The comparison goes something like this: Pamela Geller criticizes the Islamic religion, and the late Christopher Hitchens criticized pretty much all religions, as an outspoken atheist. Both notably pointed out real, modern abuses and made a case for how those modern abuses grew from the root of old traditions. Neither deserves the attention of an organization like the SPLC, to my knowledge.
There are multiple problems with the SPLC, including that they venture too far into politics and end up sometimes just being mouthpieces for their particular brand of partisan viewpoint. As such, they find themselves policing speech by moderately mainstream voices on the opposite side of the political aisle, and condemning mere political incorrectness as "hate speech". By crying wolf like that repeatedly, they eventually lose credibility with roughly half the country (those not of their obvious political alignment).
An example -- the SPLC calls out Pamela Geller as a proponent of hate. However, I can't see that she's been any more or less a proponent of hate than Christopher Hitchens was. And frankly I don't think that would be a reasonable way to categorize either person, since both of them have probably been beneficial in the net to our society by being willing to be politically incorrect and take on abuses where they saw them (for example Geller with Islamic honor killings, and Hitchens with Catholic sexual abuse).
Ironically, if we lower the bar so much that any criticism of a group constitutes "hate" (so as to include Geller and her ilk), the SPLC itself becomes a hate group, no?
Counterexample -- racially motivated black-on-white violence in inner cities. Clearly, black-on-white racism matters, and perhaps it is you who are trolling.
They're only looking for racism directed against Obama, so they won't find (for example) black against white racism in Philadelphia or Latino against Caucasian racism in California. It is truly regrettable that certain organizations like the SPLC dilute their otherwise honorable mission by turning a blind eye to hate in some of its notable forms.
Romney hasn't supported discrimination and racial/socioeconomic hate, nor has the mainstream Republican party. His 47% comment was dumb, but it wasn't hateful. If all you can point to is the 47% thing, and perhaps a lack of support for gay marriage, I'm just going to yawn.
You weren't specific when you called Republicans hateful, so I'll call your bluff, and do you one better. Contrast Romney's positions with your self-anointed Racial and Socioeconomic Lord and Savior, Barack Obama. In 2008 Obama addressed a predominantly black audience at Hampton University and told a bunch of very hurtful lies that had no other purpose than to stir up racial animosity over a purely fictional supposed grievance. In short, he complained in his speech that the Federal government had bailed out post-911 NYC and post-Hurricane Andrew Florida with aid money that was purely gifted, and didn't require local funds allocated in proportion, but only sent aid money that had those strings attached to post-Katrina New Orleans. Obama said that it was because New Orleans had mostly minority recipients, and that therefore they weren't considered part of the American family. And what was wrong with this speech? The government had in fact sent a bunch of money for Katrina aid with no strings attached, and in fact sent more aid in total for Katrina than for the NYC and Florida disasters put together. And could you maybe defend Obama by saying he didn't know about that? Not a chance. At the time, Obama was a sitting United States Senator, who (get this...) VOTED AGAINST THE AID. Now, to be fair, it was attached to a defense bill that Obama didn't like, and it passed over his objections, yada yada yada... but the fact remains that in his speech to that predominantly black audience, he was instigating racial animosity using a nasty lie.
You can demonize conservatives if you like, but please get a lot more specific like I did above, instead of just spouting insults. Conservatives are human beings, like Obama, and they certainly have flaws. I don't believe your generalization is fair, though, any more than I believe that Obama's hateful behavior at the above conference characterizes his presidency overall -- this was a low point, and I'm happy to say that he's generally done much better than that.
In no reasonable sense of the words does ARM "freely run... Windows". It's true that Microsoft is releasing Windows on ARM, but there isn't really a way for consumers/hobbyists/individual custom PC builders to install Windows on ARM. Maybe someday the wider hacker community will distribute heavily modified builds of Windows RT that can be run in various very specific ARM environments. But it would be a huge effort and Microsoft would try hard to prevent it.
