I'll be honest - I haven't read the Oz books, nor have I checked out McGee's site to read what he has planned about the movie. But it would seem - just from the presence of the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wicked Witch of the East (if I'm remembering correctly) that there is room for some 'dark' or 'evil' in Oz, even if it gets banished eventually. I don't know the Oz lore to say how or where the witches came from (other than "Wicked," which I have a feeling does not fit with Baum's intent...although maybe I'm wrong and he would have loved it; again, I'm no Oz expert). But perhaps an examination of Oz under the rule of one or both of the Wicked Witches would give enough fodder for a 'dark OZ' which still stays true to the origonal.
It'll still probably suck ass, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the idea of "the darker side of Oz" is entirely impossible.
I honestly don't know enough concerning the status of weapons of mass destruction, or the legal definition of the term, to pretend to be knowledgable on the subject. So I won't even touch that issue. You sound like you have your facts straight, whereas I know I don't. So while I may disagree with the conclusions drawn from what we've found in Iraq - that is, I still don't think we should have invaded in the first place - I'm willing to concede to your information until I hear from elsewhere.
However, you say the beating to death of several prisoners "never happened." I am in the process of reading the official DoD report on the prisoner torture in Abu Ghraib. It's available (warning PDF format) online here. On page 13 (15 of the PDF) the independent panel wrote in their findings, "There were five cases of detainee deaths as a result of abuse by U.S. personnel during interrogations." I would imagine they weren't hugged to death. Now the report (what I've read of it) doesn't state specifically how they died. But it does state the deaths were the result of abuse by U.S. personnel. In a prison setting, in the hands of trained U.S. troops (although the report also gets into the poor quality of their training) to "interrogate" a prisoner to death is simply unacceptable.
In addition, Maj. Gen. Fay's investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses (and here I quote from this book which contains the DoD independant report that I linked to above as well as Maj. Gen. Fay's preliminary investigations - I'm sorry I don't have the time to find it online, but I imagine it's available) found soldiers had been "slapping and kicking" detainees, "'poking' at an injured detainees leg," and forcing a detainee to stand in such a way "as to dislocate his sholder." In addition to at least five deaths, I'd say that gives good ground to state that there was torture, even under the definition of "the unlawful infliction of bodily harm."
Soldiers also placed detainees in "simulated sexual positions with other detainiees" and were forced to be naked in a way was meant to "degrade or humiliate." While this may not be torture it was, according to Maj. Gen. Fay, "prohibited by Geneva Convention IV" note that the Iraqi soldiers DID qualify for Geneva Convention protection, but it's not even important because it also violated "Army policy."
Maj. Gen. Fay goes through, in detail, the reported abuses including "sexual assault," "physical abuse," a situation where an interpreter "allegedly raped a 15 to 18-year-old male detainie," and more. Fifty in-depth descriptions of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. And much of it has photographic or even FILM evidence.
When you can find picture after picture after picture after picture of prisoners being abused - both through bodily harm and mental abuse - and of soldiers acting in a manner that one soldier (according to the DoD panel's report) called the "lust for the fun of it," how can you possibly state beatings and abuse "never happened?"
(I'm going to pause for a minute. Rereading your post I discovered you did not, in fact, claim that NO beatings or abuse took place. Rather, you denied a few specific abuses. It turns out you were wrong about that, but it may not be fair for me to say that you said abuses "never happened." I am going to modify my statement to say that you implied abuses never happened. Your acusation of the "anti-war movement of just plain making shit up" (interesting from someone who is so wrong concerning pri
My goal was to satisfy my own "what-if" question. From reading Slashdot, I don't think I was the only reader who was curious about having a nation-wide proportional assignment of electoral votes and, while this was not an exhaustive look at doing that, it at least answered my first question of who would have won had their been a straight proportional assignment of electoral votes. But again, as you said, it *does* have the disadvantages of the popular vote AND the electoral college.
I just wanted to see what would happen...I'm sorry you didn't find the results interesting.
I hate to reply to my own post, but I realize I was not specific in hoping to find video downloads of the speeches. Thank you for the info on audio but (and I realize it was my own fault for not mentioning it) I'd love to be able to watch some of the speeches again.
I have a related question (although I'm afraid I'm too late to get noticed in the shuffle of posts). Is there any place to download political speeches? I believe the sites of both conventions (and often candidates themselves) offer *streaming* versions of speeches, but I'd really like to be able to download and have some of the DNC and RNC speeches. I've Googled, bitTorrented, and Kazaaed, but with no luck.
