The other day I was in San Jose as a tourist and took a bus. A rather large fellow sitting next to me asked me if he could "rip a stream" and before I knew it, he lifted a leg and I had to change buses immediately.
I'm surprised it took this long. With all the clout record companies have, I'm surprised it took them this long to find a country to make this illegal in. The surprise here, isnt' that it is illegal somewhere. The surprise is it took this long TO BE illegal somewhere.
That the first plants were purple when they were utilizing a different wavelength of light.
Interesting thing about purple...... Purple isn't real!
Well, at least pure purple light isn't real. There is no wavelength of light that is purple. Purple is how your brain interprets receiving red and blue light at the same time. Whenever you see purple you're actually seeing multiple colours at once, you're never seeing just one colour.
I just google "purple tree" and I'm thinking of how awesome it would be if all the trees were purple. I think that many science fiction writers (movies and books) often don't seem to have as much variation in terms of what could really be out there. It kind of bothers me when everyone looks like humans and every planet looks like earth. Some of them definitely get it better than others, but I think even in the ones that tend to have lots of variety don't really stretch it too far from what we find on earth.
There are two answers why they do this. One is for pulp-sci fi; and the other is for more indepth scifi.
Novelists don't have this excuse- but for pulp Sci Fi on TV it's a lot cheaper to have aliens that can be played by humans with bits of plastic stuck to their faces to form ridges and bumps than it is to have non-humanoid aliens. Also for world sets- if the plants look earthlike, it's a lot cheaper and realistic looking to make a set.
There is another dimension to this though. A lot of the better Science Fiction novels are really critiques on society. By taking an alien futuristic world and changing one or two things you can make a social commentary about OUR society by exaggerating one of it's features. Most (good) science fiction isn't REALLY about other planets- it's about us on our planet; if you change too much and make it too unrecognizable it's harder to make your point.
This why self driving cars will lot's of testing and laws.
Testing and peer review may also grammar problems:-)
Speaking of Grammar problems... am I the only one who, the first time he read it, read the headline as: Nissan Workers In Japan Failed Emissions Tests, Review Says
I'm very drowsy this morning and not functioning well.
Back when I started (in the dial-up days, onion on belt etc) AltaVista were best. All of a suddent and for no discernible reason they went shite. Google were in the right place to recover the fumble.
Excite was my search engine of choice in the dark days before Google. As much as I love to bash google, they vastly improved on anything that came before them and even to this day, there is no search engine that is better.
Does it? I have left those automated sigs on my emails sent from mobile devices because I figured it would be interpreted as "I typed this on a pretend computer, sorry the formatting sucks" Additionally, that way when they see "Sent from my Kindle Fire" they can think "oh, you poor bastard, traveling, forgot the chargers, and that was the last thing left?" and if they see "Sent from my iPhone" they can think "oh, nice of him to bother to write back when he wasn't home"
Sorry if I've misinterpreted people sending them.
If it's an old person I've always assumed it's left on because they don't know how to turn it off- if it's from anyone else I've always taken the message as *look at me* I'm using an iPhone. In all honesty, there are some people I know who really would keep it for that reason. My old boss where I used to work is one of them.
Don't worry- no one will think you're trying to rub their nose in the dirt if you post with "sent from my Amazon Fire".:)
Sounds like the Israelis are false flagging again.
It does seem unlikely that the Turks would have any desire to pick a fight with Palestine. There's only one nation on earth with an irrational hatred of Palestine. That same nation breaks international rules more than any other and has no regard to other countries' sovereignty, frequently carrying out secret attacks on citizens in many of those countries, even ones it nominally calls allies...... you all know who I'm talking about... Lichtenstein!
I own a small airplane that I paid $300k and an iPhone 6.
Many people in my part of the country live in homes that cost less than $100k- they're not the best homes... but they're homes.. A decent average family home is $150k.
With your house and your airplane- consider that you own the equivalent of three or four homes for a significant percentage of the country's population. Now tell me again you are not "rich".
So when my iPhone having temporary warehouse workers call in and say they can't make it to work because they don't have gas money...they're lying>?!?!?
If you can afford to pay $1000 for a cell phone- you're either not hurting for money. (Or you're an idiot with no priority on what matters in regards to how you spend your money)
This. Over here in Europe you can watch younger (read: 20-25 year old) second generation immigrants that drive the stereotypical BMW Model 3, carry around iPhones and other trinkets and when you wonder how they afford it, the magic answer is usually leasing. And when you dig deeper, you eventually find out that they don't even technically own the Calvin Klein Boxers they're wearing.
