Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.
Why should they? He brings federal money into the state, and into their pockets. Are you suggesting that they should put the greater good of their fellow man over their own self interest? From the viewpoint of modern American culture, do you realize how completely alien that concept is?.George Carlin has the right take on this: our politicians really do accurately represent the public, and Garbage In = Garbage Out.
If you think that Bush and his cronies invented the term WMD, perhaps you should look up the history of the term. Of course it's obviously been used by them to scare up images of nuclear weapons even when it doesn't only mean that, but they were far from the first to use it to describe biological or chemical weapons.
I didn't mean to imply that the Bush administration created the term *WMD*. They don't invent these words and phrases, they just determine which ones will be useful to control the language of the debate. However, that term was not widely used before Gulf War 2, and now it's a common part of the foreign policy vernacular used by the news media. Which, like I said earlier, put's a 25-year old artillery shell into the same category as a nuclear-tipped ICBM. But then, no one can beat the Republicans for controlling the language of the political debate these days (ie. "The Death Tax", "Pro-Life", etc.), with a happily complient news media to help out. It pretty much makes real political discourse difficult if not impossible. Which is probably why we don't actually have any.
Did I ever say that they did? The OP (and others I've run into) used the fact that X% of Americans believe we found WMDs as evidence of American stupidity. All I'm saying is that, technically, we DID find WMDs, so it's not a stupid thing to say in a poll. Just because you belive we found them doesn't mean you think we found enough to justify war, or that you think we found enough to be a danger, or anything else. Just that, technically, we did find them, so if that's as far as the poll goes, it doesn't tell you anything about the stupidity of respondents or their political leanings or feelings about the war.
That's why the term *WMD* was created by the marketing geniuses of Gulf War 2, so that they could put a 25-year old artillery shell filled with mustard gas in the same threat categorie as a nuke. It allowed them to scare the common folk with visions of mushroom clouds, and then claim "see, we found WMDs !" when they dig up an old relic from the 1980's Iran vs. Iraq war. You can play semantical games all you want, but I know a great shining lie when I see one.
This survey would have yielded almost exactly the same results if taken during the Clinton years, which seems to be the preferred Slashdot benchmark for awesomeness.
I bet the acceptace of evolution WAS a little bit higher during the Clinton years, and a little bit higher still during Bush I, and a little bit higher still during Reagan, and a little bit higher still during Carter. The US has been slowly turning away from science and toward religious fundamentalism since the Moral Majority and Christian evangelicals began their great push-back from the cultural changes of the 1960's and 70's. I agree that Bush II is not the primary cause, but he's definitely another agent of this movement.
Also, anybody who says we can avoid the need of nuclear power by just riding bikes, using a more efficient furnace, and holding hands while singing "Kum Ba Ya" is simply not looking at the real numbers of what our future power needs are, even after you account for a radical scaling back of elective consumption.
OK, but why sneer at methods of conservation? Some argue that nuclear power isn't enough. You argue that conservation isn't enough. Maybe we should be doing as many things as possible. What other choice is there?
This whole "it's only a few thousand rioting" business doesn't hold much water. Hamas, ie. a bunch of terrorists, have just been voted in democratically in Palestine. Ahmadinejad was voted in democratically in Iran. Extremist Islamic view represent popular opinion across the Middle East and are not solely the beliefs of a minority.
That's primarily nationalism, not religion. Unfortunately, the two are frequently intertwined, with disasterous results, ie. Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc. And there's always a demogogue or two ready to exploit it for political gain.
"Left" and "right" are not absolute terms, but relative. Also, you can be either "left" or "right" on one issue, but be on the other side of the aisle on others. When it comes to the war, Murtha is definitely on the left side of the aisle now, even if he wasn't before.
As for "leftist" being like a "communist", that's always been the case: the communist party has always been in the far left, politically. If anything, they're the definition of "leftist". Whether being called a "communist" is a perjorative or not is in the eyes of the beholder. I consider it to be, but VI Lenin would probably disagree if he were still around.
Good job linking opposition to the war with being a communist. I don't think the decision on when and where to go to war is an ideological one. And there are probably some conservatives who are against the war, although some will keep quiet out of loyalty to The Party.
Then on the left we have people like Murtha and Kennedy screaming that we should leave, RIGHT NOW GODDAMNIT!!! That's just insane, we can't leave the Iraqis in a worse position than we found them. That would be like walking away from a car stuck underwater with a woman trapped inside. I mean, what kind of man does that?
If you knew anything about congressman Murtha you would know he is (or was) considered fairly conservative - which is why his speaking out had such impact. Of course, I expect him to be branded a 'leftist' now, especially since that's equivalent to being called a communist these days.
Also, to make your analogy more appropriate, remember that the woman trapped in the car has a gun and wants to kill you.
