Are you seriously saying that you thought attaching an advert to someones testimonial is funny? You sir, are a sick fuck.
Regardless of the dubious morality of the AC that signed his post as "^moa", I feel I must mention that in this "modern" world, nothing is sacred. The propaganda (aka "advertising") industry is in a period of unprecendented growth, and wishes to force itself into all aspects of life. To this effect, they are evermore looking into possible spaces in which to stick their propaganda. Bathroom stalls. Elevators. School classrooms.
They have even went to the extreme of using computer technology to replace the content of billboards in live TV news coverage to ads for the sponsors of the show. Scary, huh?
If the dead are ripe for propaganda purposes, the advertising industry will crawl their way into the dead. It's all a matter of timing.
NATO moved to protect ethnic Albanians in Kosova from slobo milosivich's plans for genocide.
Nobody has ever shown any proof of any such plans of "genocide". The bombing was argued for based on ridiculous claims that were clearly false all along (Albright-- 100,000 dead Kosovars). The agreement reached is the same that could have been reached at Rambouillet. The group NATO put in power in Kosovo, the KLA, was known as a terrorist organization with an ethnic cleanisng agenda all along, and has indeed committed an ethnic cleansing of Kosova (which the Serbs never did).
America has been decicedly anti-castro for decades now (up until clinton recently decided to start sucking up to him).
First of all, you mean the US. America is a continent, not a nation.
Second, Castro's crime simply was aiming for Cuba not to bend over to US interests over those of its people. Yes, he's oppressed many, is a dictator and such, but to decontextualize the US role in this to make it look like the good guys is horrible. The US houses and supports terrorist groups that hava attacked Cuba for decades. And Cuba was not a wonderful place before Castro.
We certianly haven't been "appeasing" saddam hussain these last ten or so years.
Here the US is responsible for the death of over half a million children.
I see what you're saying! Technology won't help grow more food,
There is no need to grow more food than what is already grown. The world produces enough to feed everybody well with current technologies.
Also, the countries where malnutrition is the most prevalent have food surpluses.
technology won't allow people contribute money to the cause,
Money doesn't solve problems.
technology won't fly the food across an ocean,
Why would you want a people to depend on food flown in by strangers across an ocean? You want people to produce their own food crops.
technology won't improve distribution channels in a country
Repeat: you want countries to grow their own subsistence crops. A big cause of hunger worldwide is having a privileged few control the land, who grow cash crops in order to export to the 1st world. You can do a lot of things in your immediate environment to counteract this. For example, eat what is produced locally. Diminish or eliminate your consumption of beef-- the amount of grain and water used to produce one pound of meat is huge. Even better, become a vegetarian. Together we can make the international meat industry collapse, and free up huge amounts of grain for the starving.
I mean, the odds are just insurmountable, and how would it help us if we discovered that there's another sea route for the vital Indian spice trade that's too far for us to go, or for them to come?
I think the differences between this and SETI are very easily quantifiable. This doesn't even deserve an answer.
And insisting in funding Columbus is inhuman. I mean, enough of the people in *our* country are starving; yet all these self-described explorers would rather find out if there's an alternate sea route than see if there's still life in Seville.
But here the analogy is spot-on. The Spanish crown should have cared more about feeding the famished Sevillans; instead of that, they genocided people like the Taínos.
Yes, you have been. You are looking at the surface effect, rather than examining the cause.
I'm sick of your strawman arguments. You assume I don't understand the causes behind people going hungry, when there is no evidence whatsoever in any of my posts that I don't.
Food "insecure"? What does that mean?
Ask the US Department of Agriculture, buddy. Wait, don't tell me you're talking about something you don't know about?
You've said that geeks should be doing something other than SETI. Since you apparently have the answer of what people should do, and it doesn't require anyone giving up any food or money, I would be most interested in hearing it.
Where did I claim I had an answer?
How does the fact that I argue that SETI is a waste of time necessarily imply that I know the exact details of what everybody should be doing?
Where did I go into specifics at all about what should be done, as opposed to what is certainly a waste of time and people?
You've already posted some, er, theory that saving energy will feed third world people.
The birth of another strawman argument. The comment that you try to pass off as a "theory", so as to be able to attack me (due to your lack of justifications), is obviously hyperbolic. Any reasonable person can see that.
Of course, the necessary conclusion from the last is that you are not a reasonable persons.
Eating is a fundamental human right. The opportunity to earn food for oneself is a fundamental human right. One man demanding another man to supply him with food is not.
What when your only viable means of obtaining the food you need to survive one more day is asking somebody else who has more than she needs to unconditionally give you some?
