification.
Good luck to ya...
It was Diamond Age that had phyles. In Snow Crash it was FOQNEs. aka Franchise-Organized QuasiNational Entities.
Organisms have redundancy at the level where viruses don't exist -- virus works at the level below cell, all organism's functions are performed at the level above cell.
...if, say, HIV was transmitted over the air, it would cause huge epidemy and die out just because there will be no people around to carry it.
Except for single-celled organisms.
Well that's not exactly true, but I guess you know that, based on the next sentence:
HIV survived because it's carried without noticeable damage for a long time and has chance to be transmitted before seriously damaging the immune system.
Very true. And it would remain true even if HIV were aerosol-vectored. In this case the vector is less important than the long delay before onset of symptoms and death.
Even quick-killing viruses can survive, provided there is another host organism around. If virus X kills every human it infects, instantly (before it has a chance to spread) it might still remain viable if there's another (non-human) organism that it kills slowly, or that it can infect without killing.
I don't know if there's a parallel in computer viruses. Something that spreads slowly and is nearly undetectable in some systems, but renders others instantly inoperable?
Maybe even code that confers some benefit on (some of) its hosts. One might consider useful applications viruses then. Once they get into your computer, and you see how useful they are, you promote them and/or make copies for others.
It's survival of the fittest (code).
We're nerds, not linguists.
Linguists are nerds. They're language nerds. And every bit as obsessive about language as certain other nerd subtypes are obsessive about, say f'rinstance, operating systems.
If one were gonna go for the latin-sounding plural, viri would be the choice.
cactus -> cacti
fungus -> fungi
virus -> viri
Or one could just say viruses. That's what we call them at the Diagnostic Virology Laboratory.
No, it's not Abian. I regret to inform you that Alexander Abian died just last week. I looked, briefly, for an obit on the web, but couldn't find one. While many knew him only as "that crackpot who wanted to blow up the moon", it should be noted that he was also a well-liked professor of mathematics.
Since I couldn't find an online obit, here's a link to Abian's web page.
The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate.
What? I thought movie ratings were guidelines, not laws. Is it really a crime in some communities to allow underage people to see certain films?
My understanding is that it's theater policy, not law. About on a par with the no-throwing-popcorn policy, and the no-talking-during-the-film policy. IOW they could order you out of the theater for violating the rule, but they couldn't charge you with a crime. Nor could they be charged with a crime if they permit underage folx to see an R or NC-17 film.
Am I mistaken? Do some communities actually have laws to back up the movie ratings? Maybe it's time to be afraid...
Lying is not inherently evil. It is a tool.
Sure. But is it the right tool for the job? This particular use of lying, while perhaps well-intentioned, might be compared to using a hammer where a fine-adjustment tool would be more appropriate (my HD will never be the same).
Katz is a wordsmith. Rather than his transparent lies, he might have told the long-suffering theater employees what he told us. That these age restrictions are stupid, and that they signal far worse abuses to come.
It might not have got the kids into the theater (does that matter? Seems they've seen the movie already, in bootlegged form) but it may have had more profound results. We in this forum have heard the message (over and over!). The theater employees - and more importantly the managers - haven't. Or they have, but only from those who cry out for MORE restrictions. Instead of countering that propaganda with some of his own, Katz told a few lies and essentially caved to the restrictions. Instead of a bug fix, he got a work-around. The restrictions are still in place.
Oh Well...
All that acting (and musical) talent! Not to mention a fun story and awesome effects (esp. on a big movie-theater screen - I'll readily admit it looks like a cheap video game on a regular TV screen).
That having been said, I agree that a remake or sequel is probably a Bad Idea. There's so little to gain and so much that could go horribly wrong. But I'd still be first in line to see it when it comes to my town!
One more bit of Tron trivia... the French artist and Metal Hurlant heavy-hitter Moebius did a lot of the preproduction design stuff for the film. No wonder I loved it!
-Drox
(proud owner of an original 1982 Tron beach towel)
Ever since we learned to farm, we Humans have found loopholes in nature.