The issue is whether lumping together donations directly from Abramoff, and anyone you can call a 'client' is fair. 'Client' includes Indian tribes that have been making donations since before he was even around. I don't think it is fair, especially to the Indian tribes. It is, however, politically useful.
Choose wisely, America! With all of the insanity that's been sweeping this country since 9-11, wha't s going to happen when (not if) a *real* Weapon of Mass Destruction is set off in the U.S.? As much as I sympathise for the tragic loss of life that would occur, I fear for the direction this country will take when that happens.
The Dreamcast failed because it was starved of third party support, in particular EA (who's sports titles are huge sellers) and Square/Enix. Launching first was the only chance Sega had, and the odds were already long at that point.
The iPod is a very well designed device that brought a lot of innovation in ease of use to the portable digital music player market. I use a Palm OS device daily, but it can be a clunky device, especially for the non-geek. Pocket PCs have their fans, but it's just another Microsoft OS, IMO. I have no doubt that if Steve Jobs and Apple set their minds to it, they could release a PDA-like device that would blow people away. Slashdot posters who sneer at Palms and Pocket PCs would then rhapsodize about how they just couldn't live without thier 'iPDA' (I'm sure they could come up with a better name for it). Of course, the iPod may just mutate into that kind of device anyway.
... that there are a LOT of people like Jack Thompson in powerful positions right now, and more coming. There's a cultural war* going on in the U.S. right now, and these are just the opening salvos. I hope all of you free speach advocates are preparing your bunkers.
*Yes, I'm using the new, improved version of "war," which bears little relation to its original meaning. For example, the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs", ie., a war on a tactic and a war on a substance.
They get their research funded by hewing to the party line.
OK - so I guess we can cast into doubt ANY science with that argument. Of course, science and reason are falling out of fashion these days anyway, so no big loss, right?
Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations.
I understand the economic motivations of scientists working for oil companies and related industries. What are the economic motivations of scientists who think global warming is at least a partial result of human activity? (Other than, of course, the economic benefits of human survival.)
However, if you want more proof, just look around/. a bit. You'll find pretty much anything that smacks of conservative philosophy is modded down as "troll," "flamebait," or anything else that hurts someone's mod points. On the other hand, comments like "Bush is stupid," "Bush is Hitler," or similar is frequently modded up as "Insightful." Since many left-of-center people are the ones screaming so loudly that dissent is a patriotic virtue, I find it quite funny to see what lengths they'll go to to silence (or at least mod down) those with opposing viewpoints. The virtue of Diversity, I guess, does not apply to political viewpoints.
Indeed, this very thread you're responding to has been modded down as "flamebait" simply because I pointed out that there is very little "news for nerds" in the story content. It reads more like "Microsoft is bad, Bush is bad, therefore Harriet Miers is bad." Sorry, I don't find anything insightful, interesting, funny, or informative about the story. But I suppose that if you think Bill Gates is Satan and George Bush is Hitler then making such a deduction is entertaining to those who "think" similarly.
Funny, but lots of posts in this thread have an "Insightful" rating of 4 or 5 that make the same point you're making in your second paragraph, a point which I happen to agree with. And support or opposition to the war in Iraq is not an ideological issue, nor is support for Bush. You call me "left of center" because I riduculed the claim of war supporters that their goal is to bring democracy to Iraq. Yet, do you know my positions on economic issues? Gun control? Abortion? Gay Marriage? The Kyoto Treaty? No, you don't. And yet, my statement about Iraq is enough for you to pigeon-hole me as "left of center." As a result, you sound like another whiney neo-con who can't take criticism of Bush who, I might add, is actually pissing off quite a few conservatives as of late, in case you hadn't noticed. Please separate ideology from party politics, and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
I know/. readership is overwhelming left-of-center...
"Overwhelming"? Do you have some evidence to support this, or do things you disagree with just stand out a lot more to you? Many so-called conservatives just can't stand dissent - and I'm supposed to believe that they actually want Democracy in Iraq! (I say *so-called* conservatives because many actual conservatives are reasonable people. Too bad their numbers seem to be shrinking.).
IMO, the readership of Slashdot is fairly diverse politically, with Libertarians probably representing the largest group. But that's just a guess.
A few years ago, when Palm had a more dominant market share, the company was hemorrhaging money. Now, they're making a profit - in fact, they've had several profitable quarters in a row. So what was Palm's big mistake again?
Slashdot Mirror
Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.
Why should they? He brings federal money into the state, and into their pockets. Are you suggesting that they should put the greater good of their fellow man over their own self interest? From the viewpoint of modern American culture, do you realize how completely alien that concept is?.George Carlin has the right take on this: our politicians really do accurately represent the public, and Garbage In = Garbage Out.
