"Now tell me is it mere 'political correctness' which prevents us from using the word Jew in this way, or is it that we have become a more enlightened species?"
if you were truly enlightened, would it even affect you if someone called someone else a jew? why do, in issues of (presumed) discrimination/racism, people invariably assume the worst in other people? maybe because we *all* are prejudiced?
methinks a better way to increase the peace is to stop assuming and projecting our own prejudice onto others. works a heck of a lot better than pointing the finger and saying "you are bad because you are prejudiced". this while, in fact, you are saying: "you are bad because you just said something i associate with being prejudiced", revealing your own prejudice in the process. hypocrisy invokes conflict. understanding and acceptation creates peace.
"It's not that hard to change the little things like that."
it's also very easy to not attribute meaning to something that isn't meant to insult or discriminate.
"I find it interesting that so many people get upset that i pointed it out."
you are projecting. how do you know they are upset?
one reason people might react is because they don't like being told how to speak. "live and let live" - might make things a lot easier for everybody.
many people who get worked up about these issues forget that in 99% of the cases people don't mean anything by what they write. it is the responsibility of the reader to take something seriously or not. when in doubt, *ask* for the intention of the writer:-) this way you are always sure and you don't need to read into someone's responses, jump to conclusions, and upset the other in the process:-) it's "the principle of not fighting". very useful.
when i think of the way in which google handles human interaction, i am not sure they chose the right (most appropriate) approach. their datamodel (as far as i can deduce from the limited information available) doesn't even come close to how humans think and remember stuff, let alone allow for a consciousness comparable to humans. i applaud them for sticking with their philosophy, and this will make them lots bigger than they are already. i just think they are not user-centric enough. my bet would be on ideas along the lines of "the semantic web". much more fluid and associative, like real memories.
out there, in some basement, a new brilliant idea is developing... google will be suprised by something they didn't see coming... and the saga will continue with yet another big player. it's the doom of any huge company (or any big entity that tries to impose rules on their userbase like say, a government).
i did like cringely's writeup, though. quite imaginative for a change.
Re:Slackers, timid kids and smart kids.
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 0, Troll
well, there are several kinds of slashdot trolls:
(1) - the really stupid one, who doesn't bother trying to obfuscate anything (2) - the timid one who is afraid to make it a bit more obvious (3) - the smart kid who is unchallenged by a stupid site like slashdot
pick the category you like. one hint: you most certainly don't belonmg to the third category.
"Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/"
congratulations with your observations on the existence of a Deity (that supernatural origin of species). you're obviously more lucky than this mortal sinner is.
a theory is a theory. observations are verifyable, theories are means by which the observations are translated into a working model. in my opinion, a working model that plausibly explains the origin of species is formed by darwins' ideas (and the countless number of evolutionary biologists after him). a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right.
anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not...
then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour: >> - science *is* by definition incapable of >> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. >> there is no such thing. > Your statement isn't true, then.
"SandStorm simultaneously collects, correlates, and analyzes data on multiple computer systems and departs, leaving no trace of its activities."
replace SandStorm with Google. or Yahoo. Or MSN.
datamining activities are not evil per se. the outcomes are far from flawless, though (depending on how the mining software was trained). i'm hoping that there's plenty of competent people in the Dept. of Homeland Security who understand that datamining might give them leads, but hardly provides conclusive evidence.
in the end, the ethical considerations are the same. it's just that the data interpretation becomes more sophisticated, which makes these technologies more "scary" in the eyes of many.
i will not argue against ID. it's crap, although you may believe anything you like. it's impossible to argue against a belief, because belief infers and absolute Truth, which is something i refuse to believe in *grin*
you write: "In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth."
let's split this up in two, shall we? - where did you get the idea that science claims or disclaims the possibility of any sort of supernatural phenomenon? science is about making sense of (verifiable) *observations*. most scientists i know (and i know quite a few:-) ) cannot tell if there's a God or not, most certainly not scientifically.
- science *is* by definition incapable of discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. there is no such thing.
