The acid test will come when the Chinese government demands the identities of suspected dissdents based on their searches. At the risk of losing the entire Chinese market, do you seriously think they'll refuse, or even announce that the demand has been made? Come on. They've done the right thing (so far) when the U.S. government came knocking, but that's because there's a legal process in the U.S. to fight it. In the end, they'll do as each government requires, with no fooling around. Google will help root out dissidents in China better than the government could ever have done on its own.
Google did what they had to do. However they did it reluctantly.
Nevertheless, they were motivated by the same thing that motivates every other corporation, "evil" or not: Greed. They are in China - and playing ball with the government there - because they want a part of that market to maximize future returns for their shareholders.
Regarding censorship - there are ways around the GFC and people benefit from even the censored version of Google compared to nothing at all.
Actually, Google will make it easier for the Chinese government to impose censorship simply by doing the job for them, and probably a better job of it at that. Your statement is the mantra of just about everybody who sells out their principles for money. Evil is as Evil does. There's no way around it, not even if your name is "Google".
For what it's worth... My old 1987 Turbo RX7 - which I still miss dearly - averaged around 23 mpg on the highway, a little better than the 4-cylinder compact pickup truck I'm driving around now. It was retired at about 110K miles after the apex seals blew, and in fact still sits in my garage today, waiting to rise from the ashes...
Despite the more efficient design, the rotary engine just didn't have the engineering history behind it that the gas engine had, so it tended to be somewhat weak, loud, and sluggish.
Weak, loud, and sluggish? I had an RX-7 Turbo in the early 90s, and I can assure you it was the opposite of all of those things.
Do you really understand what a Conservative is? I am pretty sure you don't.
Well, I do know that there are several kinds of Conservatives. There are those who want to set the clock back to the 1950s, before the civil rights movement and the "sexual revolution", while others would prefer pre-1920 (before women's suffrage), pre-1865 (abolition of slavery), or pre-1791 (U.S. Bill of Rights). A faction pining for the good old days prior to the Magna Carta (1215) has been particularly active in the Republican Party lately.
But seriously... The Right has gotten a lot of mileage out of vilifying words (like "liberal") as a substitute for reasoned discourse, and I fully intend to return the favor. You've flown your banner high alongside the likes of our current administration as they've achieved and consolidated their power. Don't expect it to go unsullied by the ruinous consequences.
I think it was Marx (or maybe Lenin) who said that after the revolution, the capitalists would be falling all over each other competing for the contract to supply the rope that would be used to hang them. Or words to that effect.
That's why I don't trust conservatives waving flags: I know they'd be sucking up to their new masters in a heartbeat, while others are still fighting & dying.
Haven't read the book, but the premise sounds solid. People - even many biologists - make the mistake of assuming that evolution works only at the level of the fitness and survival of individuals. For social animals like us, though, survival and reproduction has as much to do with the particular population that we're a part of, including its culture. Culture, much like our genes, is transmitted (with some modification) from each generation to the next. When one population succeeds and another fails in an evolutionary sense, it is probable that what has actually been "selected" is related more to cultural than genetic differences. To the extent that the frequencies of genes (haplotypes) also differ between the two populations, the result will look biologically like the triumph of whatever haplotype was prevalent in the winning population, even if it had nothing whatever to do with the success.
I'm not saying Republicans are bullies and Democrats are victims or anything
I'd also argue just the opposite. Conservatives appeal more than anything to fear: fear of racial and ethnic out-groups, fear of crime, fear of terrorism, fear of things that go bump in the night. They are quick to choose safety in the "safety vs. liberty" debate, even when the tradeoff itself is an illusion. Their prediliction for harsh and preemptive treatment of everyone they percieve as threats masquerades as strength, when in reality it's more like the weakness of a frightened child, crying from under the bed for a parent to protect him from the monsters in the closet.
They say a conservative is a liberal who's been the victim of a crime, and maybe there's some truth to that.
Many people use Linux as a way to rebel against their social inadequacies.
No, we use Linux for the same reason a dog licks his balls: because we can. If we were the submissives, we'd be afraid of learning anything new and just stick to the environment we're accustomed to, regardless of the cost.
I've sometimes "set the story straight" as an Anonymous Coward with insider knowledge and just get ignored, modded down or otherwise "debunked" by some moron...
That could be your problem right there. People posting as ACs inherently take a hit credibility-wise, and this is exactly as it should be.