If you think that Bush and his cronies invented the term WMD, perhaps you should look up the history of the term. Of course it's obviously been used by them to scare up images of nuclear weapons even when it doesn't only mean that, but they were far from the first to use it to describe biological or chemical weapons.
I didn't mean to imply that the Bush administration created the term *WMD*. They don't invent these words and phrases, they just determine which ones will be useful to control the language of the debate. However, that term was not widely used before Gulf War 2, and now it's a common part of the foreign policy vernacular used by the news media. Which, like I said earlier, put's a 25-year old artillery shell into the same category as a nuclear-tipped ICBM. But then, no one can beat the Republicans for controlling the language of the political debate these days (ie. "The Death Tax", "Pro-Life", etc.), with a happily complient news media to help out. It pretty much makes real political discourse difficult if not impossible. Which is probably why we don't actually have any.
Did I ever say that they did? The OP (and others I've run into) used the fact that X% of Americans believe we found WMDs as evidence of American stupidity. All I'm saying is that, technically, we DID find WMDs, so it's not a stupid thing to say in a poll. Just because you belive we found them doesn't mean you think we found enough to justify war, or that you think we found enough to be a danger, or anything else. Just that, technically, we did find them, so if that's as far as the poll goes, it doesn't tell you anything about the stupidity of respondents or their political leanings or feelings about the war.
That's why the term *WMD* was created by the marketing geniuses of Gulf War 2, so that they could put a 25-year old artillery shell filled with mustard gas in the same threat categorie as a nuke. It allowed them to scare the common folk with visions of mushroom clouds, and then claim "see, we found WMDs !" when they dig up an old relic from the 1980's Iran vs. Iraq war. You can play semantical games all you want, but I know a great shining lie when I see one.
This survey would have yielded almost exactly the same results if taken during the Clinton years, which seems to be the preferred Slashdot benchmark for awesomeness.
I bet the acceptace of evolution WAS a little bit higher during the Clinton years, and a little bit higher still during Bush I, and a little bit higher still during Reagan, and a little bit higher still during Carter. The US has been slowly turning away from science and toward religious fundamentalism since the Moral Majority and Christian evangelicals began their great push-back from the cultural changes of the 1960's and 70's. I agree that Bush II is not the primary cause, but he's definitely another agent of this movement.
At $50 - $70 a game, people think twice, 3, 10 times before they buy ... at $20, they'll buy one a week.
Many new DS games are $35, so I doubt that Nintendo would sell a console game for less than a portable one.
... a game about a jumping plumber. Those Nintendo folks are just marketing idiots, and I love 'em for it.
... need not apply!
Also, anybody who says we can avoid the need of nuclear power by just riding bikes, using a more efficient furnace, and holding hands while singing "Kum Ba Ya" is simply not looking at the real numbers of what our future power needs are, even after you account for a radical scaling back of elective consumption.
OK, but why sneer at methods of conservation? Some argue that nuclear power isn't enough. You argue that conservation isn't enough. Maybe we should be doing as many things as possible. What other choice is there?
This whole "it's only a few thousand rioting" business doesn't hold much water. Hamas, ie. a bunch of terrorists, have just been voted in democratically in Palestine. Ahmadinejad was voted in democratically in Iran. Extremist Islamic view represent popular opinion across the Middle East and are not solely the beliefs of a minority.
That's primarily nationalism, not religion. Unfortunately, the two are frequently intertwined, with disasterous results, ie. Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc. And there's always a demogogue or two ready to exploit it for political gain.
"Left" and "right" are not absolute terms, but relative. Also, you can be either "left" or "right" on one issue, but be on the other side of the aisle on others. When it comes to the war, Murtha is definitely on the left side of the aisle now, even if he wasn't before.
As for "leftist" being like a "communist", that's always been the case: the communist party has always been in the far left, politically. If anything, they're the definition of "leftist". Whether being called a "communist" is a perjorative or not is in the eyes of the beholder. I consider it to be, but VI Lenin would probably disagree if he were still around.
Good job linking opposition to the war with being a communist. I don't think the decision on when and where to go to war is an ideological one. And there are probably some conservatives who are against the war, although some will keep quiet out of loyalty to The Party.
Then on the left we have people like Murtha and Kennedy screaming that we should leave, RIGHT NOW GODDAMNIT!!! That's just insane, we can't leave the Iraqis in a worse position than we found them. That would be like walking away from a car stuck underwater with a woman trapped inside. I mean, what kind of man does that?
If you knew anything about congressman Murtha you would know he is (or was) considered fairly conservative - which is why his speaking out had such impact. Of course, I expect him to be branded a 'leftist' now, especially since that's equivalent to being called a communist these days.
Also, to make your analogy more appropriate, remember that the woman trapped in the car has a gun and wants to kill you.
