"because sometimes kids need something they can relate to" How about hair color, then? What about eye color? Shouldn't they relate to those? Or is that just ridiculous like skin color or ethnic background should be? Continuing to emphasis race by creating an "identity" of people you can "relate to" perpetuates racism. Dumb. Really dumb, considering much of the bad shit in the world is over racism.
"Those magazines exsist to support a market that does not get the time of day at a usuall tech magazine." Like what? Are you saying the "usual" tech magazines ignore stories based on race? If so that's quite an accusation. Do you have anything to back it up?
"Check your head, cause I get the feeling you are out of touch." Me? You're the one promoting racism. Last time I checked, promoting racism was a bad thing. Maybe you should check YOUR head.
"Hispanic Business or other minority based trade magazines" are racist magazines, by definition. The simple test is replace [minority name] with "White" and see if it would be classified as racist. You would call anyone subscribing to "White Business" a racist, and so would I. Supporting these magazines and institutions is supporting racism.
good role models for non-white kids... First, why are you singling out kids based on their race? Second, why are you telling these kids that race is important, and they can only look to people of the same race/color as "good role models". That is racism. Racism is not acceptable, period. Seems to me you should be telling the kids they can pick whomever they want as their role model, skin color be damned.
First, I never said he was ignorant of science. It appears from his website he has been instructed in science. I said he didn't understand science.
Second, which part of my post shows a lack of understanding? Or are you dismissing the whole post? Offer some evidence to support your theory, or have your post be dismissed as a "religious act".
Seriously. Science only deals with theories and facts. Any scientist worth his salt with object strongly if you say science proves anything.
I find it very ironic to be flamed by anyone who thinks I'm an idiot for not believing in a theory that's never been proven by scientific process.
Spoken like a "True Believer". It seems to me that many (most?) True Believers can't understand that science isn't about believing in anything, and that science never, ever claims to prove anything. Shame, too, on the non-Believers who say that it does.
It's recently become a "religious act" to question science in any capacity, but isn't questioning science the only way we can tell the good science from the bad science?
Again, a clear misunderstanding of science. Science is all about questioning everything. I.e. why are we here? How did we get here? Where are we going? What is thunder? It's only a "religious act" when the questioner is an avowed (or covert) Believer who is offering zero actual evidence supporting any alternate theory.
Religion, generally, and Chistianity specifically, appears to be all about answers. I.e., to answer the questions above, because god made us. God put us here. To heaven if you're good, hell if your not. God is angry. See the difference?
Does this mean I think less of his thoughts on email? No, I don't dismiss someone because of their beliefs (think Stallman;). But I will read their works with a heightened sensitivity toward bias in the direction of whatever they believe. I think people like Mr. Zdziarski who openly declare their beliefs are less likely to let them taint their works because they know it would reflect negatively on their credibility.
Since SE leases the lines from CLECs, not ILECs, isn't this a moot point?
Nope. Verizon can say the same thing to Covad. Verizon can charge them whatever they want, so long as they don't "deny" to sell it to them. The definition of "deny" will no-doubt be left to a murder of lawyers.
The gray areas are certainly interesting. But the existence of gray areas does not preclude recognizing the black and the white at either end.
Interesting you say that, because that's where I started this whole thread: The folks who are "moral" vegetarians and yet seek simulated meat are *deep* into the gray, IMHO.
I guess [...] that where to draw the line is up to each individual,
Fortunately! For now! In the U.S.
but one fairly easy line is to not eat meat period.
Yes. Or simulated meat. Just like to to be morally against tobbacco smoking, I think it would be well past gray to use clove or any other substance to "simulate" smoking.
Growing meat protein this way is from this perspective no different than using Quorn or soybeans as a source of meatlike proteins. It doesn't matter that it's biologically identical to meat from an animal; no animal has been involved anymore than it is with a creatively cultivated fungus.
Ah, trying to bring us back on-topic, are you?!;)
I still get the distinct feeling that no self-respecting "moral" vegetarian would go near the stuff. It's like sythesizing heroin and saying "but it's not *real* heroin, it doesn't come from a poppy!" Maybe the drug analogy is overkill. But since the Smeat(TM) (let's call it;) steak is indistinquishable from a slaughtered steak, it is still "meat". If people who don't have real meat get Smeat and like it, wouldn't that encourage them to eat real meat? Call it a "gateway food".;-D
You are tarring all vegetarians with the same brush.
