you have social circles, I have social circles. That they are different doesn't make me "ignorant." What does make you "gay" though is posting AC when we all know who you are.
depends on the circles you run in. In my circles, geek is still an insult (because it has the implication that one is socially inept) and generic terms for a workstation don't imply Windows. I also don't hear people really say "PC" anyway, though - generally they'll say laptop, desktop, workstation, or just - as a catch-all - "computer."
when at all did I claim he was solely responsible for it? When did I say anyone was solely responsilble for anything? He, not I, is the one that questioned whether the subject should be brought up. If he's a historian that thinks this "truth" should be more widely known, then he should be celebrating it, not ridiculing wikileaks and slashdot, calling them propagandists.
btw, regarding your ending "question," I'm going to assume you've never worked with corporate executives, nor been one yourself. Some people need to have a "big picture" which, as I mentioned, means they can't actually be subject-matter experts upon all the subjects that they do, unfortunately, make decisions. It's easy for an engineer in a particular field to harsh anyone not in that field for not knowing that field - ask that same engineer the metabolic pathway for dopamine degredation, and they'll be at a loss. Ask the person who, as a hobby, learns the "real" facts about some particular historical event - they too will be at a loss, most likely.
Me, I just go with the idea that mankind is confused, self-destructive, combatitive, and generally full of self-righteous arses. Instead, I tend to be more interested in subjects that are less "soft" and subjective. There are people in this very thread who claim to have personally witnessed tanks running people over - then people who claim to be history experts, and say any who think that to be true are idiots.
I've always gone with the idea that once you base your argument on insulting someone, you've lost the argument. Some of the more angry on the internet disagree, I guess;)
by the way, I do find it funny that the post right above yours states "I was working for CTV news in Toronto at the time and I saw the raw footage of a protester getting run over by a tank and squashed like a bug"
Call me an idiot, but I neither believe something simply because it was reported, nor disbelieve it because wikileaks refuted it.
"inaccuracies out there that experts can- and do- authoritatively and comprehensively dispel until they're blue in the face, yet are still propagated"
You're not catching a vital part of the conversation. The problem wasn't that there's a disparity of knowledge, the problem is that the person who claims to be substantially correct, is immediately ridiculing those who do not already know what he knows. That's elitism, not someone who is want to share knowledge. "If you don't know, I won't tell you" isn't exactly the moral high ground in the situation.
And here, claim to be an expert on why I'm saying what I'm saying, despite what I'm saying not having been so starkly black/white. Me, I know of plenty of "sins" of our own government, so I don't really spend a lot of time critiquing other cultures who - at a glance - seem to be barely any worse (if not more or less the same) than our own culture in this particular regard. An idiotic way to look at it - perhaps, but sometimes the simple idea of removing the plank from your own eye first, actually does make sense.
knowledge flows from those who have it, to those who do not. If those who have it do not share it, then they are to blame for it not being widely known. By the by, your continued insistence upon attempting to insult doesn't help your argument in the least. Oh, and as another side note - very credible sources do indeed say tanks ran over protestors in the square - such as the person who took the iconic photograph. Also, this might come as a surprise to you, but some of us learned things before we could "link" our sources; what I know on the subject, I learned in textbooks that I read long before most had even heard of the internet.
yes. If you are truly a historian, and know for a fact that a widely-held belief is incorrect, and can also easily prove this to be true - then you are, in fact, to blame for this widely held belief still being perpetuated.
The average mundane "idiot" doesn't have the time to be a subject matter expert on every single event in history, every single peice of technology, so on so forth, all at once. Most of us "idiots" base our perceptions on that which we're told in shortened recounts of such things. And for my idiotic experiences, that was that tanks ran over students, in the square. If you knew this to not be true, yet let it remain generally believed, then it is you to blame - not wikileaks or slashdot.
does it make that much of a difference if, instead of being run over by tanks in the square, they may have been shot with guns a few blocks over? Yes, in fact, it does. Tanks running over protestors is substantially different, one; two, I tend to notice that when a false story crumbles, you admit X didn't happen but then say Y happened instead. The gov has been lying quite handily for a while now, we're more and more turning into a police state ourselves, so indeed - it most certainly matters that everything that was ever reported about the incident was incorrect. And what, you think the US government doesn't shoot protestors here? That's a laugh.