Since farming? It's been longer than that. Humans have been hacking the planet ever since they began controlling fire. Maybe longer.
It doesn't make them apart from nature though. Hacking the planet is what humans do.
Fish swim.
Birds fly (most of 'em anyway).
Dogs lick their balls.
And humans hack the planet.
Just wish they'd get better at it, so they wouldn't mess it up and break things so often.
Who knows... maybe the Cosmic SysAdmin will get tired of their destructive antics and restrict their priveliges one of these days!
As a sociology proffessor once siad "You can turn fish into fish stew, but you cant turn fish stew into fish"
That sounds much like what was explained to me as the First Rule of Tinkering. i.e. keep all of the pieces.
Humans have, thus far, done a lousy job of hacking the planet. We've lost far too many of the pieces, and we're losing more. If we can rebuild some of the ones we've (inadvertently or deliberately) destroyed, we and our world will be better for it.
As with much tinkering, it's a good idea, before proceeding, to consider the consequences of ones actions. No one considered the consequences of destroying these birds. Is anyone going to consider the consequences of restoring them? What's the point of bringing back the extinct birds if there's no longer any suitable habitat left for them to live in?
IMHO this problem needs to be attacked on two fronts. Sure, clone the extinct critters. Stockpile endangered species' eggs and sperm in freezers. But at the same time, work to preserve habitat so that there will be a place for them to live should these efforts succeed.
Maybe those scientists should wait 25 years (or more) if their goal is to "restore" the Huais (sp?) into the ecosystem.
Why wait? In the ~70 years since their extinction their (former) habitat may have already changed enough in their absence so that it no longer supports them. The longer one waits, the less likely success will be.
If the first few tries fail (due to the limits of current technology) by all means keep trying. But to just give up and wait for technology to catch up is pointless.
The technology used to put men on the moon was pathetic compared to what we have now. But if we'd waited, we'd never have done it. Despite improved technology, humans haven't walked on the moon in decades. And (Ross Perot voice here) that's just sad!
Pardon my digression - I just watched "From The Earth to the Moon" again.
Nah... Yahoo's not dying. But it is (IMHO) suffering. Too much trying to be all things to all people. Sure people will continue to use it, but not because they like it. More like it's the path of least resistance.
The same is true of Amazon and Microsoft.
Maybe said shopper was buying Weight Loss Formula for herself, and chips for someone back home.
Was said shopper overweight? Maybe the Weight Loss Formula was for someone at home, and the chips were for herself.
While most of us probably live alone and buy provisions only for ourselves, some people have to shop for others. This may mean taking into account different dietary needs and preferences. Like Weight Loss Formula and bags and bags of chips.
Yeah right. She probably glutted out on the chips, and then tried to undo the damage w/ the weight-loss stuff.
Oh well.
Given the diverse political views of geeks, the idea of a geek Union seems unworkable. Where's the unity?
IMHO Unions work best when they simply protect their members from on-the-job abuses rather than drifting into politics. Imagine belonging to (and paying dues to) an organization whose politics you abhor, just to keep your job and benefits. This is what happens when Unions go Horribly Wrong.
Katz wrote of a geek Union forming to battle the various corporation thundering onto the internet. Would you really want your Union to engage in suce a battle? A lot of us grumble about faceless corporate money-grubbers invading our playground, while at the same time being aware that those very corporations keep many of us afloat financially. Geeks may indeed command more respect these days, but it's largely a function of money, not knowledge (respect from other geeks being a notable exception). A geek Union seeking to drive corporate interests from the internet might well be shooting itself in its figurative foot. Not that Unions have never done that before...
We may already have what we need - a means of keeping each other informed when boneheaded politicians and media figures propose bad legislation (CDA anyone?) so that (somewhat) unified action can be taken to oppose it. No meetings or dues required, no all-or-nothing political agenda. Just information. What one does with it is up to each individual, as it should be.
We have the internet - now all we have to do is use it.
Fine, so the kid goes to the books and looks up history of erotic art or dozens of other books about famous painters who happened to think that the naked human body was a beautiful thing and painted it as such.