That is a pyramid scheme. At some point, people will run out of new people to sign up, and thus not get their iPod. It's not quite a 'scam' (they're telling the truth) but, like all pyramid schemes, in the end those at the very bottom will get screwed.
Have you actually played KumaWar? I have. The problem is not the content. I think a episodic current-events game is a very interesting idea, and one with lots of posibilities. The problem is KumaWar is a sub-par game with dated graphics and absolutely piss-poor AI. The most extreme advertising in the world wouldn't make this game fun to play.
Extreme advertising - I think - is as much a sign that the product is lacking as it is that the viewers are jaded. Good games don't need advertising, and all the advertising in the world can't save bad games.
I think (looking at the House voting record) you have it backwards. 4 Dems _against_ the amendment and 194 _for_. The amendment, remember, was to cut parts of the PA that would allow library/bookstore records to be searched.
Someone elsewhere pointed out that the origonal version of the PATRIOT Act has a sunset clause and expires. Bush has said (State of the Union address) that the PATRIOT Act is an important tool for fighting terrorism. Even if Kerry/Edwards is not an amazing, earth-shattering choice, they belong to the party that is working to limit the PA, and the party that had people applauding during Bush's State of the Union address when he said the PATRIOT Act was going to expire.
No highly modded post has mentioned this yet, so I'll do it. From the article: "Best Buy executive vice president Philip Schoonover said the idea of "firing" some customers is one place where Best Buy disagrees with Selden. The company will try to find ways to make money-losing customers profitable, he said."
In other words, the article summary (as so many/. summaries are) is wrong. The Best Buy VP specifically said "firing" customers is wrong. I'm not saying I like Best Buy or their rebate policies, or pushy sales reps, or questionable return policies, but they (apparently) are NOT looking at "firing" customers.
-Trillian
Re:Read the fake suit ... then write your Senator
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 1
After bitching and complaining on Slashdot, something finaly snapped. I just printed two of the EFF's suggested letters, placed 'em in envelopes, and mailed them. Thanks for the links.
While I personally believe Lucas fucked up, the script (being the geek I am and having a copy handy...) has the following:
HAN: It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelce parsecs! *Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.*
So, Lucas probably screwed up (I kinda doubt that's in the origonal draft of the script, rather than the resale copy I have...) but, in spite of what StarWars.com says, at ONE POINT it was Solo's fuckup. They've apparently shifted it so Solo was _right_ (and didn't shoot first - different issue...)
I have my Slashdot threading set to bump longer posts, on the assumption if you took the time to write a long post (GNAA and such trolls aside) you probably had something to say.
While I don't agree with all that you posted, I'm glad I got a chance to read it while - had I been browsing normaly - your +2 post would have gotten lost in the rest.
I'd like to respond to a couple of points you made. I think your definition of terrorism is pretty good. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out more elequently than myself, a 'terrorist' is either the good guy or the bad guy, depending on what side you're on.
You said, "Those who practice, facilitate, finance, or advocate terrorism are wrong and evil. Those who eschew and oppose terrorism aren't." But (to use a possibly over-used example) Revolutionary War fighters were either 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists' when they took over British-run towns, depending on whose side you're on. American revolutionaries didn't always attack uniformed British troops...
I'm also not sure why you feel the need to include 'covert.' Is it so things like the bombing of Dresdon or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or American crimes during Viet Nam, won't be able to be called 'terrorism'?
I really do agree that what is currently being called 'terrorism' _does_ need to be stopped and is an awful, horrible thing. I also do think I understand what you mean by 'terrorism.' However, I'm intentionaly being difficult because I think it's _not_ as black-and-white as you're making it.
Shifting gears...
The Russian implimentation of Communism was unforgiveable and, you are very right, caused countless millions of deaths. While I hadn't heard tolls as high as you listed, I've read enough about the Communist systems to believe it. But I don't understand - both related to USSR-supported governments and related to Iraq - when the decision to invade is made. You say, "I show you the truth and yet you do not see it." in response to a question concerning Iraq's threat to the US. But I don't see in your post how Iraq _was_ a threat to the US.
I realize the arguments 'WMD, terrorism, and tyrany' can be made jointly. But the first one (seemingly) never existed, based on current info and more and more info being released about the last couple years. The second one, based on the reports the 9/11 Commission are issuing daily, also seems to be a non-reason. While I don't deny Saddam was a horrible person, it's looking like he did not have the connections to terrorism the Bush administration has been pushing. Finally, there are lots of tyrants, throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East, etc, etc, etc. Why start with Saddam? Especially when WMD and terrorism are ruled out, he DIDN'T look like such a threat to the US?