Maybe the whole point of finding intelligent life in the rest of the Universe lies precisely in the hope it would bring humanity. It would be quite a boost for us as a race, I suppose.
Go tell that to a child who is starving. She might have very different ideas of what would be a "boost for the human race".
Of course, I agree with feeding the starving, helping the homeless, and such, but there must be a way to balance both issues
Please note that we have also established a limit on the maximum number of donations that you pay for on any one day unless we receive your permission otherwise. This limit is 150% of the largest day in the last 30 days as listed on our Donation Totals page. For instance, if the largest dayin the last 30 days was 300,000 donations, then the most that you pay for is 450,000 donations. This is to protect you in case there is an unexpectedly large number of donations on the day that you are sponsoring. (This has never happened, as our growth has always been fairly gradual, but we want you to have peace of mind.)
This is their solution: no matter what happens, the maximum amount donated each day is fixed. Period.
Maybe you've heard that the initial stages of life might have formed somewhere off Earth?
Ah, yeah, the loon theory of the origin of life on Earth, which no biologists believe. It was proposed by a phycicist (sp?) who also happens to be a magician, and no biologist believes it.
"Give me a fish, I eat for a day. Teach me to fish, I eat for a lifetime." Think about it.
Try teaching to fish to somebody who is dead.
You need to feed them first. *Then* you can worry about making them self-sufficient.
Who are you to say that people should not be able to do what they want with their own money?
Bah, Randian drivel. You need to get off that religion/industry. People are *not* able to do what they want with their own money-- there are laws, you know. And a world where they could would have to allow slavery and many other things no reasonable ethics can tolerate. (Of course, Randian "Objectivism" is *not* a reasonable ethics.)
In fact the usual way I react to people like you who whine about how I spend my own money is to INCREASE my donation to SETI.
How immature, with your "hostage" game. "Stop pointing out the truth about SETI, or I'll make sure less money goes to feed the starving".
Discovering ET life will be the biggest thing in history and I want to say I was a part of it.
Yeah, because you are an egotistical Randian who doesn't care about others. Don't be surprised when others don't think highly of your "mighty acheivements".
What will you be able to say? that you lined some rich arab beurocrat's pocket's with gold?
As I told somebody else: Point out where the fuck I claimed sending money was the solution to hunger.
You really have a small mind if you think "taking action to solve social problems" mean "sending money".
Third world people do not starve because of a lack of food
Really?!?! God, I've been soooo confused all these years!!!
they starve because a) their government is corrupt, and/or b) they do not have sufficient capitalism.
Why is it, then, that a sizable portion of the US population is food-insecure?
Dumping food and dumping money has been tried over and over and guess what? It doesn't work, because it doesn't get to the people who need it, and what does get there, doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
And where the fuck did I advocate "dumping food and money"? Point out the exact fucking words. And for bonus points, can you find the messages in this thread where I explicitly say that it is *people* who solve problems, and not money, contradicting your argument against me?
You need to learn to *read what's in fucking front of you*, dammit. And stop assuming others are stupid and you know what they think, and that they are how you think they are.
Then why are you wasting resources posting to Slashdot when you could be feeding the homeless?
Because today is not my turn at the soup kitchen, so I take it to voice my opinions, in the hope that somebody be inspired to join those of us who are working for a better future for our children.
You assume that this person who made the card doesn't also help the malnourished.
how does the design, manufacture, and subsequent sale of the card help the malnourished? I'm not thinking of the card-maker-in-extension, but the one in-intension. (Read Frege if you don't get this.)
You assume that SETI results won't somehow help the starving.
Quite a reasonable assumption, isn't it? How will SETI help feed the starving?
Should we all quit our jobs and stop having social lives so that we can dedicate every waking hour to feed starving people?
you can go to The Hunger Site and still use SETI for your unused cycles. A great solution, non?
The "Hunger Site" is the most disgusting piece of crap ever. It is the commodification of conscience, and as such, absolutely untenable. It is people that solve problems, not money, not technology, not clicking on banners.
Yes, but this is beside the point. I was addressing the fact that the SETI craze is symptomatic of deep problems within our modern industrial societies. The fact is that there is something ugly, something evil about our so called "civilizations", which results in people having their priorities completely fucked. Like dedicating resources to building dedicated SETI cards, while others, not only in faraway lands, but in their own city, are malnourished.
So you call me a troll. Since this is/., what it means is that you disagree with me, yet have no counterarguments. Could you at least tell us what is is precisely that you disagree on, even though you can't defend your position?
You're one of those politically correct bleeding heart people aren't you?