"Barring something changing dramatically, population growth worldwide will be a thing of the past within 40 years." except for the minor, minor fact that the counties that are most over-populated, are also still increasing in size without immigration. Realistically, the US is very fertile; we used to be called the "bread basket of the world" - we produced, not too long ago, over 80% of the world's grains. The US could sustain something not terribly less than what it already has. The most populous country in the world is still experiencing positive growth (though a small growth now, it is still a growth), and they have 6 times as many people as we have in the US. The second most populous country in the world still has a fairly strong growth rate, and is expected to surpass the most populous state before long. The natural resources of both places are relatively limited; for both places, their most powerful "resource" is actually their massive population, which is scary to me; they've made a lot of people that will be very angry that they are poor, and will take it out on the people who can take clean water, plentiful food, safety, and etc for granted. As though somehow, it's the fault of the US and Europe that we don't create population levels many times larger than what the land area we reside on could sustain...
thus why the omnivores with whom I have experience, as a very social person, were described as merely anecdotal; if you would consider meals that have no meat to not have lost their "meal" status just because they have no meat, then you're doing better than the people I know from living in the south and the south west. Purely anecdotal, no matter how many of them I know and see. The fact that prior to becoming a vegetarian, I wasn't a vegetarian, is also anecdotal; I can't use my own habits to extrapolate the norm. I can though point to the meals in restaurant, or to cookbooks, the "food pyramid" which suggests you need meat to have a healthy diet, etc etc. "my kind" tries to be reasonable, I'm not monitoring your house to know what you're doing;)
"my kind" doesn't want to do anything to you; "my kind" allows steak eaters to cook their steaks on my grill when they're over for a party, so long as they keep it on the opposite side of my asparagus. And as for a strawman...it is the prevailing thought, especially in the south. And it's spreading to the north, don't you worry. Look at the menus of any chain, for guidance. Beef-based meals are the main attraction, with chicken-based meals offered for those who are on a diet. Chilis, Applebees, Olive Garden, El Torrito, Rock Bottom...just look at the menus. Look at what we buy. I can only tell you what I've seen in the homes I've personally been in (most meals are beef-based, all meals are meat-based), so that's all anecdotal; instead, look at the menus of restaurants.
And when just recently/. had an article questioning the origin of the moon based on water levels in sub-terrainian rocks , I think I'll stick with my thought that we aren't actually certain what the origin is. Now, whether a large mass making the tides move and causing the plates to shift is necessary for life...well, I can see how it makes the water less stagnant, but stagnant water is not void of life. It's dangerous for humans, but it's far better for tiny life. So is the real question whether life forms with human-like frailties in response to their environment would exist? I'd assume not, really. If we get to an alien planet and find people just like us, I think I'll be rather disappointed;)
I've seen several articles now about how much water is in the center of the moon, calling in to question this theory about the origin of the moon. I've never liked this origin theory, anyway. The large gravity well of a bigger object pulled in a smaller object. Boom, easy stuff. And how in the universe can someone talk about how unlikely it is that other planets would have moons, when our own solar system has several planets with moons? A quick google search reveals this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg/800px-Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg
shhh...if you say the word "vegetarian" they'll think you're even more of a nut. Cutting out beef at least solves one ill; if you can't get them to be nice to their own children (ala, the beef is what is killing the planet) then you're certainly not going to get them to be nice to animals. But questioning whether beef should be in every meal - that's heresy in much of the US. It's not a meal if there's no beef! Where will I get my protein?!?