Not at all. I pointed out in the first comment you responded to that I'm asking about people who don't eat meat on moral grounds. My subsequent comments are still only about those people, not vegetarians in general. I'm a landetarian because I don't like seafood.:-)
The eating of animals is not what's bothering them; the keeping of animals for that purpose is.
This is slightly tangent, but that's difficult to pinpoint too. How many animals per acre before they are considered "kept" and therefor immoral to eat? If they were kept on open range until the day of slaughter, then rounded up and killed, would that be moral? (And truth be told, I'd prefer this method because it results in leaner, tastier beef. The pen-fed fatty crap they pass of as "steak" these days *is* awful.
The "industrial manner" is tough to pinpoint also. How would you slaughter large numbers of otherwise "unkept" animals in a non-industrial manner?
The gray areas are always where the interesting discussion happens, no?
..or someone who doesn't want the energy content of sugar but still want sweet drinks?
I don't think that's a good comparison because they probably don't think sugar is evil.
I think the cigarette comparison works because people think cigarettes are evil. Remember when they tried to come out with the "safe" cigarette that didn't actually burn tobacco? Remember how people railed against it because it was emulating what they perceived as "evil"? Why do things that emulate "evil" meat get a pass? That's the crux of my question, and still unanswered.
Especially for moral reasons - how could it be immoral to make it easier not to do whatever you think is wrong?, and not to have to sacrifice anything for it?
If meat is immoral, isn't the promotion of meat immoral? Isn't trying to emulate meat in effect promoting is as OK? Just like candy cigarettes, "smokeless" cigarettes, toy guns, etc. that are all blamed for "promoting" a perceived evil?
The only way to eliminate something people like is to perfectly replace it
That I can understand, but it's the vegetarians (on moral grounds) I've met who are constantly seeking meat look- and taste-alikes. THAT's what I don't understand.
It's like someone who hates cigarettes (and the people who smoke them) seeking out chewing gum that tastes like a cigarette.
Uh... because meat generally tastes good? I agree, and I eat meat, but it feels disingenous to me for those trying to eliminate animal meat to try and imitate it.
Why do those who are trying so hard to eliminate animal meat try so hard to make the replacements look, feel, and taste like meat? I've never understood that.
If it wasn't for P2P, I never would have discovered Massive Attack. Now I own all of their albums on purchased CD's. What shit-for-brains in the RIAA thinks that P2P is bad for business?
I'm certainly not making any real money on eBay, but I can't tell you how much better it feels to ship some piece of junk to somebody who want it, rather than dumping it in the trash can.
eBay may not be the "promised land", but it certainly is improving the land by being the best recycling tool ever invented.
Sorry, but according to FCC regs (PDF), it is illegal to sell a transmitter that is not type-accepted. From page 27: "The act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law."
If you offer to sell that transmitter you just bought, then you would be in violation too.
I bought a Ramsey FM-25B off eBay, but the FCC went to the seller's house and seized it under the rules listed above before he shipped it. I was able to verify with the FCC that they did seize it, and that he wasn't jerking my chain.
Page three of that same document talks about legal use and construction of home-built (i.e. non-type-accepted) FM transmitters.
I think maybe you don't understand the words "hypocritical" and "irony".
You have every right (for now) to post anonymously. But to post anonymously about how wonderful tracking everything and identifying everyone is could be described as ironic, hypocritical, and even disingenuous.
See the article this morning about Ridge and McCain setting up checkpoints inside the U.S., and requiring you to present your identity papers, or else?
Ever read the fourth amendment?
See the articles over the last few months about how they want to add RFID, as well as biometrics, to passports?
See any parallels between these and the totalitarian governments of the past and present?
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
- Wendell Phillips (1811-1844)
"I'm not trying to hide anything so don't suppose that." The point is you wouldn't have a CHOICE to post anonymously in a world envisioned by McCain, Ridge, Ashcroft, et al.
Slashdot Mirror
"because sometimes kids need something they can relate to"
How about hair color, then? What about eye color? Shouldn't they relate to those? Or is that just ridiculous like skin color or ethnic background should be? Continuing to emphasis race by creating an "identity" of people you can "relate to" perpetuates racism. Dumb. Really dumb, considering much of the bad shit in the world is over racism.