Just some thoughts. I'm sorry if they're a little disorganized, but it's late and i'm tired. =)
First, I'm not _entirely_ sure what your post is responding to. Why are the election maps important to the joke about easily coded voting booths?
More importantly, you make the incorrect assumption that voters are spread evenly across the U.S.
Granted, a map with a breakdown of the 2000 election votes (http://nationalatlas.gov/elections/elect14.gif) (which for some reason has Republican as blue and Democratic as red, but that's not important) does show more of the country, GEOGRAPHICALY, as having voted Republican than Democrat.
But Gore (by most accounts) won the popular vote. At the very least, the election was VERY close. Almost the same number of people, nationally, voted Democrat as Republican. So the geographic representation of votes is interesting, but "infested" implies that the Democratic voters are in a minority, holed up in their bunkers awaiting extermination. Obviously, we'll see what happenes in November, but as of 2000 the votes were very very close.
In addition, compare the vote map (linked above) to a population map (http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US0001.GIF). The regions with more Democratic voters are also more heavily populated. (Appologies for a 1990 map, but my understanding is the major population centers are still the same.) Again, this election will show who is in the minority, but I'd be willing to bet it's not going to be a weak minority. That is, I think the Democratic and Republican populations are pretty evenly matched.
So while I hope it makes yourself feel really good about yourself to pretend Republicans are a massive force ready to sweep the nation, while Democrats are on the retreat and about to be wiped out, it's still very unclear how the 2004 election will turn out. My understanding is neither Bush nor Kerry are really in as strong of a position as they would like, and the election is still very much anyone's game.
I agree with you and want the PATRIOT Act to go away. But i think you missunderstand what he meant. The way I read his post was NOT that the PATRIOT Act was a Good Thing that would Stop Terrorism, Increase Family Values, Love Puppies, and Smell Like Flowers.
Rather, I read his post to indicate that it's important to understand the fear that led to the creation of the PATRIOT Act, because (gonna sound really touchy-feely lovey hippy for a moment) to really get rid of stuff like the PATRIOT Act we need to get rid of the impulses that led to its creation. It's all well and good to bitch about the PATRIOT Act, but he's right to the extent that the PATRIOT Act (whether or not there were ulterior motives by the Bush crowd using September 11th to push an angenda, as some conspiracy theorists have posed) was in response to the worst human-caused loss-of-life that many US citizens can remember.
Discounting September 11th and the way people felt imediately following and just saying "The PATRIOT Act sucks" is unreasonable. Yes, our elected officials should have acted with more foresight. Yes, the PATRIOT Act should, if not actively removed, be allowed to pass with its sunset clause. But fear and a (it would now seem) bad gut response that created something that was not only unneeded, but harmful to the liberty and freedom US citizens and noncitizens should be able to enjoy. It's important to understand WHY the PATRIOT Act is around as much as it is to understand why the PATRIOT Act itself is bad.
While I understand what you're saying, you're A) oversimplifying and B) assuming Slashdot thinks as a single hivemind. (Which, while more true than may be optimal for true arguments and discussions, is NOT as true as your little quick-reference sheet makes it seem.)
The first point is a gross oversimplification as, while SOME people here have said specifically 'All copyright is wrong and should be abbolished," MOST people have expressed something more mild. Along the lines of, "The current copyright system is extremely unfair. However, I do understand the possible good uses for copyright as an idea, just not how it is currently implimented. Because of that, I have more sympathy for those who chose to ignore the unreasonable restrictions used for copywritten entertainment (usually music) than those who use the copyright system to impose unreasonable restrictions on media." Which, in your mind, gets boiled down to all Slashdotters saying, "Infringing on music copyrights is good." This isn't even true for all Slashdoters, though, as every time music copyrights come up there are well-spoken arguments by artists (or even just those who disagree with downloading music without paying the artist, or programmers who apply the argument about music to software) who explain why they believe the copyright system is valid, and you're an ass if you "pirate" music or software.