(vegan in a beef-eating world, refuse to own a car, too - and I've been ignoring kyoto and such until they stop flying tens of thousands of people to a remote place to have a meeting which could be held online. We need simple cultural changes, not new industries where AlGore sells air, and etc)
Go to google.com, type in the words "amazon" and "cattle." There are so many hundreds of credible sources, it would be silly of me to pick one. The housing industry doesn't use wood from the old growth forests, those are too hard for their needs. Instead, they use soft, fast-growing trees like firs and pines. And on the rainforest spectrum, the Kapok (a typical tree from the amazon rainforest) is far more likely to be used to make down for mattresses and pillows, than lumber for a house.
No, economically speaking, they cleared the land for cattle - and just sold the wood to make a little extra in the deal (otherwise, what would they do...burn it? gota put it somewhere, and people will buy it...). The UN (I know, probably not a credible source to you...) did a study called Livestock's Long Shadow which went over a lot of these things. That 80% of the world's arid land is now cattle grazing land, and that some of this land was forests and is now shifting to deserts, is the main problem we all face. AlGore can whinge all he wants about cars, but he still drives his Escalade to the Sierra Club meetings, and still eats steak. Want to save the planet? Stop eating beef. And yes, that means turkey, chicken, goats, wild pigs, etc would be a lot better. Cattle need flat, deforested, predator-free land. Goats could probably survive on the moon, if we got some there...(sarcasm...).
Don't be ridiculous; we in the US demand our beef with every meal, and slowly but surely that mindset is spreading. Where do you think the old forests went? Same place the remaining forests will go - to cattle land. Want to reforest? Stop eating beef.
Bear with me - it's a bit of a story. Anyway, I refuse to own a car, I have a motorcycle instead. As such, I rarely listen to standard "radio" anymore. While at work, I listen to Pandora - have for a while now.
Every once in a while (pretty rarely, actually) I drive my wife's car. And despite now being aware that I do it - I can't stop myself from subconsciously trying to thumb down a song that comes on that I don't like. Proof that humans have some intelligence and can infer, I adapt my environment and thus reach out to the source of the music - the radio. My hands fumble around, and I make quick glances, certain that somewhere...there's a thumbs-down button. Then I catch myself doing what I'm doing, laugh, and change the channel.
Anyway, there's my funny story.
Slashdot Mirror
you have social circles, I have social circles. That they are different doesn't make me "ignorant." What does make you "gay" though is posting AC when we all know who you are.
But you're free to hate, I guess
when at all did I claim he was solely responsible for it? When did I say anyone was solely responsilble for anything? He, not I, is the one that questioned whether the subject should be brought up. If he's a historian that thinks this "truth" should be more widely known, then he should be celebrating it, not ridiculing wikileaks and slashdot, calling them propagandists.
Me, I just go with the idea that mankind is confused, self-destructive, combatitive, and generally full of self-righteous arses. Instead, I tend to be more interested in subjects that are less "soft" and subjective. There are people in this very thread who claim to have personally witnessed tanks running people over - then people who claim to be history experts, and say any who think that to be true are idiots.
I've always gone with the idea that once you base your argument on insulting someone, you've lost the argument. Some of the more angry on the internet disagree, I guess ;)
Call me an idiot, but I neither believe something simply because it was reported, nor disbelieve it because wikileaks refuted it.
You're not catching a vital part of the conversation. The problem wasn't that there's a disparity of knowledge, the problem is that the person who claims to be substantially correct, is immediately ridiculing those who do not already know what he knows. That's elitism, not someone who is want to share knowledge. "If you don't know, I won't tell you" isn't exactly the moral high ground in the situation.