In many ways, Apple moving to ARM would complete the circle of their locking out PC builders in general by soldering everything fast and discouraging upgrades. Full disclosure: I run a virtual Hackintosh in a PC I built myself, and strongly despise the trend of cookie cutter, disposable computers.
Having the knowledge that I could probably personally hack electronic voting machines if I studied them a while kind of freaks me out.
Today everybody presented ID (first time in my experience this was required), and nobody seemed to have a problem. Very friendly, trust-engendering atmosphere. I love living in a rural area.
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well? Be careful about piling on with "serves him right" when somebody is fired for what amounts to political incorrectness in the workplace. Without more detail I am skeptical of the accusations that he was "too aggressive" with this stuff or that it was a serious dereliction of his job. In my experience, many atheists are offended even by any public display of personal religious belief and practice, or any religious people engaging in discussion with others about it. They think religious people should be forced to maintain an appearance of secular belief when in public places, which is actually absurd and offensive in its own way.
As a religious person who works professionally with a diverse bunch of colleagues, I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues. And frankly, it's my habit to just smile and get along. I don't think my colleagues should be fired for promoting atheism, gay marriage, abortion, or what have you.
Correct, that's two paid apps. However, most of my app income has come on iOS via "freemium" apps, and if and when I revisit Windows Phone, that's the route I plan to go, now that Microsoft is adding support for in app purchase with WP8.
Personally, I hate ads, so it's no huge grief to me that the returns have dropped off so precipitously in mobile advertising. I feel sorry for the OP, though.
That was really vulgar, but it may have been an accurate judgment of the OP's complaint. I have two WP7 apps that have had payoffs of $690.13 thus far. That's nothing to brag about, but I probably made a better effort at making something that users wanted. And "the top rated app in its category" doesn't mean much. You can define such a category very narrowly.
I do take issue with the monetization comparison with the iPhone. The opportunity is not that much worse such that it explains making only $4. Or to put it another way, it is almost as hard to make serious money on the iPhone as on WP7. App development is just an unforgiving environment in general, littered with the carcasses of hopeful developers with their skeletal fingers still tightly grasping the "top rated app in their category".
next up the movement for rights of rocks - because rocks might have feelings too you know..
I'm an animist you insensitive clod!
Ironically, calling somebody an insensitive clod is offensive and mineralist. Why can't rocks, clods, and earthy lumps of all shapes and colors just get along?
My development machine has 24 GB of RAM, an Intel 8 core 3.4 GHz x64 CPU, and the ability to run multiple applications at once on multiple monitors. One of those applications is a virtual machine where I host running copies of other operating systems. I'm accustomed to waiting maybe 5 or 10 seconds for a compile of my current iOS app to complete, which of course is in my virtual Hackintosh, since I chose an OS other than OS X for my main OS. (Relax, I have an official Mac, I just leave it off a lot of the time.)
So let me get this straight. I can drop down to 1 GB of RAM, and 1 GHz dual core CPU of the ARM architecture, which equates to maybe a 200 MHz x86 or something. I sacrifice freedom of choice of main OS in addition to all my virtualization abilities. I have to stare at one lonely monitor running one lonely app at a time. It will likely take 10 minutes simply to compile small to medium sized apps in Xcode, assuming I have enough memory to compile them.
Maybe someday? That's the best I can say at this point.
But this is Apple. They don't care about developers. They don't care about users. It's their way, or the highway.
OK, I agree that they don't care about developers. Apple treats developers like trash. But Apple does care about users an an aggregate sense, in that their products and marketing are designed to achieve real resonance with hundreds of millions of users and turn them into passionate evangelists. Treating developers badly is actually part of the latter goal. But it is only about money, though. Beyond that, Apple doesn't care about users either.
Indeed. It is interesting that some people on one hand complain about how malware-prone Windows is for non power users, and simultaneously complain whenever Microsoft takes a step to obstruct an attack vector. If you're a power user, you will be able to work around your antivirus's blocking of obvious hacks in your HOSTS file (and yes, it is a hack, even if you're doing it to block facebook for yourself).
