However, it is completely possible to have a peace prize given without the primary reason being to make a political statement.
no. what you just wrote is logically incoherent and impossible. it is impossible to give any peace prize to anyone without making a political statement. primary reason? ONLY REASON
If you give the Nobel Peace Prize to some hypothetical unsung hero who (say) helped organize the tribes of Darfur into a force for peace...
hilarious!
dude: your "unpolitical" darfur tribe organizer would be seen exactly the same way in khartoum as liu xiaobo is seen in beijing
your comment is completely self-contradictory and you are 100% wrong. you simply don't understand the concepts. peace is INHERENTLY a political concept. understand that, or understand nothing of this subject matter
is this a science fiction parallel to skynet? HAL? v'ger?
someone please inform me along what science fiction prejudicial lines i should cognitively process this story. preferably for humorous reasons, although reasons for childlike awe work too
Nobel did not intend the price to be used as a means to raise one political opinion above the other.
and what i am telling you is that it is impossible to award ANY peace prize to ANYONE without making a political statements, action, reason, or raise one opinion above another. this is a criticism of your understanding of what a peace prize is, AND a criticism of nobel as well, if the way you represent his intent is true
it is simply logically impossible to have a peace prize WITHOUT making a political statement, action, reason, or opinion
i don't have a problem with a website seeing everything i do on that website. i have a problem with a website seeing what i do on other websites
let foo.com have evercookies on my computer about everything i do... at foo.com. not a problem. but i don't ever want foo.com too see what i do at fubar.com, and visa versa
of course, foo.com can sell my info to fubar.com through different channels, but that's a problem that predates the internet, and has nothing to do with browser privacy. and i know if doubleclick has their ads on foo.com, they can infer certain things about my activities at foo.com... actually, now that i think about it, that's a fatal hole in any browser privacy: if a webpage is serving content from another website, such as with advertising networks, we're pretty much doomed no matter what the markup language, aren't we?
to really have browser privacy, you'd have to destroy the entire possibility of webpages serving content from other domains. how the heck do you enforce that? a rule like "when loading content from foo.com, everything on this page must come from foo.com"? is that a viable concept? no more google analytics, no more iframes... i don't know, we're just doomed
but... even if you had that rule, foo.com could just agree with double click to proxy their ads, running them through their servers, so everything is coming from one domain, even though it really isn't. then they can simply see how one particular ip address walks across the web where they have similar agreements with other sites. no escape. you'd have to spoof your ip with every request, which breaks all sorts of functionality on most websites. maybe you could have a new ip for every tab, every session... what a nightmare
basically, the concept of privacy on the internet is void. if you type it on the web, it is known, end of discussion. crap
so basically, if you are saying nobel didn't want a political peace prize, then you are saying nobel, and yourself, don't understand what the concept of peace means. the concept of peace is unavoidably a political concept
any kind of peace is dictated according to terms. terms are always decided by processes that are political. therefore, the very concept of peace is essentially a political animal
since the peace prize is always political no matter what, then the prize will always bother someone somewhere. therefore, the existence of yourself, someone who is bothered by it, is simply a problem that has no solution. therefore your complaint has no merit, because there is nothing that can be done about your complaint: whiners and gripers will always exist in politics
i hate driving. it is drudgery, it is monotonous, it is awful
i want to get in my car, point out a location on the gps, and fall asleep in the driver's seat. everything else is well within our technological abilities to make happen automatically
1) The vast majority of the public is too stupid to make any kind of sound decision about many issues
the people do not deserve to be told they are stupid. according to who? according to someone who is angry that the "smartest" agenda is not being implemented? on what basis is your agenda better and smarter? in china, they think as you do: the average man is too dumb to determine his own destiny. in other words, your thinking is the essence of anti-democratic fascism: "the common man can not think for himself, i must think for him". this is how every despot, dictator, and authoritarian system thinks: like you
2) Most candidates can only get anywhere by money
yes, and this is why we need to improve democracy, not make it even more flawed with internet voting
3) You can never get rid of or mitigate the influence of money on politics since corporations are what makes the world go round.
money is an influence. its not ALL the influence. unless you are a hopelessly negative cynic. in which case, butt out: us who are trying to make a positive difference don't need to be told our fight for what is good is hopeless. we know it isn't hopeless, and we also know you believe that out of a personality defect you have, rather than any better knowledge of reality. what you have is called "learned helplessness". it is a psychological flaw that defines a downward trajectory to YOUR life, not my life, and not our reality
4) Until their is something of a mass movement/revolt so that the power of corporations are reigned in, voting is irrelevant.