WTF? So you don't believe that eating is a fundamental human right?
complaining about feeding the hungry, etc., etc... it just smells like political correctness.
So you would rather have them starve?
If believing people have a right to live is PC, then I'm PC.
If you feel so strongly about it, how about giving up internet access and donating the few dollars that you gain to charity? Sheesh...
So you end up having a voice in the net, but not people like me, who believe others have the right to eat? No, thanks, I think we need more voices to counteract you...
Anyway, me giving up net access is not nearly enough. The money I could send will not really change lives, despite what corporate propaganda like WorldVision TV commercials tell you. People solve problems, not money, not technology. Human problems require human solutions.
Duh. Dedicate your unused clock cycles to just that-- it saves energy, which is generated from limited resources.
The most ironic ever thing would be if personkind were to extinguish its energy sources and die because of a stupid, needless search for life in other solar systems, wouldn't it?
I mean, the odds are just insurmountable, and how would it help us if we discovered that there's life somewhere in the universe that's too far for us to go, or for them to come?
And insisting in doing SETI is inhuman. I mean, enough of the people in *our* planet are starving; yet all these self-described geeks would rather find out if there's life in another planet than see if there's still life in Somalia.
It shows that they don't have any *real* concern for life, in this planet or other-- just playing with their tech toys.
I feel happy for them, but only because we live in a world were some worship bombs and bullets.
I know guys that worship cars.
and we know what they say about those people... you know, inverse proportions...
But the fact of the matter is that nobody, nowhere, under any circumstances have been able to produce an operating system that worked under so many different architectures and situations.
and this is for a very particular reason: Capitalism cripples technological development. Having many companies compete to death in the tech market makes technology suffer, and leaves us stuck with crap systems like Unix, Windows, DOS and MacOS. Good, newer systems can't take off because those who push technology stand to lose from it.
And sure, lots of people are making new OSes, and showing them off as "better than Unix", but I'll bet if you took the cover off, you would still see Unix like methods and alogrithms.
You obviously worship your little puny OS too much to evaluate it objectively. Those "Unix like methods and algorithms" came from MULTICS.
And anyway, take a look at the Lisp machines; they are nothing like Unix.
Maybe you should ask Steve Jobs. He just based the entire future of his company on Unix.
No he didn't.
People who worship Unix keep thinking that NEXTSTEP is Unix, when it just isn't; the correct thing to say is that it *has* Unix. The kernel is Mach, the windowing system in OpenStep; BSD is just a subsystem, available for convenience in interoperatin with the obsolete world. And the way OpenStep organizes its resources into bundles is very un-Unix.
I haven't stumbled across any webservers written in LISP...
If your main means of locomotion is "stumbling", you won't get far in this world... CL-HTTP is just one HTTP server in Lisp. And finding that took all of 30 seconds in Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of the dubious morality of the AC that signed his post as "^moa", I feel I must mention that in this "modern" world, nothing is sacred. The propaganda (aka "advertising") industry is in a period of unprecendented growth, and wishes to force itself into all aspects of life. To this effect, they are evermore looking into possible spaces in which to stick their propaganda. Bathroom stalls. Elevators. School classrooms.
They have even went to the extreme of using computer technology to replace the content of billboards in live TV news coverage to ads for the sponsors of the show. Scary, huh?
If the dead are ripe for propaganda purposes, the advertising industry will crawl their way into the dead. It's all a matter of timing.
Ben, voilà qui qu'on a icitte!
Don't feel bad, I've been through this, too.
Mais toé, t'as une si mauvaise attitude, donc; quand ça m'passe a moé, j'trouve que c'est ben l'fun, ça.
Have fun trolling the losers who sued Yahoo!
'Gardez ça! Moé, j'savais pas que toé, Nic, t'étais un anti-semite! C'est terrible! T'as-tu voté pour Le Pen?
My guess: testing delivery of biological weapons from orbit.
Nobody has ever shown any proof of any such plans of "genocide". The bombing was argued for based on ridiculous claims that were clearly false all along (Albright-- 100,000 dead Kosovars). The agreement reached is the same that could have been reached at Rambouillet. The group NATO put in power in Kosovo, the KLA, was known as a terrorist organization with an ethnic cleanisng agenda all along, and has indeed committed an ethnic cleansing of Kosova (which the Serbs never did).
America has been decicedly anti-castro for decades now (up until clinton recently decided to start sucking up to him).
First of all, you mean the US. America is a continent, not a nation.
Second, Castro's crime simply was aiming for Cuba not to bend over to US interests over those of its people. Yes, he's oppressed many, is a dictator and such, but to decontextualize the US role in this to make it look like the good guys is horrible. The US houses and supports terrorist groups that hava attacked Cuba for decades. And Cuba was not a wonderful place before Castro.
