The article identified by the first link in your defamatory signature presents a scenario in which, contradicting a number of ivory-tower academic theories, the natural choices of ordinary people actually maximizes their return. In what way do you suggest this impugns libertarianism, which holds that the preferences of ordinary people should be respected as far as possible, and that they should not be prohibited from making whatever personal choices they wish?
What does "contains radiation" mean? If something is radioactive, it doesn't contain the radiation, by definition. It releases it.
Besides, the article really only suggests that the areas surrounding coal plants receive more radioactivity than the areas surrounding nuclear plants, which is not surprising since nuclear plants contain their waste instead of spewing it into the environment. I think nuclear power needs a lot more investment and is superior to coal burning but let's not be sensationalistic.
Really, those are very common terrestrial types. Based on secrets revealed to me by aliens, I theorize it is the only remaining cosmological Lund's Opto-Ontological Paradox Hole.
Uh, what difference does that make? Look, the objection to this is based on the content, not the race of the author.
What about the other quote from the article?
"Today is a sad day for National Socialists all over the world. Today in 1946, the Eternal Jew managed to swindle the Allied Nations into hanging 10 of our comrades at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial,"
From a different blog, to be sure, but I'll bet this guy is just as concerned with defending the purity of the racial blood.
Okay. I am white but I'm really not what you probably think of as a liberal. (socialist, postmodernist, etc.) I don't hate you or myself for being white or male. It doesn't automatically make you a patriarchal oppressor!
So with that out of the way, let's say a white person - let's even say a white American man had said that. Please identify these hostile alien elements that are conspiring to destroy your culture.
I'll give you Christian and Islamic fundamentalists and a handful of similar groups. Many members of those groups, by their own admission, do want to destroy post-Enlightenment western culture, much the same way whites invading pre-colonial Australia and America wanted to destroy the existing culture, although the fundies are highly unlikely to have the same degree of success. You've got Reconstructionists, al Qaeda etc. No sane person will call you a racist for pointing out that these freaks hate modernity. Otherwise, you got nothing.
And do keep in mind that pointing to the personal activities of people of another culture, race, sexual orientation... or pointing to people who are being polite to, you know, people of another culture (hello, war on christmas?) as a threat to your self-identity will mark you as a bigot.
Yes, and there's a good reason for that. I don't know enough about Australia to know whether the aborigines are actually oppressed but they certainly have been in the past. If it had been written by one of them, then those hostile alien elements would objectively exist. Their culture, traditions, etc. have actually been under explicit attack through no fault of their own.
However, when privileged whites write this sort of thing, "defending our heritage" nearly always means BEING the hostile alien elements destroying another group and what that group holds dear. Nobody's trying to destroy white culture, or at least no one with any credibility. Some people see the mere existence of others as a threat to themselves, and it isn't the aborigines. If it were, it would properly be seen as racism.
(And if this is actually a Muslim talking about Jews, or vice versa... yeah, I think that's pretty much universally regarded as racist.)
In other words, foods that, for at least 50 years, have mostly been grown at high cost on a small scale continue to be grown the exact same way? This loss of diversity is real but it comes from the results of the Green Revolution, not genetic engineering.
This in particular reeks of a company creating something principally to safeguard its profits without there being any actual value added to the farmer.
I think this fear is entirely rational: Monsanto is KNOWN to do that sort of thing. There are many other potential problems associated with genetic engineered crops such as increased monoculture cultivation or the damage that massive Roundup spraying on Roundup-Ready plants does to the soil. However, this is unfortunately not the reason most people who oppose GE foods hold their opinions, and the New-Age "frankenfood" superstition that drives most opposition (at least in West Coast cities) seriously reduces the perceived credibility of the other arguments by association.
Would you still oppose GE food if IP laws were altered so that Monsanto couldn't, at least, sue farmers for permitting unauthorized RR plants to grow on their property?