so you want a bloody revolution. after which, who knows who will be in power (no one controls a revolution). it could (it will) be a lot worse than the system we have now
how about we use the issue you and i care about: get money out of our government, to vote for **gasp** candidates who want money out of government? what an amazing fucking concept. as opposed to your mindless cynicism that believes in things WORSE than what we currently have
always will be political. additionally: ANY peace prize will be political, forever. any kind of peace is dictated according to terms. terms are always decided by processes that are political. therefore, the very concept of peace is essentially a political animal
since the peace prize is always political no matter what, then the prize will always bother someone somewhere. therefore, the existence of yourself, someone who is bothered by it, is simply a problem that has no solution. therefore your complaint has no merit, because there is nothing that can be done about your complaint: whiners and gripers will always exist in politics
Andre Geim of the University of Nijmegen (the Netherlands) and Sir Michael Berry of Bristol University (UK), for using magnets to levitate a frog. [REFERENCE: "Of Flying Frogs and Levitrons" by M.V. Berry and A.K. Geim, European Journal of Physics, v. 18, 1997, p. 307-13.] NOTE: Ten years later, in 2010, Andre Geim won a Nobel Prize in physics (for research on another subject).
winning the nobel is of course impressive. winning the nobel AND the ignobel is beyond impressive
how many times do i have to say it? the relevant unit of measure is libraries of congress and is always libraries of congress no matter what the subject matter. or maybe beowulf clusters of libraries of congress
If somebody steals your credit card or computer password, for example, you can just get another card or change your password, thereby limiting the damage. That can't be done with behavioral data, they say. Who would be willing or able to change their real world pattern of person-to-person relationships, friendships and family ties
ooooh. you spent 15 minutes yesterday on google looking for pet carriers. now i know who you will marry!
behavioral data is not mind reading or future predicting. its application is extremely narrow. this story is scaremongering stupid bs
when they invented the gun, there was much handwringing about the threat to age old standards of "gentlemanly" combat
when they invented the automobile, the laws of the road going back millenia had to change
when they invented the printing press, the middle class was born, religion was challenged, and democracy became possible, and the old feudal systems of centuries was wiped off the map
and now that they have invented the internet, copyright law has to change too
disruptive technology changes society, and the law, and arguing against that process is fruitless and nothing more than a demented form of nostalgia
a system put in place when distributors pressed LPs and cassette tapes does not hold any water in a world where one teenager with a modem has more publishing power globally than time warner, bertelsmann, etc, in 1988
economically speaking, it simply means that i, by myself, can distribute 10,000 copies of a song or a movie to johannesburg, novosibirsk, kyoto, and belo horinzonte with zero cost and zero effort. that's a game changer my friend. the laws written before the internet about media distribution are now simply neutered and powerless and unenforceable
morality is not going away. technology simply changes the status quo. you are confusing the death of morality with the death of just a specific economic agreement specific to its technological time that is now antiquated. deal with it
there's an entire range of variables in there that you aren't considering
you don't win moral arguments by appealing to simplicity. simplicity is for fundamentalists. are you a fundamentalist? real morality is complex, its about subtlety and nuance, not brutal categorization. and if your thinking isn't complex, you have no right talking about morality at all
Slashdot Mirror
when you can't get any ass, all you want to do is get ass
when you can get ass any time you want, you lose interest in trying to get it
However, it is completely possible to have a peace prize given without the primary reason being to make a political statement.
no. what you just wrote is logically incoherent and impossible. it is impossible to give any peace prize to anyone without making a political statement. primary reason? ONLY REASON
If you give the Nobel Peace Prize to some hypothetical unsung hero who (say) helped organize the tribes of Darfur into a force for peace...
hilarious!
dude: your "unpolitical" darfur tribe organizer would be seen exactly the same way in khartoum as liu xiaobo is seen in beijing
your comment is completely self-contradictory and you are 100% wrong. you simply don't understand the concepts. peace is INHERENTLY a political concept. understand that, or understand nothing of this subject matter
isn't a balloon with a heat source called a hot air balloon?
do fake russian balloon tanks still fool the enemy when they float idyllically by at 1000 feet?
is this a science fiction parallel to skynet? HAL? v'ger?
someone please inform me along what science fiction prejudicial lines i should cognitively process this story. preferably for humorous reasons, although reasons for childlike awe work too
thanks
Nobel did not intend the price to be used as a means to raise one political opinion above the other.
and what i am telling you is that it is impossible to award ANY peace prize to ANYONE without making a political statements, action, reason, or raise one opinion above another. this is a criticism of your understanding of what a peace prize is, AND a criticism of nobel as well, if the way you represent his intent is true
it is simply logically impossible to have a peace prize WITHOUT making a political statement, action, reason, or opinion
i don't have a problem with a website seeing everything i do on that website. i have a problem with a website seeing what i do on other websites
let foo.com have evercookies on my computer about everything i do... at foo.com. not a problem. but i don't ever want foo.com too see what i do at fubar.com, and visa versa
of course, foo.com can sell my info to fubar.com through different channels, but that's a problem that predates the internet, and has nothing to do with browser privacy. and i know if doubleclick has their ads on foo.com, they can infer certain things about my activities at foo.com... actually, now that i think about it, that's a fatal hole in any browser privacy: if a webpage is serving content from another website, such as with advertising networks, we're pretty much doomed no matter what the markup language, aren't we?