Should I be disturbed that you know what type of boxers the 20-25 year old immigrants are wearing? More on point though- how does one "lease" boxers? Are you talking about them owning them on credit?
Top quartile cutoff is $78k. If your household income is above that you are "rich" according to TFA.
Disclaimer: I am top quartile. I own an iPhone 6 refurb. I do not have a Bentley.
The article header here on Slashdot is a little misleading: "Owning an iPhone is the Number-One Way To Guess if You're Rich or Not, Research Finds"
If you're single and make $78k; yeah, you're likely rich, can save the vast majority of your pay check, have lots in the bank and probably never worry about money.
If you're a family of 6 and make $78k, you're definitely not rich. You probably go without a lot of things, worry about money constantly, probably have no savings -living pay check to pay check- and could probably be considered as "poor".
A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them).
Most of the smaller tribes belonged to confederations of larger groups that had complex political relationships.
"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century, so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards.
Doesn't mean that we as an evolved modern society can't recognize the faults in it. We can acknowledge that in those days they didn't consider it immoral, but that living in a more enlightened time that we do.
Slave owners probably didn't think they were bad people or that they were doing wrong. In their time it was acceptable. We today can recognize it was wrong
Anzac regions... South America.... also have pushed out native populations. Africa and the Middle East long history of enslaving each other and fighting each other. Same with Asia. Europe has more than it's fair share of bloody hands.
Yes, every country is guilty of at least some atrocity.
But the native americans in those days WERE SAVAGES. Let's keep our language aligned with reality ok? Fuck peoples' feefees.
Political system and organization: check. Language, culture and arts: check. Social structure that looked out for all people: check
They were every bit part of a functioning well balanced civilization. Perhaps ahead of European nations in many ways. Let's not confuse "culturally different" with "savage". Even in the 1800's China and Japan refereed to Europeans as "barbarians". I think few of us of a western tradition would consider 19th Century Europe to be "barbarians". In the same way the native people were not "savages" they were just different, and perhaps lacked some of the same technologies.
The term "savage" back then was probably plied on them for being the wrong religion more than any real cultural reason.
It's kinda funny how, what you see as a perfectly acceptable instance of filtering out "bad speech", I see as a perfect example of why filtering "bad speech" is wrong.
I find it perfectly acceptable for a private institution like facebook. I don't personally use facebook, but if I did, I'd be quite happy with not having to wade through all the racist and intolerant crap you see some places. There are very few places where terms such as "Indian Savages" are used in an intelligent and useful way.
I would not find it in the least bit acceptable if the government ran censorship like that however and censored any text. A private company- yes, that's fine. The government... absolutely not.
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Fair enough. I'll concede that at least part of it might therefore be considered hate-speech. That certainly wasn't the whole point of it, but was at least part of it.
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization? They clearly had a well formed system of art, societal structure, justice and political structure.
who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other? I'd be interesting to see your logic behind that. I'm sure they had wars- just as Europeans did. Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal, but the same can't be said for all of them.
Part of your anti-white washing of history conveniently ignores the genocidal brutality of the native population. White people were more effective, but certainly not any more brutal.
I think that that is probably subjective, but that I would disagree. There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people. People are people wherever you go. I also suspect that it varied dramatically based on tribe. Can you blame the Swedish for Belgium's brutal tactics in the Congo? Or the Irish for the holocaust in Germany? You can't blame all natives and their nations for what one or two tribes might have done.
Difference is, the muslims will kill you. The christians will bring round coffee and donuts.
I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but your generalization is off. Muslims historically have been the more tolerant religion. Whilst Britain was squabbling over protestant or catholic kings and spain's Jesuits were having their Spanish Inquisition- most Muslim controlled areas, even back then practiced freedom of religion. Sure- you'd pay more taxes for believing the wrong thing but most could live in peace.
Today the huge majority of muslims still believe in freedom of religion. Yeah, there are obviously a lot of nuts out there- and many are dangerous, but they remain the minority. The "muslims" won't kill you- extremists will. There was a story in Britain a few years back where members of a mosque made a cup of tea for all the people protesting them outside and invited them in. They were so nice to the protestors the protestors abandoned the protest.
Slashdot Mirror
The other day I was in San Jose as a tourist and took a bus. A rather large fellow sitting next to me asked me if he could "rip a stream" and before I knew it, he lifted a leg and I had to change buses immediately.
Sorry, I wondered why you left!
I'm surprised it took this long. With all the clout record companies have, I'm surprised it took them this long to find a country to make this illegal in. The surprise here, isnt' that it is illegal somewhere. The surprise is it took this long TO BE illegal somewhere.