The second two points ignore the type of licensing stipulations. You seem to have a missunderstanding you seem to have on how (many) Slashdoters view software licensing. The issue (as I understand it) is that the GPL grants privledges BEYOND what would normally exist for code. As such, violating it makes you look like an ass, because you're already being given allowances you wouldn't have had without the GPL. On the other hand, the software licenses which are "applauded" when broken (usually) impose a restriction that (by Slashdot hivemind, popular concensus, the phase of the moon, or whatever company is currently in or out of favor) have been deemed unreasonable and overly harsh. For the most part, these software licenses impose restrictions vastly beyond what 'normal' copyright law would suggest is standard, and often due so in a questionably legal fashion (click through licenses, EULAs, popup browser downloads that say they are "required," etc.) So violating the GPL makes you look greedy while violating 'standard' software licenses (according ot Slashdot groupthink) can be the "right" thing to do.
I don't even understand your points concerning mirroring and reposting text. Karma whores or ACs will often copy-and-paste text from Salon or the NYT and get modded up for it. Likewise, posting mirrors often gets you modded up. The idea for the first is that many (not all) people feel the registration systems imposed for some news sites are overly harsh and appreciate not having to give up such info to read what - in the newsstand print edition - would require no personaly identifying information. The logic behind mirroring is that many of the sites Slashdot posts about are, by their nature, hobby sites with low bandwidth and the webmasters appreciate not having their site hosed. When an entire word has been devoted to the negative effect of having a website posted on Slashdot, I don't think mirroring is unreasonable. For small sites, it's often considered a polite way of being helpful, rather than copyright violation...
Maybe I missed a story, but how is the graphing calculator even slightly on topic? Because it's a story about school? I admit I don't read every story and don't have them all memorized, but I don't recal seeing a story about some kid getting in trouble for using a graphic calculator. (I wouldn't be copmletely surprised if it happened, but I think you're jumping the gun by posting about it.) That said, as a student... graphing calculators are tools and, if the teacher allows their use, I'm going to damn well use every tool I can to make my life easier. I'm not writing papers by hand because computers make it easier. Lik
The fact that below the comic is the disclaimer, "As a reminder, this information should not be relied on as medical advice and is not intended to replace the advice of your child's pediatrician" makes it so much funnier...
I'm not saying DDR can't work for weight loss, or that getupmove.com or the AP story aren't valid. However, the site is run by RedOctance, a DDR pad supplier. Check out the contact information for getupmove.com or the suggested pads under 'Get Started.'
Again, I'm not denying the posibilities of using DDR for weight loss. After the Ask Slashdot thread I downloaded StepMania and am seriously considering buying a pad and USB adapter becasue it does look like tons of fun. I just think it's important to be concious of where you're getting your information...
Totaly off-topic, but I just have to bitch about "Westfield Shoppintown" to someone who knows what the hell I'm talking about.
I mean, what the hell? It's fucking "Old Orchard." It's always been and always will BE "Old Orchard." Why pretend it's a fucking "shoppingtown?" What do you accomplish?
Sorry, I know it's totaly OT, but the increased comercialization of something that's ALREADY COMERCIAL just bugs the hell out of me.
I think part of the problem is that (for whatever reason) there is a perception that anything rated below 70% is not worth playing, and that 80% is the minimum of a really "good" game. The problem is that cuts out 70% of the review spectrum. Currently, a game rated at 50% is probably rather bad, when 50% should really be 'average.' By making 70% 'average' it means reviews have that much less specificity when comparing games.
Maybe it has something to do with how tests are graded (with 70 or 80 being a 'passing' grade), but I think it's time for reviewers to throw out the old rules and come up with a better system for judging how games do.
I don't understand how that was against God's wishes or a "direct attack on God." God had, at that point in the Old Testament, laid out very few rules and regulations for humanity. This is the only point in the Bible that humanity is unified about ANYTHING, and God choses to intervene and prevent a unified and together humanity.
If God is afraid of humanity's power and fears a rival, then sure - it would be in God's best self-intrest to destory the tower and scatter humanity with different languages. But why would God fear humanity? And isn't the goal of religion to UNIFY everyone under God?
I don't understand...
-Trillian
(Of course, this is written by someone who finds the concept of a literal interprutation of the Bible to an unrealistic idea.)
I'm pretty damn sure that this is humor, and a look at what the future might be, but someone moderated it as "Insightful" so I'm gonna make a fool of myself and ask: You are kidding, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be honest - I haven't read the Oz books, nor have I checked out McGee's site to read what he has planned about the movie. But it would seem - just from the presence of the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wicked Witch of the East (if I'm remembering correctly) that there is room for some 'dark' or 'evil' in Oz, even if it gets banished eventually. I don't know the Oz lore to say how or where the witches came from (other than "Wicked," which I have a feeling does not fit with Baum's intent...although maybe I'm wrong and he would have loved it; again, I'm no Oz expert). But perhaps an examination of Oz under the rule of one or both of the Wicked Witches would give enough fodder for a 'dark OZ' which still stays true to the origonal.