That's not really true. She spoke/speaks with a bunch of folksy mannerisms that are annoying after you get over the novelty of them. She was hated by the left, but actually energized some of the right. The more basic problem is that the top of the ticket (McCain) was not as appealing to the country as Senator Obama. But as a politician she is actually both competent and charismatic, which is how she got to be governor of Alaska. It is reasonable to conclude that she won the debate against Joe Biden -- probably most people who watched it would agree with me. She was articulate and on-message, whereas he flailed around and made stuff up (as he always does), including inventing a whole new foreign war from American history that nobody else had heard of. Ahh, Biden... you want to talk about providing unending entertainment...
Maybe you really believe that and aren't just trolling. But if you take the wanton destruction left in the wake of Stalin and Mao (hint: some of the strongest modern nation-wide waves of atheistic popular movements combined with persecuting and murdering untold millions of people), you find an apt counterexample to your generalization. The attribute of religiosity is orthogonal to evil. You find religious people who are some of the most humanitarian and wonderful people on earth, and you find religious people whose consciences allegedly require them to persecute other people. And you find both of the same kinds of people among atheists -- some wonderful and some evil.
"We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear."
Thanks, dude. Being a conservative myself, I suppose one example of that distinction is that I think there should be more guns in the general population, because having the good people in our country be a little dangerous seems like a healthy thing to me. The reaction of liberals whenever I bring that up truly evidences a position of bold, experimental confidence and legislative permissiveness. Can't detect an attitude of fear at all in their response./sarcasm
That and the green eggs and ham thing. Has this guy not read the world's great literature?
Slashdot Mirror
The comparison goes something like this: Pamela Geller criticizes the Islamic religion, and the late Christopher Hitchens criticized pretty much all religions, as an outspoken atheist. Both notably pointed out real, modern abuses and made a case for how those modern abuses grew from the root of old traditions. Neither deserves the attention of an organization like the SPLC, to my knowledge.
There are multiple problems with the SPLC, including that they venture too far into politics and end up sometimes just being mouthpieces for their particular brand of partisan viewpoint. As such, they find themselves policing speech by moderately mainstream voices on the opposite side of the political aisle, and condemning mere political incorrectness as "hate speech". By crying wolf like that repeatedly, they eventually lose credibility with roughly half the country (those not of their obvious political alignment).
An example -- the SPLC calls out Pamela Geller as a proponent of hate. However, I can't see that she's been any more or less a proponent of hate than Christopher Hitchens was. And frankly I don't think that would be a reasonable way to categorize either person, since both of them have probably been beneficial in the net to our society by being willing to be politically incorrect and take on abuses where they saw them (for example Geller with Islamic honor killings, and Hitchens with Catholic sexual abuse).
Ironically, if we lower the bar so much that any criticism of a group constitutes "hate" (so as to include Geller and her ilk), the SPLC itself becomes a hate group, no?
Counterexample -- racially motivated black-on-white violence in inner cities. Clearly, black-on-white racism matters, and perhaps it is you who are trolling.
They're only looking for racism directed against Obama, so they won't find (for example) black against white racism in Philadelphia or Latino against Caucasian racism in California. It is truly regrettable that certain organizations like the SPLC dilute their otherwise honorable mission by turning a blind eye to hate in some of its notable forms.
Romney hasn't supported discrimination and racial/socioeconomic hate, nor has the mainstream Republican party. His 47% comment was dumb, but it wasn't hateful. If all you can point to is the 47% thing, and perhaps a lack of support for gay marriage, I'm just going to yawn.