And here, claim to be an expert on why I'm saying what I'm saying, despite what I'm saying not having been so starkly black/white. Me, I know of plenty of "sins" of our own government, so I don't really spend a lot of time critiquing other cultures who - at a glance - seem to be barely any worse (if not more or less the same) than our own culture in this particular regard. An idiotic way to look at it - perhaps, but sometimes the simple idea of removing the plank from your own eye first, actually does make sense.
sharing it doesn't mean ridiculing those who do not already have it. It means sharing it.
knowledge flows from those who have it, to those who do not. If those who have it do not share it, then they are to blame for it not being widely known. By the by, your continued insistence upon attempting to insult doesn't help your argument in the least. Oh, and as another side note - very credible sources do indeed say tanks ran over protestors in the square - such as the person who took the iconic photograph. Also, this might come as a surprise to you, but some of us learned things before we could "link" our sources; what I know on the subject, I learned in textbooks that I read long before most had even heard of the internet.
yes. If you are truly a historian, and know for a fact that a widely-held belief is incorrect, and can also easily prove this to be true - then you are, in fact, to blame for this widely held belief still being perpetuated.
don't be silly - of course we'd be allowed to protest in such numbers. Assuming we stayed in the "free speech zones" and filed the proper permits...
The average mundane "idiot" doesn't have the time to be a subject matter expert on every single event in history, every single peice of technology, so on so forth, all at once. Most of us "idiots" base our perceptions on that which we're told in shortened recounts of such things. And for my idiotic experiences, that was that tanks ran over students, in the square. If you knew this to not be true, yet let it remain generally believed, then it is you to blame - not wikileaks or slashdot.
does it make that much of a difference if, instead of being run over by tanks in the square, they may have been shot with guns a few blocks over? Yes, in fact, it does. Tanks running over protestors is substantially different, one; two, I tend to notice that when a false story crumbles, you admit X didn't happen but then say Y happened instead. The gov has been lying quite handily for a while now, we're more and more turning into a police state ourselves, so indeed - it most certainly matters that everything that was ever reported about the incident was incorrect. And what, you think the US government doesn't shoot protestors here? That's a laugh.
not a "big secret?" Everything I've ever read about it was that students were run over by tanks, inside the square. That's pretty contrary to this.
"Barring something changing dramatically, population growth worldwide will be a thing of the past within 40 years."
except for the minor, minor fact that the counties that are most over-populated, are also still increasing in size without immigration. Realistically, the US is very fertile; we used to be called the "bread basket of the world" - we produced, not too long ago, over 80% of the world's grains. The US could sustain something not terribly less than what it already has. The most populous country in the world is still experiencing positive growth (though a small growth now, it is still a growth), and they have 6 times as many people as we have in the US. The second most populous country in the world still has a fairly strong growth rate, and is expected to surpass the most populous state before long. The natural resources of both places are relatively limited; for both places, their most powerful "resource" is actually their massive population, which is scary to me; they've made a lot of people that will be very angry that they are poor, and will take it out on the people who can take clean water, plentiful food, safety, and etc for granted. As though somehow, it's the fault of the US and Europe that we don't create population levels many times larger than what the land area we reside on could sustain...
thus why the omnivores with whom I have experience, as a very social person, were described as merely anecdotal; if you would consider meals that have no meat to not have lost their "meal" status just because they have no meat, then you're doing better than the people I know from living in the south and the south west. Purely anecdotal, no matter how many of them I know and see. The fact that prior to becoming a vegetarian, I wasn't a vegetarian, is also anecdotal; I can't use my own habits to extrapolate the norm. I can though point to the meals in restaurant, or to cookbooks, the "food pyramid" which suggests you need meat to have a healthy diet, etc etc. "my kind" tries to be reasonable, I'm not monitoring your house to know what you're doing ;)
"my kind" doesn't want to do anything to you; "my kind" allows steak eaters to cook their steaks on my grill when they're over for a party, so long as they keep it on the opposite side of my asparagus. And as for a strawman...it is the prevailing thought, especially in the south. And it's spreading to the north, don't you worry. Look at the menus of any chain, for guidance. Beef-based meals are the main attraction, with chicken-based meals offered for those who are on a diet. Chilis, Applebees, Olive Garden, El Torrito, Rock Bottom...just look at the menus. Look at what we buy. I can only tell you what I've seen in the homes I've personally been in (most meals are beef-based, all meals are meat-based), so that's all anecdotal; instead, look at the menus of restaurants.