We certianly haven't been "appeasing" saddam hussain these last ten or so years.
Here the US is responsible for the death of over half a million children.
There is no need to grow more food than what is already grown. The world produces enough to feed everybody well with current technologies.
Also, the countries where malnutrition is the most prevalent have food surpluses.
technology won't allow people contribute money to the cause,
Money doesn't solve problems.
technology won't fly the food across an ocean,
Why would you want a people to depend on food flown in by strangers across an ocean? You want people to produce their own food crops.
technology won't improve distribution channels in a country
Repeat: you want countries to grow their own subsistence crops. A big cause of hunger worldwide is having a privileged few control the land, who grow cash crops in order to export to the 1st world. You can do a lot of things in your immediate environment to counteract this. For example, eat what is produced locally. Diminish or eliminate your consumption of beef-- the amount of grain and water used to produce one pound of meat is huge. Even better, become a vegetarian. Together we can make the international meat industry collapse, and free up huge amounts of grain for the starving.
And, check out this article.
Have you ever heard of the concept modifier scope ambiguity? For every day, there is a fixed maximum amount of money the sponsors may donate that day.
I think the differences between this and SETI are very easily quantifiable. This doesn't even deserve an answer.
And insisting in funding Columbus is inhuman. I mean, enough of the people in *our* country are starving; yet all these self-described explorers would rather find out if there's an alternate sea route than see if there's still life in Seville.
But here the analogy is spot-on. The Spanish crown should have cared more about feeding the famished Sevillans; instead of that, they genocided people like the Taínos.
I'm sick of your strawman arguments. You assume I don't understand the causes behind people going hungry, when there is no evidence whatsoever in any of my posts that I don't.
Food "insecure"? What does that mean?
Ask the US Department of Agriculture, buddy. Wait, don't tell me you're talking about something you don't know about?
You've said that geeks should be doing something other than SETI. Since you apparently have the answer of what people should do, and it doesn't require anyone giving up any food or money, I would be most interested in hearing it.
Where did I claim I had an answer?
How does the fact that I argue that SETI is a waste of time necessarily imply that I know the exact details of what everybody should be doing?
Where did I go into specifics at all about what should be done, as opposed to what is certainly a waste of time and people?
You've already posted some, er, theory that saving energy will feed third world people.
The birth of another strawman argument. The comment that you try to pass off as a "theory", so as to be able to attack me (due to your lack of justifications), is obviously hyperbolic. Any reasonable person can see that.
Of course, the necessary conclusion from the last is that you are not a reasonable persons.
What when your only viable means of obtaining the food you need to survive one more day is asking somebody else who has more than she needs to unconditionally give you some?
Go tell that to a child who is starving. She might have very different ideas of what would be a "boost for the human race".
Of course, I agree with feeding the starving, helping the homeless, and such, but there must be a way to balance both issues
Of course. SETI is completely tertiary.
This is their solution: no matter what happens, the maximum amount donated each day is fixed. Period.
Ah, yeah, the loon theory of the origin of life on Earth, which no biologists believe. It was proposed by a phycicist (sp?) who also happens to be a magician, and no biologist believes it.
"Give me a fish, I eat for a day. Teach me to fish, I eat for a lifetime." Think about it.
Try teaching to fish to somebody who is dead.
You need to feed them first. *Then* you can worry about making them self-sufficient.
Bah, Randian drivel. You need to get off that religion/industry. People are *not* able to do what they want with their own money-- there are laws, you know. And a world where they could would have to allow slavery and many other things no reasonable ethics can tolerate. (Of course, Randian "Objectivism" is *not* a reasonable ethics.)
In fact the usual way I react to people like you who whine about how I spend my own money is to INCREASE my donation to SETI.
How immature, with your "hostage" game. "Stop pointing out the truth about SETI, or I'll make sure less money goes to feed the starving".
Discovering ET life will be the biggest thing in history and I want to say I was a part of it.
Yeah, because you are an egotistical Randian who doesn't care about others. Don't be surprised when others don't think highly of your "mighty acheivements".
What will you be able to say? that you lined some rich arab beurocrat's pocket's with gold?
As I told somebody else: Point out where the fuck I claimed sending money was the solution to hunger.
You really have a small mind if you think "taking action to solve social problems" mean "sending money".
The first definition of "country" in Webster is "an indefinite usu. extended expanse of land, REGION".
Really?!?! God, I've been soooo confused all these years!!!
they starve because a) their government is corrupt, and/or b) they do not have sufficient capitalism.