That the first plants were purple when they were utilizing a different wavelength of light.
Interesting thing about purple... ... Purple isn't real!
Well, at least pure purple light isn't real. There is no wavelength of light that is purple. Purple is how your brain interprets receiving red and blue light at the same time. Whenever you see purple you're actually seeing multiple colours at once, you're never seeing just one colour.
I just google "purple tree" and I'm thinking of how awesome it would be if all the trees were purple. I think that many science fiction writers (movies and books) often don't seem to have as much variation in terms of what could really be out there. It kind of bothers me when everyone looks like humans and every planet looks like earth. Some of them definitely get it better than others, but I think even in the ones that tend to have lots of variety don't really stretch it too far from what we find on earth.
There are two answers why they do this. One is for pulp-sci fi; and the other is for more indepth scifi.
Novelists don't have this excuse- but for pulp Sci Fi on TV it's a lot cheaper to have aliens that can be played by humans with bits of plastic stuck to their faces to form ridges and bumps than it is to have non-humanoid aliens. Also for world sets- if the plants look earthlike, it's a lot cheaper and realistic looking to make a set.
There is another dimension to this though. A lot of the better Science Fiction novels are really critiques on society. By taking an alien futuristic world and changing one or two things you can make a social commentary about OUR society by exaggerating one of it's features. Most (good) science fiction isn't REALLY about other planets- it's about us on our planet; if you change too much and make it too unrecognizable it's harder to make your point.
Back when I was young, the world was still in black and white. Color wasn't invented yet.
I saw a documentary about that once and the invention of colour, it was called Pleasantville.
Testing and peer review may also grammar problems :-)
Speaking of Grammar problems... am I the only one who, the first time he read it, read the headline as:
Nissan Workers In Japan Failed Emissions Tests, Review Says
I'm very drowsy this morning and not functioning well.
Back when I started (in the dial-up days, onion on belt etc) AltaVista were best. All of a suddent and for no discernible reason they went shite. Google were in the right place to recover the fumble.
Excite was my search engine of choice in the dark days before Google. As much as I love to bash google, they vastly improved on anything that came before them and even to this day, there is no search engine that is better.
Does it? I have left those automated sigs on my emails sent from mobile devices because I figured it would be interpreted as "I typed this on a pretend computer, sorry the formatting sucks" Additionally, that way when they see "Sent from my Kindle Fire" they can think "oh, you poor bastard, traveling, forgot the chargers, and that was the last thing left?" and if they see "Sent from my iPhone" they can think "oh, nice of him to bother to write back when he wasn't home"
Sorry if I've misinterpreted people sending them.
If it's an old person I've always assumed it's left on because they don't know how to turn it off- if it's from anyone else I've always taken the message as *look at me* I'm using an iPhone. In all honesty, there are some people I know who really would keep it for that reason. My old boss where I used to work is one of them.
Don't worry- no one will think you're trying to rub their nose in the dirt if you post with "sent from my Amazon Fire". :)
Sounds like the Israelis are false flagging again.
It does seem unlikely that the Turks would have any desire to pick a fight with Palestine. There's only one nation on earth with an irrational hatred of Palestine. That same nation breaks international rules more than any other and has no regard to other countries' sovereignty, frequently carrying out secret attacks on citizens in many of those countries, even ones it nominally calls allies... ... you all know who I'm talking about... Lichtenstein!
I own a small airplane that I paid $300k and an iPhone 6.
Many people in my part of the country live in homes that cost less than $100k- they're not the best homes... but they're homes.. A decent average family home is $150k.
With your house and your airplane- consider that you own the equivalent of three or four homes for a significant percentage of the country's population. Now tell me again you are not "rich".
In Europe, it's mainly a sign that you're an obnoxious douche that wants others to think that you earn a lot of money.
I certainly feel that way every time I see a "Sent from my iPhone" message as a signature. That signature just exudes sliminess.
So when my iPhone having temporary warehouse workers call in and say they can't make it to work because they don't have gas money...they're lying>?!?!?
If you can afford to pay $1000 for a cell phone- you're either not hurting for money. (Or you're an idiot with no priority on what matters in regards to how you spend your money)
This. Over here in Europe you can watch younger (read: 20-25 year old) second generation immigrants that drive the stereotypical BMW Model 3, carry around iPhones and other trinkets and when you wonder how they afford it, the magic answer is usually leasing. And when you dig deeper, you eventually find out that they don't even technically own the Calvin Klein Boxers they're wearing.