You weren't specific when you called Republicans hateful, so I'll call your bluff, and do you one better. Contrast Romney's positions with your self-anointed Racial and Socioeconomic Lord and Savior, Barack Obama. In 2008 Obama addressed a predominantly black audience at Hampton University and told a bunch of very hurtful lies that had no other purpose than to stir up racial animosity over a purely fictional supposed grievance. In short, he complained in his speech that the Federal government had bailed out post-911 NYC and post-Hurricane Andrew Florida with aid money that was purely gifted, and didn't require local funds allocated in proportion, but only sent aid money that had those strings attached to post-Katrina New Orleans. Obama said that it was because New Orleans had mostly minority recipients, and that therefore they weren't considered part of the American family. And what was wrong with this speech? The government had in fact sent a bunch of money for Katrina aid with no strings attached, and in fact sent more aid in total for Katrina than for the NYC and Florida disasters put together. And could you maybe defend Obama by saying he didn't know about that? Not a chance. At the time, Obama was a sitting United States Senator, who (get this...) VOTED AGAINST THE AID. Now, to be fair, it was attached to a defense bill that Obama didn't like, and it passed over his objections, yada yada yada... but the fact remains that in his speech to that predominantly black audience, he was instigating racial animosity using a nasty lie.
You can demonize conservatives if you like, but please get a lot more specific like I did above, instead of just spouting insults. Conservatives are human beings, like Obama, and they certainly have flaws. I don't believe your generalization is fair, though, any more than I believe that Obama's hateful behavior at the above conference characterizes his presidency overall -- this was a low point, and I'm happy to say that he's generally done much better than that.
In no reasonable sense of the words does ARM "freely run ... Windows". It's true that Microsoft is releasing Windows on ARM, but there isn't really a way for consumers/hobbyists/individual custom PC builders to install Windows on ARM. Maybe someday the wider hacker community will distribute heavily modified builds of Windows RT that can be run in various very specific ARM environments. But it would be a huge effort and Microsoft would try hard to prevent it.
In many ways, Apple moving to ARM would complete the circle of their locking out PC builders in general by soldering everything fast and discouraging upgrades. Full disclosure: I run a virtual Hackintosh in a PC I built myself, and strongly despise the trend of cookie cutter, disposable computers.
Short answer: yes, it was necessary in the fullest Slashdot tradition, but thus far incomplete until you posted your complaint. Now all is well.
Having the knowledge that I could probably personally hack electronic voting machines if I studied them a while kind of freaks me out.
Today everybody presented ID (first time in my experience this was required), and nobody seemed to have a problem. Very friendly, trust-engendering atmosphere. I love living in a rural area.
Excuse me, but the proper term is "Logomachist".
Thank you; that is very helpful. Please note, however, that you should not have capitalized "logomachist" in your reply.
What are you talking about? Here's its entry in a dictionary from the year 1806. Please don't give the rest of us spelling/grammar Nazis a bad name.
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well? Be careful about piling on with "serves him right" when somebody is fired for what amounts to political incorrectness in the workplace. Without more detail I am skeptical of the accusations that he was "too aggressive" with this stuff or that it was a serious dereliction of his job. In my experience, many atheists are offended even by any public display of personal religious belief and practice, or any religious people engaging in discussion with others about it. They think religious people should be forced to maintain an appearance of secular belief when in public places, which is actually absurd and offensive in its own way.
As a religious person who works professionally with a diverse bunch of colleagues, I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues. And frankly, it's my habit to just smile and get along. I don't think my colleagues should be fired for promoting atheism, gay marriage, abortion, or what have you.
Correct, that's two paid apps. However, most of my app income has come on iOS via "freemium" apps, and if and when I revisit Windows Phone, that's the route I plan to go, now that Microsoft is adding support for in app purchase with WP8.
Personally, I hate ads, so it's no huge grief to me that the returns have dropped off so precipitously in mobile advertising. I feel sorry for the OP, though.
That was really vulgar, but it may have been an accurate judgment of the OP's complaint. I have two WP7 apps that have had payoffs of $690.13 thus far. That's nothing to brag about, but I probably made a better effort at making something that users wanted. And "the top rated app in its category" doesn't mean much. You can define such a category very narrowly.