Why is it, then, that a sizable portion of the US population is food-insecure?
Dumping food and dumping money has been tried over and over and guess what? It doesn't work, because it doesn't get to the people who need it, and what does get there, doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
And where the fuck did I advocate "dumping food and money"? Point out the exact fucking words. And for bonus points, can you find the messages in this thread where I explicitly say that it is *people* who solve problems, and not money, contradicting your argument against me?
You need to learn to *read what's in fucking front of you*, dammit. And stop assuming others are stupid and you know what they think, and that they are how you think they are.
[more I-know-it-all, I-know-what-you're-thinking, you're-naïve drivel deleted]
Quit your strawman arguments.
Because today is not my turn at the soup kitchen, so I take it to voice my opinions, in the hope that somebody be inspired to join those of us who are working for a better future for our children.
You assume that this person who made the card doesn't also help the malnourished.
how does the design, manufacture, and subsequent sale of the card help the malnourished? I'm not thinking of the card-maker-in-extension, but the one in-intension. (Read Frege if you don't get this.)
You assume that SETI results won't somehow help the starving.
Quite a reasonable assumption, isn't it? How will SETI help feed the starving?
Should we all quit our jobs and stop having social lives so that we can dedicate every waking hour to feed starving people?
No. Where did you get that idea? not from me.
I mean, it's a great country and all, but it's not the topic, isn't it?
The "Hunger Site" is the most disgusting piece of crap ever. It is the commodification of conscience, and as such, absolutely untenable. It is people that solve problems, not money, not technology, not clicking on banners.
Yes, but this is beside the point. I was addressing the fact that the SETI craze is symptomatic of deep problems within our modern industrial societies. The fact is that there is something ugly, something evil about our so called "civilizations", which results in people having their priorities completely fucked. Like dedicating resources to building dedicated SETI cards, while others, not only in faraway lands, but in their own city, are malnourished.
So you call me a troll. Since this is /., what it means is that you disagree with me, yet have no counterarguments. Could you at least tell us what is is precisely that you disagree on, even though you can't defend your position?
WTF? So you don't believe that eating is a fundamental human right?
complaining about feeding the hungry, etc., etc... it just smells like political correctness.
So you would rather have them starve?
If believing people have a right to live is PC, then I'm PC.
If you feel so strongly about it, how about giving up internet access and donating the few dollars that you gain to charity? Sheesh...
So you end up having a voice in the net, but not people like me, who believe others have the right to eat? No, thanks, I think we need more voices to counteract you...
Anyway, me giving up net access is not nearly enough. The money I could send will not really change lives, despite what corporate propaganda like WorldVision TV commercials tell you. People solve problems, not money, not technology. Human problems require human solutions.
The most ironic ever thing would be if personkind were to extinguish its energy sources and die because of a stupid, needless search for life in other solar systems, wouldn't it?
And insisting in doing SETI is inhuman. I mean, enough of the people in *our* planet are starving; yet all these self-described geeks would rather find out if there's life in another planet than see if there's still life in Somalia.
It shows that they don't have any *real* concern for life, in this planet or other-- just playing with their tech toys.
I feel happy for them, but only because we live in a world were some worship bombs and bullets.
I know guys that worship cars.
and we know what they say about those people... you know, inverse proportions...
But the fact of the matter is that nobody, nowhere, under any circumstances have been able to produce an operating system that worked under so many different architectures and situations.
and this is for a very particular reason: Capitalism cripples technological development. Having many companies compete to death in the tech market makes technology suffer, and leaves us stuck with crap systems like Unix, Windows, DOS and MacOS. Good, newer systems can't take off because those who push technology stand to lose from it.
And sure, lots of people are making new OSes, and showing them off as "better than Unix", but I'll bet if you took the cover off, you would still see Unix like methods and alogrithms.
You obviously worship your little puny OS too much to evaluate it objectively. Those "Unix like methods and algorithms" came from MULTICS.
And anyway, take a look at the Lisp machines; they are nothing like Unix.
Maybe you should ask Steve Jobs. He just based the entire future of his company on Unix.
No he didn't.
People who worship Unix keep thinking that NEXTSTEP is Unix, when it just isn't; the correct thing to say is that it *has* Unix. The kernel is Mach, the windowing system in OpenStep; BSD is just a subsystem, available for convenience in interoperatin with the obsolete world. And the way OpenStep organizes its resources into bundles is very un-Unix.
If your main means of locomotion is "stumbling", you won't get far in this world... CL-HTTP is just one HTTP server in Lisp. And finding that took all of 30 seconds in Google.