"Maybe we could comprise any make every 1000th cigarete cause instantenous death?"
fascist ideas, these. and: if meant as a joke, this isn't even remotely funny.
even if i disliked smoking as much as you do, i'd never wish people to die becuase of their bad habit. please, allow yourself to be a tad bit more nuanced. believe me, people will like you a lot better.
Next year when they say "you are using all Google-applications on your Windows anyway. Why don't you just download our GoogleOS preloaded with those applications (and more) and save money instead of paying to Microsoft", more people will say "sure, why not."
since MS is the biggest target and competitor, of course they rush to make their applications work on windows/browser machines. the smaller niches will probably follow (mac, linux, whatever), especially when hey gain market share.
in the end, the web is the OS. i don't think that there will be a GGL (google - gnu - linux) anytime soon. why would they do this?
it's not the standards' fault that no client program in the world knows how to properly render (x)html/css to different output devices. but i digress. this was offtopic from the beginning on, i just replied in kneejerk fashion;-)
i think this argument is posed a little bit too black and white.
aren't we the ones who always speak of freedom of choice being such a wonderful thing? ideally, a good default look and a large degree of customisation in the preferences section would make slashdot something that can be pleasing to *every* eye. already now you can switch off just about anything except for the ads.
SOA (in Dutch) has the same meaning as the English abbreviation STD (sexually transmitted disease). kinda funny to read this in an article on software;-)
Slashdot Mirror
my point exactly
"Now tell me is it mere 'political correctness' which prevents us from using the word Jew in this way, or is it that we have become a more enlightened species?"
if you were truly enlightened, would it even affect you if someone called someone else a jew? why do, in issues of (presumed) discrimination/racism, people invariably assume the worst in other people? maybe because we *all* are prejudiced?
methinks a better way to increase the peace is to stop assuming and projecting our own prejudice onto others. works a heck of a lot better than pointing the finger and saying "you are bad because you are prejudiced". this while, in fact, you are saying: "you are bad because you just said something i associate with being prejudiced", revealing your own prejudice in the process. hypocrisy invokes conflict. understanding and acceptation creates peace.
"It's not that hard to change the little things like that."
:-) this way you are always sure and you don't need to read into someone's responses, jump to conclusions, and upset the other in the process :-) it's "the principle of not fighting". very useful.
it's also very easy to not attribute meaning to something that isn't meant to insult or discriminate.
"I find it interesting that so many people get upset that i pointed it out."
you are projecting. how do you know they are upset?
one reason people might react is because they don't like being told how to speak. "live and let live" - might make things a lot easier for everybody.
many people who get worked up about these issues forget that in 99% of the cases people don't mean anything by what they write. it is the responsibility of the reader to take something seriously or not. when in doubt, *ask* for the intention of the writer
when i think of the way in which google handles human interaction, i am not sure they chose the right (most appropriate) approach. their datamodel (as far as i can deduce from the limited information available) doesn't even come close to how humans think and remember stuff, let alone allow for a consciousness comparable to humans. i applaud them for sticking with their philosophy, and this will make them lots bigger than they are already. i just think they are not user-centric enough. my bet would be on ideas along the lines of "the semantic web". much more fluid and associative, like real memories.
out there, in some basement, a new brilliant idea is developing... google will be suprised by something they didn't see coming... and the saga will continue with yet another big player. it's the doom of any huge company (or any big entity that tries to impose rules on their userbase like say, a government).
i did like cringely's writeup, though. quite imaginative for a change.
well, there are several kinds of slashdot trolls:
(1) - the really stupid one, who doesn't bother trying to obfuscate anything
(2) - the timid one who is afraid to make it a bit more obvious
(3) - the smart kid who is unchallenged by a stupid site like slashdot
pick the category you like. one hint: you most certainly don't belonmg to the third category.
"Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/"
congratulations with your observations on the existence of a Deity (that supernatural origin of species). you're obviously more lucky than this mortal sinner is.
a theory is a theory. observations are verifyable, theories are means by which the observations are translated into a working model. in my opinion, a working model that plausibly explains the origin of species is formed by darwins' ideas (and the countless number of evolutionary biologists after him). a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right.