It'll still probably suck ass, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the idea of "the darker side of Oz" is entirely impossible.
-Trillian
I honestly don't know enough concerning the status of weapons of mass destruction, or the legal definition of the term, to pretend to be knowledgable on the subject. So I won't even touch that issue. You sound like you have your facts straight, whereas I know I don't. So while I may disagree with the conclusions drawn from what we've found in Iraq - that is, I still don't think we should have invaded in the first place - I'm willing to concede to your information until I hear from elsewhere.
However, you say the beating to death of several prisoners "never happened." I am in the process of reading the official DoD report on the prisoner torture in Abu Ghraib. It's available (warning PDF format) online here. On page 13 (15 of the PDF) the independent panel wrote in their findings, "There were five cases of detainee deaths as a result of abuse by U.S. personnel during interrogations." I would imagine they weren't hugged to death. Now the report (what I've read of it) doesn't state specifically how they died. But it does state the deaths were the result of abuse by U.S. personnel. In a prison setting, in the hands of trained U.S. troops (although the report also gets into the poor quality of their training) to "interrogate" a prisoner to death is simply unacceptable.
In addition, Maj. Gen. Fay's investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses (and here I quote from this book which contains the DoD independant report that I linked to above as well as Maj. Gen. Fay's preliminary investigations - I'm sorry I don't have the time to find it online, but I imagine it's available) found soldiers had been "slapping and kicking" detainees, "'poking' at an injured detainees leg," and forcing a detainee to stand in such a way "as to dislocate his sholder." In addition to at least five deaths, I'd say that gives good ground to state that there was torture, even under the definition of "the unlawful infliction of bodily harm."
Soldiers also placed detainees in "simulated sexual positions with other detainiees" and were forced to be naked in a way was meant to "degrade or humiliate." While this may not be torture it was, according to Maj. Gen. Fay, "prohibited by Geneva Convention IV" note that the Iraqi soldiers DID qualify for Geneva Convention protection, but it's not even important because it also violated "Army policy."
Maj. Gen. Fay goes through, in detail, the reported abuses including "sexual assault," "physical abuse," a situation where an interpreter "allegedly raped a 15 to 18-year-old male detainie," and more. Fifty in-depth descriptions of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. And much of it has photographic or even FILM evidence.
When you can find picture after picture after picture after picture of prisoners being abused - both through bodily harm and mental abuse - and of soldiers acting in a manner that one soldier (according to the DoD panel's report) called the "lust for the fun of it," how can you possibly state beatings and abuse "never happened?"
(I'm going to pause for a minute. Rereading your post I discovered you did not, in fact, claim that NO beatings or abuse took place. Rather, you denied a few specific abuses. It turns out you were wrong about that, but it may not be fair for me to say that you said abuses "never happened." I am going to modify my statement to say that you implied abuses never happened. Your acusation of the "anti-war movement of just plain making shit up" (interesting from someone who is so wrong concerning pri
Thank you for catching my error in Georgia. I missed zero in my origonal data. That brings the total to
Bush: 259.008
Gore: 258.083
Other: 20.9087
The Alaska data, from the FEC website, appears correct: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
Subtract the number of Gore vote and the number of Bush votes from the total votes cast in Alaska.
I do, however, need to go back and check the rest of my data more carefully.
Thanks!
-Trillian
My goal was to satisfy my own "what-if" question. From reading Slashdot, I don't think I was the only reader who was curious about having a nation-wide proportional assignment of electoral votes and, while this was not an exhaustive look at doing that, it at least answered my first question of who would have won had their been a straight proportional assignment of electoral votes. But again, as you said, it *does* have the disadvantages of the popular vote AND the electoral college.
I just wanted to see what would happen...I'm sorry you didn't find the results interesting.
-Trillian
I hate to reply to my own post, but I realize I was not specific in hoping to find video downloads of the speeches. Thank you for the info on audio but (and I realize it was my own fault for not mentioning it) I'd love to be able to watch some of the speeches again.
-Trillian
I have a related question (although I'm afraid I'm too late to get noticed in the shuffle of posts). Is there any place to download political speeches? I believe the sites of both conventions (and often candidates themselves) offer *streaming* versions of speeches, but I'd really like to be able to download and have some of the DNC and RNC speeches. I've Googled, bitTorrented, and Kazaaed, but with no luck.