:-)
Why not? It was good enough for me
...and I turned out okay (I know, they ALL say that...).
They also just voted to require the ten commandments be put in schools, so they have some experience with unconstitutional legislation.
Not exactly. The vote was to allow, not to require the display of the Ten Commandments. While it may still be unconstitutional (these being public schools and all) it's far less glaringly so. After all, far worse things that the Ten Commandments are routinely foisted on students. Like "Coke Day".
My personal opinion is that it's okay to allow the display of the Ten Commandments, or the Wiccan Rede, or the Ayatollah Khomeini's death-order fatwa on Salman Rushdie or the Coca-Cola logo. It's a free country after all. But that freedom should apply to any dissenters as well. If material is displayed for educational purposes, that's one thing. Learn about the world, including the world's religions and carbonated beverages. But it's quite another if the material is on display to be honored or worshipped. The latter should not be tolerated in tax-funded schools.
As for why our so-called leaders voted for this, it's nothing to do with actually passing it (they know it's probably unconstitutional) and everything to do with looking good and pure and moral for a certain portion of their constituents.
Heh. Acres of flesh, maybe. But well-toned? Golden? Not a chance!
I really don't want to wake up some morning in forty years to read about some A.I./robot who...(snip)...tak[es] a high-powered mining laser to the top of the Washington Monument...
...and torch[es] a good section of D.C.
Unless you read it in The Onion, in which case you could have a good laugh along w/ the rest of us.
D.C. has a good section? Remember, this is the town where all our purchased^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H elected officials are. It might be kinda satisfying to see some of them get the business end of a high-powered laser.
I couldn't resist.
The dictionary entry indicates that Slashdot is a noun, yet definitions 3 and 4 are clearly verbs.
Main Entry: Slashdot
Pronunciation: 'slash dot
Function: noun
Etymology: Midwestern American English (Holland, MI)
Date: 1996?
1. News for nerds, stuff that matters
2. Microsoft bashing for enlightened folk
3. To criticize cuttingly
4. to reduce sharply
Oh Well(tm)
I'm so glad they've ditched those unpronounceable names. As if chemistry weren't tough enough already! And even better than the names is that they've now got some nice two-letter symbols, rather than those three-letter starts-with-a-U symbols that all start to look alike.
The politics aside ("Seaborgium" is a nice name, but even "element 106" is preferable to "Unnilhexium"), I think this is a big improvement.
Whaddaya think... 20 years before they get 'round to slapping a "real" name and a proper two-letter symbol onto element 118?
cpt kangarooski wrote: Okay, then we don't air it in Colorado.
No! No! No! (tho' apart from that one line, I mostly agree w/ the post)
Several posts here have claimed it's not censorship unless the content is completely suppressed, whereas Buffy was merely postponed in some markets (The U.S.).
I beg to differ. What WB did may have been ineffective censorship, but it's still censorship, and it's still a Bad Thing. Instead of keeping the program from U.S. viewers, they've kept it from U.S. viewers who don't have easy access to the Web. This is not an improvement. Nor would it be an improvement to merely keep the program from Colorado viewers who don't have easy access to the Web.
Completely suppressing content (rather than merely limiting it to particular markets) happens all the time. It's the reason we don't see hour after hour of crappy, unfunny outtakes. Someone (a censor?) decided those scenes were not up to a show's usual standards (TV has standards? I can't believe I'm typing this!) and decided to remove them. It may be censorship, but at least it's consistent. No one gets to see the flubbed lines and embarassing mistakes.
What disturbs me about this BtVS incident is not that the network decided not to air the episode, but more that they did air it in some markets and not in others. It annoys me that some network exec gets to decide that this program is good enough for Canadian viewers, but not good enough for me and my country(wo)men. Excuse me, but I'd like to be the one who decides what is and isn't appropriate material for me to watch, and when it's okay for me to watch it.
I don't care one bit about Buffy and her exploits. I've never even seen the show. The fact that someone else has tried to dictate whether I have the opportunity to view them (even though it appears that, to a large extent, they've failed)... that I do care about.