And when just recently /. had an article questioning the origin of the moon based on water levels in sub-terrainian rocks , I think I'll stick with my thought that we aren't actually certain what the origin is. Now, whether a large mass making the tides move and causing the plates to shift is necessary for life...well, I can see how it makes the water less stagnant, but stagnant water is not void of life. It's dangerous for humans, but it's far better for tiny life. So is the real question whether life forms with human-like frailties in response to their environment would exist? I'd assume not, really. If we get to an alien planet and find people just like us, I think I'll be rather disappointed ;)
kids? In this economy?
I've seen several articles now about how much water is in the center of the moon, calling in to question this theory about the origin of the moon. I've never liked this origin theory, anyway. The large gravity well of a bigger object pulled in a smaller object. Boom, easy stuff. And how in the universe can someone talk about how unlikely it is that other planets would have moons, when our own solar system has several planets with moons? A quick google search reveals this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg/800px-Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg
shhh...if you say the word "vegetarian" they'll think you're even more of a nut. Cutting out beef at least solves one ill; if you can't get them to be nice to their own children (ala, the beef is what is killing the planet) then you're certainly not going to get them to be nice to animals. But questioning whether beef should be in every meal - that's heresy in much of the US. It's not a meal if there's no beef! Where will I get my protein?!? (vegan in a beef-eating world, refuse to own a car, too - and I've been ignoring kyoto and such until they stop flying tens of thousands of people to a remote place to have a meeting which could be held online. We need simple cultural changes, not new industries where AlGore sells air, and etc)
Go to google.com, type in the words "amazon" and "cattle." There are so many hundreds of credible sources, it would be silly of me to pick one. The housing industry doesn't use wood from the old growth forests, those are too hard for their needs. Instead, they use soft, fast-growing trees like firs and pines. And on the rainforest spectrum, the Kapok (a typical tree from the amazon rainforest) is far more likely to be used to make down for mattresses and pillows, than lumber for a house. No, economically speaking, they cleared the land for cattle - and just sold the wood to make a little extra in the deal (otherwise, what would they do...burn it? gota put it somewhere, and people will buy it...). The UN (I know, probably not a credible source to you...) did a study called Livestock's Long Shadow which went over a lot of these things. That 80% of the world's arid land is now cattle grazing land, and that some of this land was forests and is now shifting to deserts, is the main problem we all face. AlGore can whinge all he wants about cars, but he still drives his Escalade to the Sierra Club meetings, and still eats steak. Want to save the planet? Stop eating beef. And yes, that means turkey, chicken, goats, wild pigs, etc would be a lot better. Cattle need flat, deforested, predator-free land. Goats could probably survive on the moon, if we got some there...(sarcasm...).
Don't be ridiculous; we in the US demand our beef with every meal, and slowly but surely that mindset is spreading. Where do you think the old forests went? Same place the remaining forests will go - to cattle land. Want to reforest? Stop eating beef.
Is "rm -rf /" a "virus" by your definition?
the japanese had *some* good products at the time, at least. China is one major fiasco after another.
Bear with me - it's a bit of a story. Anyway, I refuse to own a car, I have a motorcycle instead. As such, I rarely listen to standard "radio" anymore. While at work, I listen to Pandora - have for a while now.
Every once in a while (pretty rarely, actually) I drive my wife's car. And despite now being aware that I do it - I can't stop myself from subconsciously trying to thumb down a song that comes on that I don't like. Proof that humans have some intelligence and can infer, I adapt my environment and thus reach out to the source of the music - the radio. My hands fumble around, and I make quick glances, certain that somewhere...there's a thumbs-down button. Then I catch myself doing what I'm doing, laugh, and change the channel.
Anyway, there's my funny story.