Come on, it's not that hard. Read through the whole article! You might find acknowledgements such as "Presumably for environmental reasons, New York City has one of the highest childhood-asthma rates in the country, with an especially alarming concentration in East Harlem." The author also points out that there is a conflict between adding green spaces and keeping the efficiency of the high urban density. I don't know what you mean by "live like refugees" but if you mean they need to live in what Phoenix residents would consider cramped quarters, that is the whole point of the article. Jeez, I've only read a third of this. You obviously didn't get that far.
As for your second point, there is the perennial proposal to ban non-commercial autos entirely from Manhattan. I have never been there, but if the sub-10MPH speeds I've heard of are actually typical for Manhattan streets, something like pedecabs would probably be faster (just because they're smaller). That probably solves your asthma problem as well, along with at least half the noise problem *and* opens up parking garages for a more productive use.
The 5MB PDF in question was created with QuarkXPress 5.0 and Adobe Distiller for the Macintosh. There must be vastly more information in there than just that page; maybe someone with a full copy of Acrobat could have a look.
By the way, $ pdf2ps captainkissmyass.pdf - | ps2pdf - test.pdf $ ls -l test.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 joel joel 176924 2006-06-02 21:20 test.pdf
I suspect he's referring to the Chinese rocket attack on the Ganden Monastery in Tibet. Considering the attack occurred c. 1950 I don't think it's likely that anyone currently in government was in any way involved. However I wouldn't put such a thing past them.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what "inner city" means in the U.S. and, I guess, maybe London and Paris, but what does it mean in India?
Germany became a country in 1990.
You must be new around here.
I don't know whether the Mongols had acquired any business method patents, but if so, I expect the Federal government could find a use for those, too.
The article identified by the first link in your defamatory signature presents a scenario in which, contradicting a number of ivory-tower academic theories, the natural choices of ordinary people actually maximizes their return. In what way do you suggest this impugns libertarianism, which holds that the preferences of ordinary people should be respected as far as possible, and that they should not be prohibited from making whatever personal choices they wish?
What does "contains radiation" mean? If something is radioactive, it doesn't contain the radiation, by definition. It releases it.
Besides, the article really only suggests that the areas surrounding coal plants receive more radioactivity than the areas surrounding nuclear plants, which is not surprising since nuclear plants contain their waste instead of spewing it into the environment. I think nuclear power needs a lot more investment and is superior to coal burning but let's not be sensationalistic.
Not a hell of a lot: http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocation.php?lat=-22.050000&lon=125.010833
At least he got Australia right.
Really, those are very common terrestrial types. Based on secrets revealed to me by aliens, I theorize it is the only remaining cosmological Lund's Opto-Ontological Paradox Hole.
Considerably smaller than if it were made with gears and pulleys. What's your point?
Astonishing as it may be at this point, this is perhaps in the running for the dumbest thing ever said on slashdot...
Is there a *better* way to start a cult than to abuse and threaten your members? They'll love you!
Uh, what difference does that make? Look, the objection to this is based on the content, not the race of the author.
What about the other quote from the article?
"Today is a sad day for National Socialists all over the world. Today in 1946, the Eternal Jew managed to swindle the Allied Nations into hanging 10 of our comrades at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial,"
From a different blog, to be sure, but I'll bet this guy is just as concerned with defending the purity of the racial blood.
Oh, and -- there's no such thing as "what we, as a race, hold dear" for any race. Obviously.
Okay. I am white but I'm really not what you probably think of as a liberal. (socialist, postmodernist, etc.) I don't hate you or myself for being white or male. It doesn't automatically make you a patriarchal oppressor!
So with that out of the way, let's say a white person - let's even say a white American man had said that. Please identify these hostile alien elements that are conspiring to destroy your culture.
I'll give you Christian and Islamic fundamentalists and a handful of similar groups. Many members of those groups, by their own admission, do want to destroy post-Enlightenment western culture, much the same way whites invading pre-colonial Australia and America wanted to destroy the existing culture, although the fundies are highly unlikely to have the same degree of success. You've got Reconstructionists, al Qaeda etc. No sane person will call you a racist for pointing out that these freaks hate modernity. Otherwise, you got nothing.