"Those magazines exsist to support a market that does not get the time of day at a usuall tech magazine."
Like what? Are you saying the "usual" tech magazines ignore stories based on race? If so that's quite an accusation. Do you have anything to back it up?
"Check your head, cause I get the feeling you are out of touch."
Me? You're the one promoting racism. Last time I checked, promoting racism was a bad thing. Maybe you should check YOUR head.
"Hispanic Business or other minority based trade magazines" are racist magazines, by definition. The simple test is replace [minority name] with "White" and see if it would be classified as racist. You would call anyone subscribing to "White Business" a racist, and so would I. Supporting these magazines and institutions is supporting racism.
good role models for non-white kids...
First, why are you singling out kids based on their race? Second, why are you telling these kids that race is important, and they can only look to people of the same race/color as "good role models". That is racism. Racism is not acceptable, period. Seems to me you should be telling the kids they can pick whomever they want as their role model, skin color be damned.
Because its what people want?
AH-HA! HA-HA! HA!
Dude, you are so funny. This is why I read Slashdot.
First, I never said he was ignorant of science. It appears from his website he has been instructed in science. I said he didn't understand science.
Second, which part of my post shows a lack of understanding? Or are you dismissing the whole post? Offer some evidence to support your theory, or have your post be dismissed as a "religious act".
Spoken like a "True Believer". It seems to me that many (most?) True Believers can't understand that science isn't about believing in anything, and that science never, ever claims to prove anything. Shame, too, on the non-Believers who say that it does.Again, a clear misunderstanding of science. Science is all about questioning everything. I.e. why are we here? How did we get here? Where are we going? What is thunder? It's only a "religious act" when the questioner is an avowed (or covert) Believer who is offering zero actual evidence supporting any alternate theory.
Religion, generally, and Chistianity specifically, appears to be all about answers. I.e., to answer the questions above, because god made us. God put us here. To heaven if you're good, hell if your not. God is angry. See the difference?
Does this mean I think less of his thoughts on email? No, I don't dismiss someone because of their beliefs (think Stallman
Since SE leases the lines from CLECs, not ILECs, isn't this a moot point?
Nope. Verizon can say the same thing to Covad. Verizon can charge them whatever they want, so long as they don't "deny" to sell it to them. The definition of "deny" will no-doubt be left to a murder of lawyers.
Verizon Exec : "Sure, Speakeasy, you can buy DSL lines from us at the same rate as the REST of our business customers. Bend over!"
"Not to be denied" != fairly priced.
Who's got more lawyers, Verizon or Speakeasy?
The gray areas are certainly interesting. But the existence of gray areas does not preclude recognizing the black and the white at either end.
;)
;) steak is indistinquishable from a slaughtered steak, it is still "meat". If people who don't have real meat get Smeat and like it, wouldn't that encourage them to eat real meat? Call it a "gateway food". ;-D
;-)
Interesting you say that, because that's where I started this whole thread: The folks who are "moral" vegetarians and yet seek simulated meat are *deep* into the gray, IMHO.
I guess [...] that where to draw the line is up to each individual,
Fortunately! For now! In the U.S.
but one fairly easy line is to not eat meat period.
Yes. Or simulated meat. Just like to to be morally against tobbacco smoking, I think it would be well past gray to use clove or any other substance to "simulate" smoking.
Growing meat protein this way is from this perspective no different than using Quorn or soybeans as a source of meatlike proteins. It doesn't matter that it's biologically identical to meat from an animal; no animal has been involved anymore than it is with a creatively cultivated fungus.
Ah, trying to bring us back on-topic, are you?!
I still get the distinct feeling that no self-respecting "moral" vegetarian would go near the stuff. It's like sythesizing heroin and saying "but it's not *real* heroin, it doesn't come from a poppy!" Maybe the drug analogy is overkill. But since the Smeat(TM) (let's call it
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Uh-oh, now I see the problem...
--
computersareevil
You are tarring all vegetarians with the same brush.
:-)
Not at all. I pointed out in the first comment you responded to that I'm asking about people who don't eat meat on moral grounds. My subsequent comments are still only about those people, not vegetarians in general. I'm a landetarian because I don't like seafood.