Thanks!
-Trillian
-Trillian
Have you actually played KumaWar? I have. The problem is not the content. I think a episodic current-events game is a very interesting idea, and one with lots of posibilities. The problem is KumaWar is a sub-par game with dated graphics and absolutely piss-poor AI. The most extreme advertising in the world wouldn't make this game fun to play.
Extreme advertising - I think - is as much a sign that the product is lacking as it is that the viewers are jaded. Good games don't need advertising, and all the advertising in the world can't save bad games.
-Trillian
I think (looking at the House voting record) you have it backwards. 4 Dems _against_ the amendment and 194 _for_. The amendment, remember, was to cut parts of the PA that would allow library/bookstore records to be searched.
-Trillian
Someone elsewhere pointed out that the origonal version of the PATRIOT Act has a sunset clause and expires. Bush has said (State of the Union address) that the PATRIOT Act is an important tool for fighting terrorism. Even if Kerry/Edwards is not an amazing, earth-shattering choice, they belong to the party that is working to limit the PA, and the party that had people applauding during Bush's State of the Union address when he said the PATRIOT Act was going to expire.
I'd rather support the Democrats...
-Trillian
Totaly OT, but your sig interested me. Where's it from?
Trillian
No highly modded post has mentioned this yet, so I'll do it. From the article:
/. summaries are) is wrong. The Best Buy VP specifically said "firing" customers is wrong. I'm not saying I like Best Buy or their rebate policies, or pushy sales reps, or questionable return policies, but they (apparently) are NOT looking at "firing" customers.
"Best Buy executive vice president Philip Schoonover said the idea of "firing" some customers is one place where Best Buy disagrees with Selden. The company will try to find ways to make money-losing customers profitable, he said."
In other words, the article summary (as so many
-Trillian
After bitching and complaining on Slashdot, something finaly snapped. I just printed two of the EFF's suggested letters, placed 'em in envelopes, and mailed them. Thanks for the links.
-Trillian
While I personally believe Lucas fucked up, the script (being the geek I am and having a copy handy...) has the following:
HAN: It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelce parsecs!
*Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.*
So, Lucas probably screwed up (I kinda doubt that's in the origonal draft of the script, rather than the resale copy I have...) but, in spite of what StarWars.com says, at ONE POINT it was Solo's fuckup. They've apparently shifted it so Solo was _right_ (and didn't shoot first - different issue...)
-Trillian
I have my Slashdot threading set to bump longer posts, on the assumption if you took the time to write a long post (GNAA and such trolls aside) you probably had something to say.
While I don't agree with all that you posted, I'm glad I got a chance to read it while - had I been browsing normaly - your +2 post would have gotten lost in the rest.
I'd like to respond to a couple of points you made. I think your definition of terrorism is pretty good. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out more elequently than myself, a 'terrorist' is either the good guy or the bad guy, depending on what side you're on.
You said, "Those who practice, facilitate, finance, or advocate terrorism are wrong and evil. Those who eschew and oppose terrorism aren't." But (to use a possibly over-used example) Revolutionary War fighters were either 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists' when they took over British-run towns, depending on whose side you're on. American revolutionaries didn't always attack uniformed British troops...
I'm also not sure why you feel the need to include 'covert.' Is it so things like the bombing of Dresdon or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or American crimes during Viet Nam, won't be able to be called 'terrorism'?
I really do agree that what is currently being called 'terrorism' _does_ need to be stopped and is an awful, horrible thing. I also do think I understand what you mean by 'terrorism.' However, I'm intentionaly being difficult because I think it's _not_ as black-and-white as you're making it.
Shifting gears...
The Russian implimentation of Communism was unforgiveable and, you are very right, caused countless millions of deaths. While I hadn't heard tolls as high as you listed, I've read enough about the Communist systems to believe it. But I don't understand - both related to USSR-supported governments and related to Iraq - when the decision to invade is made. You say, "I show you the truth and yet you do not see it." in response to a question concerning Iraq's threat to the US. But I don't see in your post how Iraq _was_ a threat to the US.
I realize the arguments 'WMD, terrorism, and tyrany' can be made jointly. But the first one (seemingly) never existed, based on current info and more and more info being released about the last couple years. The second one, based on the reports the 9/11 Commission are issuing daily, also seems to be a non-reason. While I don't deny Saddam was a horrible person, it's looking like he did not have the connections to terrorism the Bush administration has been pushing. Finally, there are lots of tyrants, throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East, etc, etc, etc. Why start with Saddam? Especially when WMD and terrorism are ruled out, he DIDN'T look like such a threat to the US?