And do keep in mind that pointing to the personal activities of people of another culture, race, sexual orientation... or pointing to people who are being polite to, you know, people of another culture (hello, war on christmas?) as a threat to your self-identity will mark you as a bigot.
Yes, and there's a good reason for that. I don't know enough about Australia to know whether the aborigines are actually oppressed but they certainly have been in the past. If it had been written by one of them, then those hostile alien elements would objectively exist. Their culture, traditions, etc. have actually been under explicit attack through no fault of their own.
... yeah, I think that's pretty much universally regarded as racist.)
However, when privileged whites write this sort of thing, "defending our heritage" nearly always means BEING the hostile alien elements destroying another group and what that group holds dear. Nobody's trying to destroy white culture, or at least no one with any credibility. Some people see the mere existence of others as a threat to themselves, and it isn't the aborigines. If it were, it would properly be seen as racism.
(And if this is actually a Muslim talking about Jews, or vice versa
In other words, foods that, for at least 50 years, have mostly been grown at high cost on a small scale continue to be grown the exact same way? This loss of diversity is real but it comes from the results of the Green Revolution, not genetic engineering.
This in particular reeks of a company creating something principally to safeguard its profits without there being any actual value added to the farmer.
Why would anyone buy it, then?
I think this fear is entirely rational: Monsanto is KNOWN to do that sort of thing. There are many other potential problems associated with genetic engineered crops such as increased monoculture cultivation or the damage that massive Roundup spraying on Roundup-Ready plants does to the soil. However, this is unfortunately not the reason most people who oppose GE foods hold their opinions, and the New-Age "frankenfood" superstition that drives most opposition (at least in West Coast cities) seriously reduces the perceived credibility of the other arguments by association.
Would you still oppose GE food if IP laws were altered so that Monsanto couldn't, at least, sue farmers for permitting unauthorized RR plants to grow on their property?
Come on, it's not that hard. Read through the whole article! You might find acknowledgements such as "Presumably for environmental reasons, New York City has one of the highest childhood-asthma rates in the country, with an especially alarming concentration in East Harlem." The author also points out that there is a conflict between adding green spaces and keeping the efficiency of the high urban density. I don't know what you mean by "live like refugees" but if you mean they need to live in what Phoenix residents would consider cramped quarters, that is the whole point of the article. Jeez, I've only read a third of this. You obviously didn't get that far.
As for your second point, there is the perennial proposal to ban non-commercial autos entirely from Manhattan. I have never been there, but if the sub-10MPH speeds I've heard of are actually typical for Manhattan streets, something like pedecabs would probably be faster (just because they're smaller). That probably solves your asthma problem as well, along with at least half the noise problem *and* opens up parking garages for a more productive use.
Dammit! I've been out-obscured.
I think anything you do that increases the local entropy (in terms of conversion of useful things to kipple) could be considered Kippling.
The 5MB PDF in question was created with QuarkXPress 5.0 and Adobe Distiller for the Macintosh. There must be vastly more information in there than just that page; maybe someone with a full copy of Acrobat could have a look.
By the way,
$ pdf2ps captainkissmyass.pdf - | ps2pdf - test.pdf
$ ls -l test.pdf
-rw-r--r-- 1 joel joel 176924 2006-06-02 21:20 test.pdf
I have an extra bag of troll feed here, in case you're running out...
Well, fortunately the iron mask you're about to be locked into is a very effective defense against birdshot.
Great! So, now all we need is news that the UK is surveilling all of your network traffic and US citizens can enjoy the same benefits!
I suspect he's referring to the Chinese rocket attack on the Ganden Monastery in Tibet. Considering the attack occurred c. 1950 I don't think it's likely that anyone currently in government was in any way involved. However I wouldn't put such a thing past them.