Generally speaking, though, I've found that while there is no shortage of embarrassingly stupid posts (especially on biology-related topics) that get moderated highly, there also usually is at least a few that "set the record straight" and get modded highly as well. At least when people post for attribution - rather than anonymously - you can check their other posts to get a rough idea of how credible they are.
There are plenty of readers who believe in the campaign for this war yet the staff at Slashdot continues to leave us out and leave the realm of technology and place itself into politics.
There hasn't been any shortage of justifications for the war; it's just that they keep being exposed as lies and deception, and get replaced with new ones. As these are gradually abandoned, eventually the Bush followers will end up with something that sounds reasonable and principled, at least to those among us whose memory doesn't extend back too far.
So feel free to post something when you come up with it, once it's been cleared by Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I'll read it with an open mind, but forgive me if I still ask why all of the lying and subterfuge was necessary if your new theory really is correct.
I think that without Powell, far greater atrocities would have been caused by the Bush regime that we've seen. He helped minimise damage and clearly was not "with" Bush.
No, he merely sold them his prestige and credibility and thereby made it easier for them to do what they wanted. But who knows what goes on behind the curtain.
Why? Isn't it better to remain in a position of influence and still hope to have a moderating effect than to give up that position of influence and have a real puppet installed?
No, because there is no effective difference between a "real" puppet and someone who merely acts like one. Except, of course, that the acting puppet may bring some faux credibility to the game that the real one can't. How is that better?
I'm not sure I'd bet money on it yet, but here's a humble prediction:
Bush will be forced from office before his term is over, but the Dems will have very little to do with it. He'll be brought down by his own party, to which he is increasingly being viewed as a liability. At the head of the charge will be those Repubs that have been stifled under the iron fist of their leadership, and their opening will be the snowballing scandals and legal problems of "this administration". Study Nixon for guidance.
One thing I've noted lately in frequent debates with conservatives (and I'm not saying that you're one) is that they increasingly rely on "statute of limitations" kinds of arguments. E.g., "That's old news", "You're bringing that up again?", "There you go again!", etc. I hardly ever get the challenge of a point being actually refuted. It's always something to the effect that if they've heard the point before, then it's automagically rendered invalid and out of bounds. Yet, many of them still seem steamed about things like the Civil Rights Act and sometimes even the Magna Carta (if you listen to them on executive power) and the Enlightenment. So, it can't be that they don't have a sense of history...
Slashdot Mirror
I, too, look forward to the day when a billion obese Chinese are driving around in SUVs...
The acid test will come when the Chinese government demands the identities of suspected dissdents based on their searches. At the risk of losing the entire Chinese market, do you seriously think they'll refuse, or even announce that the demand has been made? Come on. They've done the right thing (so far) when the U.S. government came knocking, but that's because there's a legal process in the U.S. to fight it. In the end, they'll do as each government requires, with no fooling around. Google will help root out dissidents in China better than the government could ever have done on its own.
If their historical memory is anything like that of Americans, I'd say just about everybody...
Nevertheless, they were motivated by the same thing that motivates every other corporation, "evil" or not: Greed. They are in China - and playing ball with the government there - because they want a part of that market to maximize future returns for their shareholders.
Regarding censorship - there are ways around the GFC and people benefit from even the censored version of Google compared to nothing at all.
Actually, Google will make it easier for the Chinese government to impose censorship simply by doing the job for them, and probably a better job of it at that. Your statement is the mantra of just about everybody who sells out their principles for money. Evil is as Evil does. There's no way around it, not even if your name is "Google".
For what it's worth... My old 1987 Turbo RX7 - which I still miss dearly - averaged around 23 mpg on the highway, a little better than the 4-cylinder compact pickup truck I'm driving around now. It was retired at about 110K miles after the apex seals blew, and in fact still sits in my garage today, waiting to rise from the ashes...
But could you hold the carbon on that?
Weak, loud, and sluggish? I had an RX-7 Turbo in the early 90s, and I can assure you it was the opposite of all of those things.
Or how about those electronic collars that shock a dog by remote control? Your master can zap you whenever you need "correction"...
Well, I do know that there are several kinds of Conservatives. There are those who want to set the clock back to the 1950s, before the civil rights movement and the "sexual revolution", while others would prefer pre-1920 (before women's suffrage), pre-1865 (abolition of slavery), or pre-1791 (U.S. Bill of Rights). A faction pining for the good old days prior to the Magna Carta (1215) has been particularly active in the Republican Party lately.