I've enjoyed the DS quite a bit. However, I do wish it had a hardware analog stick. The thumbstrap lacks a key feature: tactile feedback.
The issue is whether lumping together donations directly from Abramoff, and anyone you can call a 'client' is fair. 'Client' includes Indian tribes that have been making donations since before he was even around. I don't think it is fair, especially to the Indian tribes. It is, however, politically useful.
Choose wisely, America! With all of the insanity that's been sweeping this country since 9-11, wha't s going to happen when (not if) a *real* Weapon of Mass Destruction is set off in the U.S.? As much as I sympathise for the tragic loss of life that would occur, I fear for the direction this country will take when that happens.
The Dreamcast failed because it was starved of third party support, in particular EA (who's sports titles are huge sellers) and Square/Enix. Launching first was the only chance Sega had, and the odds were already long at that point.
Hah! This is like choosing between the Nazis, North Korea and the Orcs. I'm going with the Orcs.
The iPod is a very well designed device that brought a lot of innovation in ease of use to the portable digital music player market. I use a Palm OS device daily, but it can be a clunky device, especially for the non-geek. Pocket PCs have their fans, but it's just another Microsoft OS, IMO. I have no doubt that if Steve Jobs and Apple set their minds to it, they could release a PDA-like device that would blow people away. Slashdot posters who sneer at Palms and Pocket PCs would then rhapsodize about how they just couldn't live without thier 'iPDA' (I'm sure they could come up with a better name for it). Of course, the iPod may just mutate into that kind of device anyway.
... that there are a LOT of people like Jack Thompson in powerful positions right now, and more coming. There's a cultural war* going on in the U.S. right now, and these are just the opening salvos. I hope all of you free speach advocates are preparing your bunkers.
*Yes, I'm using the new, improved version of "war," which bears little relation to its original meaning. For example, the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs", ie., a war on a tactic and a war on a substance.
... because I have a feeling that 2006 is going to whomp your ass!
They get their research funded by hewing to the party line.
OK - so I guess we can cast into doubt ANY science with that argument. Of course, science and reason are falling out of fashion these days anyway, so no big loss, right?
Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations.
I understand the economic motivations of scientists working for oil companies and related industries. What are the economic motivations of scientists who think global warming is at least a partial result of human activity? (Other than, of course, the economic benefits of human survival.)
However, if you want more proof, just look around /. a bit. You'll find pretty much anything that smacks of conservative philosophy is modded down as "troll," "flamebait," or anything else that hurts someone's mod points. On the other hand, comments like "Bush is stupid," "Bush is Hitler," or similar is frequently modded up as "Insightful." Since many left-of-center people are the ones screaming so loudly that dissent is a patriotic virtue, I find it quite funny to see what lengths they'll go to to silence (or at least mod down) those with opposing viewpoints. The virtue of Diversity, I guess, does not apply to political viewpoints.
Indeed, this very thread you're responding to has been modded down as "flamebait" simply because I pointed out that there is very little "news for nerds" in the story content. It reads more like "Microsoft is bad, Bush is bad, therefore Harriet Miers is bad." Sorry, I don't find anything insightful, interesting, funny, or informative about the story. But I suppose that if you think Bill Gates is Satan and George Bush is Hitler then making such a deduction is entertaining to those who "think" similarly.
Funny, but lots of posts in this thread have an "Insightful" rating of 4 or 5 that make the same point you're making in your second paragraph, a point which I happen to agree with. And support or opposition to the war in Iraq is not an ideological issue, nor is support for Bush. You call me "left of center" because I riduculed the claim of war supporters that their goal is to bring democracy to Iraq. Yet, do you know my positions on economic issues? Gun control? Abortion? Gay Marriage? The Kyoto Treaty? No, you don't. And yet, my statement about Iraq is enough for you to pigeon-hole me as "left of center." As a result, you sound like another whiney neo-con who can't take criticism of Bush who, I might add, is actually pissing off quite a few conservatives as of late, in case you hadn't noticed. Please separate ideology from party politics, and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
Thanks for playing!
I know /. readership is overwhelming left-of-center...
"Overwhelming"? Do you have some evidence to support this, or do things you disagree with just stand out a lot more to you? Many so-called conservatives just can't stand dissent - and I'm supposed to believe that they actually want Democracy in Iraq! (I say *so-called* conservatives because many actual conservatives are reasonable people. Too bad their numbers seem to be shrinking.).
IMO, the readership of Slashdot is fairly diverse politically, with Libertarians probably representing the largest group. But that's just a guess.
A few years ago, when Palm had a more dominant market share, the company was hemorrhaging money. Now, they're making a profit - in fact, they've had several profitable quarters in a row. So what was Palm's big mistake again?
... is offended by that comparison.