Should I be disturbed that you know what type of boxers the 20-25 year old immigrants are wearing? More on point though- how does one "lease" boxers? Are you talking about them owning them on credit?
Buy a 90s Miata as a toy. We're talking about beer money for one in decent condition, $3000 or so. I drove one daily and it was even fun as that.
You drink very expensive beer... you must be an iPhone owner and well in the top quartile.
Top quartile cutoff is $78k. If your household income is above that you are "rich" according to TFA.
Disclaimer: I am top quartile. I own an iPhone 6 refurb. I do not have a Bentley.
The article header here on Slashdot is a little misleading:
"Owning an iPhone is the Number-One Way To Guess if You're Rich or Not, Research Finds"
If you're single and make $78k; yeah, you're likely rich, can save the vast majority of your pay check, have lots in the bank and probably never worry about money.
If you're a family of 6 and make $78k, you're definitely not rich. You probably go without a lot of things, worry about money constantly, probably have no savings -living pay check to pay check- and could probably be considered as "poor".
Ferraris, feh. Owning a senator is how to tell if you're rich or not.
In Russia, owning a President is how to tell if you're super-rich or not.
A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them).
Most of the smaller tribes belonged to confederations of larger groups that had complex political relationships.
"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century, so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards.
Doesn't mean that we as an evolved modern society can't recognize the faults in it. We can acknowledge that in those days they didn't consider it immoral, but that living in a more enlightened time that we do.
Slave owners probably didn't think they were bad people or that they were doing wrong. In their time it was acceptable. We today can recognize it was wrong
Anzac regions... South America.... also have pushed out native populations. Africa and the Middle East long history of enslaving each other and fighting each other. Same with Asia. Europe has more than it's fair share of bloody hands.
Yes, every country is guilty of at least some atrocity.
But the native americans in those days WERE SAVAGES. Let's keep our language aligned with reality ok? Fuck peoples' feefees.
Political system and organization: check.
Language, culture and arts: check.
Social structure that looked out for all people: check
They were every bit part of a functioning well balanced civilization. Perhaps ahead of European nations in many ways. Let's not confuse "culturally different" with "savage". Even in the 1800's China and Japan refereed to Europeans as "barbarians". I think few of us of a western tradition would consider 19th Century Europe to be "barbarians". In the same way the native people were not "savages" they were just different, and perhaps lacked some of the same technologies.
The term "savage" back then was probably plied on them for being the wrong religion more than any real cultural reason.
It's kinda funny how, what you see as a perfectly acceptable instance of filtering out "bad speech", I see as a perfect example of why filtering "bad speech" is wrong.
I find it perfectly acceptable for a private institution like facebook. I don't personally use facebook, but if I did, I'd be quite happy with not having to wade through all the racist and intolerant crap you see some places. There are very few places where terms such as "Indian Savages" are used in an intelligent and useful way.
I would not find it in the least bit acceptable if the government ran censorship like that however and censored any text. A private company- yes, that's fine. The government... absolutely not.
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Fair enough. I'll concede that at least part of it might therefore be considered hate-speech. That certainly wasn't the whole point of it, but was at least part of it.
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization? They clearly had a well formed system of art, societal structure, justice and political structure.
who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other? I'd be interesting to see your logic behind that. I'm sure they had wars- just as Europeans did. Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal, but the same can't be said for all of them.
Part of your anti-white washing of history conveniently ignores the genocidal brutality of the native population. White people were more effective, but certainly not any more brutal.
I think that that is probably subjective, but that I would disagree. There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people. People are people wherever you go. I also suspect that it varied dramatically based on tribe. Can you blame the Swedish for Belgium's brutal tactics in the Congo? Or the Irish for the holocaust in Germany? You can't blame all natives and their nations for what one or two tribes might have done.
Difference is, the muslims will kill you. The christians will bring round coffee and donuts.
I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but your generalization is off. Muslims historically have been the more tolerant religion. Whilst Britain was squabbling over protestant or catholic kings and spain's Jesuits were having their Spanish Inquisition- most Muslim controlled areas, even back then practiced freedom of religion. Sure- you'd pay more taxes for believing the wrong thing but most could live in peace.
Today the huge majority of muslims still believe in freedom of religion. Yeah, there are obviously a lot of nuts out there- and many are dangerous, but they remain the minority. The "muslims" won't kill you- extremists will. There was a story in Britain a few years back where members of a mosque made a cup of tea for all the people protesting them outside and invited them in. They were so nice to the protestors the protestors abandoned the protest.
My nostril hair is shaped like a mullet.