But seriously... The Right has gotten a lot of mileage out of vilifying words (like "liberal") as a substitute for reasoned discourse, and I fully intend to return the favor. You've flown your banner high alongside the likes of our current administration as they've achieved and consolidated their power. Don't expect it to go unsullied by the ruinous consequences.
That's why I don't trust conservatives waving flags: I know they'd be sucking up to their new masters in a heartbeat, while others are still fighting & dying.
(Oops, I said "Marx". Somebody alert the DHS!)
Haven't read the book, but the premise sounds solid. People - even many biologists - make the mistake of assuming that evolution works only at the level of the fitness and survival of individuals. For social animals like us, though, survival and reproduction has as much to do with the particular population that we're a part of, including its culture. Culture, much like our genes, is transmitted (with some modification) from each generation to the next. When one population succeeds and another fails in an evolutionary sense, it is probable that what has actually been "selected" is related more to cultural than genetic differences. To the extent that the frequencies of genes (haplotypes) also differ between the two populations, the result will look biologically like the triumph of whatever haplotype was prevalent in the winning population, even if it had nothing whatever to do with the success.
It's well known that abused children often grow up to be abusers themselves... Same thing going on here?
Nevertheless, many of us do it on a regular basis...
I'd also argue just the opposite. Conservatives appeal more than anything to fear: fear of racial and ethnic out-groups, fear of crime, fear of terrorism, fear of things that go bump in the night. They are quick to choose safety in the "safety vs. liberty" debate, even when the tradeoff itself is an illusion. Their prediliction for harsh and preemptive treatment of everyone they percieve as threats masquerades as strength, when in reality it's more like the weakness of a frightened child, crying from under the bed for a parent to protect him from the monsters in the closet.
They say a conservative is a liberal who's been the victim of a crime, and maybe there's some truth to that.
No, we use Linux for the same reason a dog licks his balls: because we can. If we were the submissives, we'd be afraid of learning anything new and just stick to the environment we're accustomed to, regardless of the cost.
That could be your problem right there. People posting as ACs inherently take a hit credibility-wise, and this is exactly as it should be.
Generally speaking, though, I've found that while there is no shortage of embarrassingly stupid posts (especially on biology-related topics) that get moderated highly, there also usually is at least a few that "set the record straight" and get modded highly as well. At least when people post for attribution - rather than anonymously - you can check their other posts to get a rough idea of how credible they are.
Funny, yes; true, absolutely.
Yes.
That was a damn good answer. Thanks.
Yet more pro-Iraq war people disagree.
What MrLogic really means to say is: "Move along, go about your business, this doesn't concern you, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
There hasn't been any shortage of justifications for the war; it's just that they keep being exposed as lies and deception, and get replaced with new ones. As these are gradually abandoned, eventually the Bush followers will end up with something that sounds reasonable and principled, at least to those among us whose memory doesn't extend back too far.
So feel free to post something when you come up with it, once it's been cleared by Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I'll read it with an open mind, but forgive me if I still ask why all of the lying and subterfuge was necessary if your new theory really is correct.
No, he merely sold them his prestige and credibility and thereby made it easier for them to do what they wanted. But who knows what goes on behind the curtain.
No, because there is no effective difference between a "real" puppet and someone who merely acts like one. Except, of course, that the acting puppet may bring some faux credibility to the game that the real one can't. How is that better?
Bush will be forced from office before his term is over, but the Dems will have very little to do with it. He'll be brought down by his own party, to which he is increasingly being viewed as a liability. At the head of the charge will be those Repubs that have been stifled under the iron fist of their leadership, and their opening will be the snowballing scandals and legal problems of "this administration". Study Nixon for guidance.
One thing I've noted lately in frequent debates with conservatives (and I'm not saying that you're one) is that they increasingly rely on "statute of limitations" kinds of arguments. E.g., "That's old news", "You're bringing that up again?", "There you go again!", etc. I hardly ever get the challenge of a point being actually refuted. It's always something to the effect that if they've heard the point before, then it's automagically rendered invalid and out of bounds. Yet, many of them still seem steamed about things like the Civil Rights Act and sometimes even the Magna Carta (if you listen to them on executive power) and the Enlightenment. So, it can't be that they don't have a sense of history...