The eating of animals is not what's bothering them; the keeping of animals for that purpose is.
This is slightly tangent, but that's difficult to pinpoint too. How many animals per acre before they are considered "kept" and therefor immoral to eat? If they were kept on open range until the day of slaughter, then rounded up and killed, would that be moral? (And truth be told, I'd prefer this method because it results in leaner, tastier beef. The pen-fed fatty crap they pass of as "steak" these days *is* awful.
The "industrial manner" is tough to pinpoint also. How would you slaughter large numbers of otherwise "unkept" animals in a non-industrial manner?
The gray areas are always where the interesting discussion happens, no?
I don't think that's a good comparison because they probably don't think sugar is evil.
I think the cigarette comparison works because people think cigarettes are evil. Remember when they tried to come out with the "safe" cigarette that didn't actually burn tobacco? Remember how people railed against it because it was emulating what they perceived as "evil"? Why do things that emulate "evil" meat get a pass? That's the crux of my question, and still unanswered.
Especially for moral reasons - how could it be immoral to make it easier not to do whatever you think is wrong?, and not to have to sacrifice anything for it?
If meat is immoral, isn't the promotion of meat immoral? Isn't trying to emulate meat in effect promoting is as OK? Just like candy cigarettes, "smokeless" cigarettes, toy guns, etc. that are all blamed for "promoting" a perceived evil?
Uh, why else would you have a "one-way copy mechanism"? MP3 players only copy one-way as a way to RESTRICT duplication. It's part of their DRM. Duh.
Yep, it's a troll. But nevertheless, we should know the answer, if we are serious about fighting DRM.
The only way to eliminate something people like is to perfectly replace it
That I can understand, but it's the vegetarians (on moral grounds) I've met who are constantly seeking meat look- and taste-alikes. THAT's what I don't understand.
It's like someone who hates cigarettes (and the people who smoke them) seeking out chewing gum that tastes like a cigarette.
Uh... because meat generally tastes good?
I agree, and I eat meat, but it feels disingenous to me for those trying to eliminate animal meat to try and imitate it.
Why do those who are trying so hard to eliminate animal meat try so hard to make the replacements look, feel, and taste like meat? I've never understood that.
This has already been done and suggested above. DIBS Distributed Internet Backup System.
Soda machine out of Diet Coke again? Dammit!
If it wasn't for P2P, I never would have discovered Massive Attack. Now I own all of their albums on purchased CD's. What shit-for-brains in the RIAA thinks that P2P is bad for business?
How can we stop this crap?
For starters, Join the EFF!
Please!
I'm certainly not making any real money on eBay, but I can't tell you how much better it feels to ship some piece of junk to somebody who want it, rather than dumping it in the trash can.
eBay may not be the "promised land", but it certainly is improving the land by being the best recycling tool ever invented.
Sorry, but according to FCC regs (PDF), it is illegal to sell a transmitter that is not type-accepted. From page 27: "The act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law."
If you offer to sell that transmitter you just bought, then you would be in violation too.
I bought a Ramsey FM-25B off eBay, but the FCC went to the seller's house and seized it under the rules listed above before he shipped it. I was able to verify with the FCC that they did seize it, and that he wasn't jerking my chain.
Page three of that same document talks about legal use and construction of home-built (i.e. non-type-accepted) FM transmitters.
Dont blame the technology, blame the people perverting the technology.
Hear, hear! I agree completely. (I support personal gun ownership, afterall.)
What I was pointing out was the irony of somebody anonymously posting support for technologies that will be perverted to prohibit anonymity.
I think maybe you don't understand the words "hypocritical" and "irony".
You have every right (for now) to post anonymously. But to post anonymously about how wonderful tracking everything and identifying everyone is could be described as ironic, hypocritical, and even disingenuous.
Ya only read what you want to read, don't cha?
See the article this morning about Ridge and McCain setting up checkpoints inside the U.S., and requiring you to present your identity papers, or else?
Ever read the fourth amendment?
See the articles over the last few months about how they want to add RFID, as well as biometrics, to passports?
See any parallels between these and the totalitarian governments of the past and present?
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
- Wendell Phillips (1811-1844)
"I'm not trying to hide anything so don't suppose that."
The point is you wouldn't have a CHOICE to post anonymously in a world envisioned by McCain, Ridge, Ashcroft, et al.