I do take issue with the monetization comparison with the iPhone. The opportunity is not that much worse such that it explains making only $4. Or to put it another way, it is almost as hard to make serious money on the iPhone as on WP7. App development is just an unforgiving environment in general, littered with the carcasses of hopeful developers with their skeletal fingers still tightly grasping the "top rated app in their category".
next up the movement for rights of rocks - because rocks might have feelings too you know..
I'm an animist you insensitive clod!
Ironically, calling somebody an insensitive clod is offensive and mineralist. Why can't rocks, clods, and earthy lumps of all shapes and colors just get along?
My development machine has 24 GB of RAM, an Intel 8 core 3.4 GHz x64 CPU, and the ability to run multiple applications at once on multiple monitors. One of those applications is a virtual machine where I host running copies of other operating systems. I'm accustomed to waiting maybe 5 or 10 seconds for a compile of my current iOS app to complete, which of course is in my virtual Hackintosh, since I chose an OS other than OS X for my main OS. (Relax, I have an official Mac, I just leave it off a lot of the time.)
So let me get this straight. I can drop down to 1 GB of RAM, and 1 GHz dual core CPU of the ARM architecture, which equates to maybe a 200 MHz x86 or something. I sacrifice freedom of choice of main OS in addition to all my virtualization abilities. I have to stare at one lonely monitor running one lonely app at a time. It will likely take 10 minutes simply to compile small to medium sized apps in Xcode, assuming I have enough memory to compile them.
Maybe someday? That's the best I can say at this point.
But this is Apple. They don't care about developers. They don't care about users. It's their way, or the highway.
OK, I agree that they don't care about developers. Apple treats developers like trash. But Apple does care about users an an aggregate sense, in that their products and marketing are designed to achieve real resonance with hundreds of millions of users and turn them into passionate evangelists. Treating developers badly is actually part of the latter goal. But it is only about money, though. Beyond that, Apple doesn't care about users either.
Indeed. It is interesting that some people on one hand complain about how malware-prone Windows is for non power users, and simultaneously complain whenever Microsoft takes a step to obstruct an attack vector. If you're a power user, you will be able to work around your antivirus's blocking of obvious hacks in your HOSTS file (and yes, it is a hack, even if you're doing it to block facebook for yourself).
That's not really true. She spoke/speaks with a bunch of folksy mannerisms that are annoying after you get over the novelty of them. She was hated by the left, but actually energized some of the right. The more basic problem is that the top of the ticket (McCain) was not as appealing to the country as Senator Obama. But as a politician she is actually both competent and charismatic, which is how she got to be governor of Alaska. It is reasonable to conclude that she won the debate against Joe Biden -- probably most people who watched it would agree with me. She was articulate and on-message, whereas he flailed around and made stuff up (as he always does), including inventing a whole new foreign war from American history that nobody else had heard of. Ahh, Biden... you want to talk about providing unending entertainment...
Maybe you really believe that and aren't just trolling. But if you take the wanton destruction left in the wake of Stalin and Mao (hint: some of the strongest modern nation-wide waves of atheistic popular movements combined with persecuting and murdering untold millions of people), you find an apt counterexample to your generalization. The attribute of religiosity is orthogonal to evil. You find religious people who are some of the most humanitarian and wonderful people on earth, and you find religious people whose consciences allegedly require them to persecute other people. And you find both of the same kinds of people among atheists -- some wonderful and some evil.
I stopped reading as soon as I saw that you challenge my beliefs about the spelling of "actually".
"We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear."
Thanks, dude. Being a conservative myself, I suppose one example of that distinction is that I think there should be more guns in the general population, because having the good people in our country be a little dangerous seems like a healthy thing to me. The reaction of liberals whenever I bring that up truly evidences a position of bold, experimental confidence and legislative permissiveness. Can't detect an attitude of fear at all in their response. /sarcasm
That and the green eggs and ham thing. Has this guy not read the world's great literature?
Did you see the Mac/PC ads?
No, that's not what I mean.
Whoosh!
It's he, however, that looks stupid as a result.
Please don't get grammar partially right. Either say "it's him, however, that..." or "it's he, however, who...". Thank you; carry on.