;-)
anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not...
then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour:
>> - science *is* by definition incapable of
>> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct.
>> there is no such thing.
> Your statement isn't true, then.
ah, you got the point! mission accomplished
my sincere apologies for not being a tad bit more transparent in my attempts to humour.
"SandStorm simultaneously collects, correlates, and analyzes data on multiple computer systems and departs, leaving no trace of its activities."
replace SandStorm with Google. or Yahoo. Or MSN.
datamining activities are not evil per se. the outcomes are far from flawless, though (depending on how the mining software was trained). i'm hoping that there's plenty of competent people in the Dept. of Homeland Security who understand that datamining might give them leads, but hardly provides conclusive evidence.
in the end, the ethical considerations are the same. it's just that the data interpretation becomes more sophisticated, which makes these technologies more "scary" in the eyes of many.
i will not argue against ID. it's crap, although you may believe anything you like. it's impossible to argue against a belief, because belief infers and absolute Truth, which is something i refuse to believe in *grin*
:-) ) cannot tell if there's a God or not, most certainly not scientifically.
you write: "In other words, science must either disclaim entirely the possibility of the supernatural (atheism), or admit that science may be (by definition) incapable of discovering the truth."
let's split this up in two, shall we?
- where did you get the idea that science claims or disclaims the possibility of any sort of supernatural phenomenon? science is about making sense of (verifiable) *observations*. most scientists i know (and i know quite a few
- science *is* by definition incapable of discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct. there is no such thing.
maybe you should learn to be a tad bit more critical.
"Oops, your bias is showing. You've assumed evolution to be true."
that's your assumption. still, you would come across much more credible than this if you would actually pose an *argument*
two strikes in one:
- get rid of the pirates
- collect the fish that float around after the attack - free dinner!
a very smart concept, indeed
in other news, smoking is said to enhance your sense of humour ;-)
"Maybe we could comprise any make every 1000th cigarete cause instantenous death?"
fascist ideas, these. and: if meant as a joke, this isn't even remotely funny.
even if i disliked smoking as much as you do, i'd never wish people to die becuase of their bad habit. please, allow yourself to be a tad bit more nuanced. believe me, people will like you a lot better.
agreed 110%
Next year when they say "you are using all Google-applications on your Windows anyway. Why don't you just download our GoogleOS preloaded with those applications (and more) and save money instead of paying to Microsoft", more people will say "sure, why not."
since MS is the biggest target and competitor, of course they rush to make their applications work on windows/browser machines. the smaller niches will probably follow (mac, linux, whatever), especially when hey gain market share.
in the end, the web is the OS. i don't think that there will be a GGL (google - gnu - linux) anytime soon. why would they do this?
me likey the way you refuse to use paragraphs. it's the perfect method to disguise the insightful things you say in your post.
within the main discussion topic, your point is completely valid and i agree 100%.
3 817908) starting the thread to which i replied was actually about html as a replacement for text.
;-)
the original post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165648&cid=1
it's not the standards' fault that no client program in the world knows how to properly render (x)html/css to different output devices. but i digress. this was offtopic from the beginning on, i just replied in kneejerk fashion
regarding point (2), it is possible to define pages and sizes and such in CSS level 2
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/page.html
freedom of choice also implies that i can type in lowercase at will, AC :-)
i think this argument is posed a little bit too black and white.
aren't we the ones who always speak of freedom of choice being such a wonderful thing? ideally, a good default look and a large degree of customisation in the preferences section would make slashdot something that can be pleasing to *every* eye. already now you can switch off just about anything except for the ads.
SOA (in Dutch) has the same meaning as the English abbreviation STD (sexually transmitted disease). kinda funny to read this in an article on software ;-)
AAARGH!
look around you man. there's people starving while you watch your fucken plasma TV. also in the precious US of A. first world my ass...
this is not about being left wing or right wing. this is about being a human being.
sls - slackware is based on it. slackware is the oldest *maintained* distro, though.