Just some thoughts. I'm sorry if they're a little disorganized, but it's late and i'm tired. =)
-Trillian
I saw a post further up that had the expanded 'induce' and thought it was a joke....but looking at the actual bill, that is indeed what it says.
What the fucking fuck?
-Trillian
First, I'm not _entirely_ sure what your post is responding to. Why are the election maps important to the joke about easily coded voting booths?
More importantly, you make the incorrect assumption that voters are spread evenly across the U.S.
Granted, a map with a breakdown of the 2000 election votes (http://nationalatlas.gov/elections/elect14.gif) (which for some reason has Republican as blue and Democratic as red, but that's not important) does show more of the country, GEOGRAPHICALY, as having voted Republican than Democrat.
But Gore (by most accounts) won the popular vote. At the very least, the election was VERY close. Almost the same number of people, nationally, voted Democrat as Republican. So the geographic representation of votes is interesting, but "infested" implies that the Democratic voters are in a minority, holed up in their bunkers awaiting extermination. Obviously, we'll see what happenes in November, but as of 2000 the votes were very very close.
In addition, compare the vote map (linked above) to a population map (http://130.166.124.2/atlas.us1/US0001.GIF). The regions with more Democratic voters are also more heavily populated. (Appologies for a 1990 map, but my understanding is the major population centers are still the same.) Again, this election will show who is in the minority, but I'd be willing to bet it's not going to be a weak minority. That is, I think the Democratic and Republican populations are pretty evenly matched.
So while I hope it makes yourself feel really good about yourself to pretend Republicans are a massive force ready to sweep the nation, while Democrats are on the retreat and about to be wiped out, it's still very unclear how the 2004 election will turn out. My understanding is neither Bush nor Kerry are really in as strong of a position as they would like, and the election is still very much anyone's game.
-Trillian
I agree with you and want the PATRIOT Act to go away. But i think you missunderstand what he meant. The way I read his post was NOT that the PATRIOT Act was a Good Thing that would Stop Terrorism, Increase Family Values, Love Puppies, and Smell Like Flowers.
Rather, I read his post to indicate that it's important to understand the fear that led to the creation of the PATRIOT Act, because (gonna sound really touchy-feely lovey hippy for a moment) to really get rid of stuff like the PATRIOT Act we need to get rid of the impulses that led to its creation. It's all well and good to bitch about the PATRIOT Act, but he's right to the extent that the PATRIOT Act (whether or not there were ulterior motives by the Bush crowd using September 11th to push an angenda, as some conspiracy theorists have posed) was in response to the worst human-caused loss-of-life that many US citizens can remember.
Discounting September 11th and the way people felt imediately following and just saying "The PATRIOT Act sucks" is unreasonable. Yes, our elected officials should have acted with more foresight. Yes, the PATRIOT Act should, if not actively removed, be allowed to pass with its sunset clause. But fear and a (it would now seem) bad gut response that created something that was not only unneeded, but harmful to the liberty and freedom US citizens and noncitizens should be able to enjoy. It's important to understand WHY the PATRIOT Act is around as much as it is to understand why the PATRIOT Act itself is bad.
-Trillian
While I understand what you're saying, you're A) oversimplifying and B) assuming Slashdot thinks as a single hivemind. (Which, while more true than may be optimal for true arguments and discussions, is NOT as true as your little quick-reference sheet makes it seem.)
The first point is a gross oversimplification as, while SOME people here have said specifically 'All copyright is wrong and should be abbolished," MOST people have expressed something more mild. Along the lines of, "The current copyright system is extremely unfair. However, I do understand the possible good uses for copyright as an idea, just not how it is currently implimented. Because of that, I have more sympathy for those who chose to ignore the unreasonable restrictions used for copywritten entertainment (usually music) than those who use the copyright system to impose unreasonable restrictions on media." Which, in your mind, gets boiled down to all Slashdotters saying, "Infringing on music copyrights is good." This isn't even true for all Slashdoters, though, as every time music copyrights come up there are well-spoken arguments by artists (or even just those who disagree with downloading music without paying the artist, or programmers who apply the argument about music to software) who explain why they believe the copyright system is valid, and you're an ass if you "pirate" music or software.
The second two points ignore the type of licensing stipulations. You seem to have a missunderstanding you seem to have on how (many) Slashdoters view software licensing. The issue (as I understand it) is that the GPL grants privledges BEYOND what would normally exist for code. As such, violating it makes you look like an ass, because you're already being given allowances you wouldn't have had without the GPL. On the other hand, the software licenses which are "applauded" when broken (usually) impose a restriction that (by Slashdot hivemind, popular concensus, the phase of the moon, or whatever company is currently in or out of favor) have been deemed unreasonable and overly harsh. For the most part, these software licenses impose restrictions vastly beyond what 'normal' copyright law would suggest is standard, and often due so in a questionably legal fashion (click through licenses, EULAs, popup browser downloads that say they are "required," etc.) So violating the GPL makes you look greedy while violating 'standard' software licenses (according ot Slashdot groupthink) can be the "right" thing to do.
I don't even understand your points concerning mirroring and reposting text. Karma whores or ACs will often copy-and-paste text from Salon or the NYT and get modded up for it. Likewise, posting mirrors often gets you modded up. The idea for the first is that many (not all) people feel the registration systems imposed for some news sites are overly harsh and appreciate not having to give up such info to read what - in the newsstand print edition - would require no personaly identifying information. The logic behind mirroring is that many of the sites Slashdot posts about are, by their nature, hobby sites with low bandwidth and the webmasters appreciate not having their site hosed. When an entire word has been devoted to the negative effect of having a website posted on Slashdot, I don't think mirroring is unreasonable. For small sites, it's often considered a polite way of being helpful, rather than copyright violation...
Maybe I missed a story, but how is the graphing calculator even slightly on topic? Because it's a story about school? I admit I don't read every story and don't have them all memorized, but I don't recal seeing a story about some kid getting in trouble for using a graphic calculator. (I wouldn't be copmletely surprised if it happened, but I think you're jumping the gun by posting about it.) That said, as a student... graphing calculators are tools and, if the teacher allows their use, I'm going to damn well use every tool I can to make my life easier. I'm not writing papers by hand because computers make it easier. Lik
The fact that below the comic is the disclaimer, "As a reminder, this information should not be relied on as medical advice and is not intended to replace the advice of your child's pediatrician" makes it so much funnier...
-Trililan
I'm not saying DDR can't work for weight loss, or that getupmove.com or the AP story aren't valid. However, the site is run by RedOctance, a DDR pad supplier. Check out the contact information for getupmove.com or the suggested pads under 'Get Started.'
Again, I'm not denying the posibilities of using DDR for weight loss. After the Ask Slashdot thread I downloaded StepMania and am seriously considering buying a pad and USB adapter becasue it does look like tons of fun. I just think it's important to be concious of where you're getting your information...
-Trillian
Totaly off-topic, but I just have to bitch about "Westfield Shoppintown" to someone who knows what the hell I'm talking about.
I mean, what the hell? It's fucking "Old Orchard." It's always been and always will BE "Old Orchard." Why pretend it's a fucking "shoppingtown?" What do you accomplish?
Sorry, I know it's totaly OT, but the increased comercialization of something that's ALREADY COMERCIAL just bugs the hell out of me.
-Trillian
I think part of the problem is that (for whatever reason) there is a perception that anything rated below 70% is not worth playing, and that 80% is the minimum of a really "good" game. The problem is that cuts out 70% of the review spectrum. Currently, a game rated at 50% is probably rather bad, when 50% should really be 'average.' By making 70% 'average' it means reviews have that much less specificity when comparing games.
Maybe it has something to do with how tests are graded (with 70 or 80 being a 'passing' grade), but I think it's time for reviewers to throw out the old rules and come up with a better system for judging how games do.
-Trillian
I don't understand how that was against God's wishes or a "direct attack on God." God had, at that point in the Old Testament, laid out very few rules and regulations for humanity. This is the only point in the Bible that humanity is unified about ANYTHING, and God choses to intervene and prevent a unified and together humanity.
If God is afraid of humanity's power and fears a rival, then sure - it would be in God's best self-intrest to destory the tower and scatter humanity with different languages. But why would God fear humanity? And isn't the goal of religion to UNIFY everyone under God?
I don't understand...
-Trillian
(Of course, this is written by someone who finds the concept of a literal interprutation of the Bible to an unrealistic idea.)
I'm pretty damn sure that this is humor, and a look at what the future might be, but someone moderated it as "Insightful" so I'm gonna make a fool of myself and ask: You are kidding, right?
-Trillian