to really have browser privacy, you'd have to destroy the entire possibility of webpages serving content from other domains. how the heck do you enforce that? a rule like "when loading content from foo.com, everything on this page must come from foo.com"? is that a viable concept? no more google analytics, no more iframes... i don't know, we're just doomed
but... even if you had that rule, foo.com could just agree with double click to proxy their ads, running them through their servers, so everything is coming from one domain, even though it really isn't. then they can simply see how one particular ip address walks across the web where they have similar agreements with other sites. no escape. you'd have to spoof your ip with every request, which breaks all sorts of functionality on most websites. maybe you could have a new ip for every tab, every session... what a nightmare
basically, the concept of privacy on the internet is void. if you type it on the web, it is known, end of discussion. crap
but basically, there is no such thing as a peace prize, any peace prize, that isn't political, forever
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1813832&cid=33838238
so basically, if you are saying nobel didn't want a political peace prize, then you are saying nobel, and yourself, don't understand what the concept of peace means. the concept of peace is unavoidably a political concept
any kind of peace is dictated according to terms. terms are always decided by processes that are political. therefore, the very concept of peace is essentially a political animal
since the peace prize is always political no matter what, then the prize will always bother someone somewhere. therefore, the existence of yourself, someone who is bothered by it, is simply a problem that has no solution. therefore your complaint has no merit, because there is nothing that can be done about your complaint: whiners and gripers will always exist in politics
when i need one, i rent one. i live in midtown manhattan. partly because i hate driving. it is a curse of our time
i hate driving. it is drudgery, it is monotonous, it is awful
i want to get in my car, point out a location on the gps, and fall asleep in the driver's seat. everything else is well within our technological abilities to make happen automatically
10 years, at the most car manufacturers, please
nationalism is like a glue. without which, the pieces fly apart
indians have to believe in the idea of india for india to exist. if enough don't there's no pool of people to tap to keep the country together
1) The vast majority of the public is too stupid to make any kind of sound decision about many issues
the people do not deserve to be told they are stupid. according to who? according to someone who is angry that the "smartest" agenda is not being implemented? on what basis is your agenda better and smarter? in china, they think as you do: the average man is too dumb to determine his own destiny. in other words, your thinking is the essence of anti-democratic fascism: "the common man can not think for himself, i must think for him". this is how every despot, dictator, and authoritarian system thinks: like you
2) Most candidates can only get anywhere by money
yes, and this is why we need to improve democracy, not make it even more flawed with internet voting
3) You can never get rid of or mitigate the influence of money on politics since corporations are what makes the world go round.
money is an influence. its not ALL the influence. unless you are a hopelessly negative cynic. in which case, butt out: us who are trying to make a positive difference don't need to be told our fight for what is good is hopeless. we know it isn't hopeless, and we also know you believe that out of a personality defect you have, rather than any better knowledge of reality. what you have is called "learned helplessness". it is a psychological flaw that defines a downward trajectory to YOUR life, not my life, and not our reality
4) Until their is something of a mass movement/revolt so that the power of corporations are reigned in, voting is irrelevant.
so you want a bloody revolution. after which, who knows who will be in power (no one controls a revolution). it could (it will) be a lot worse than the system we have now
how about we use the issue you and i care about: get money out of our government, to vote for **gasp** candidates who want money out of government? what an amazing fucking concept. as opposed to your mindless cynicism that believes in things WORSE than what we currently have
nationalism is not a trait unique to the usa, nor north korea, not brazil, china, india, switzerland, norway, etc...
look, it's really simple:
1. a hard drive can contain many LoCs
2. the LoC can contain many hard drives
duh! just contemplate #1 and #2 until your head asplodes, then no more problem
always will be political. additionally: ANY peace prize will be political, forever. any kind of peace is dictated according to terms. terms are always decided by processes that are political. therefore, the very concept of peace is essentially a political animal
since the peace prize is always political no matter what, then the prize will always bother someone somewhere. therefore, the existence of yourself, someone who is bothered by it, is simply a problem that has no solution. therefore your complaint has no merit, because there is nothing that can be done about your complaint: whiners and gripers will always exist in politics
you didn't know that?
oh shit, did i just reveal...
nevermind
(whistling)
http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2000
winning the nobel is of course impressive. winning the nobel AND the ignobel is beyond impressive
improbable research indeed!
libraries of congress!
how many times do i have to say it? the relevant unit of measure is libraries of congress and is always libraries of congress no matter what the subject matter. or maybe beowulf clusters of libraries of congress
get it right please!
or better yet, politician
but if you want to have an intellectually honest conversation someday, you are far from that ability
you are offering the absurd choice: trust your friends with everything or have no friends
no, i want friends, and i want to decide how much i trust each one. am i asking too much?
your understanding of what friendship means is crude and useless
you know what i am talking about, you know what the other guy is talking about. be intellectually honest or shut up
If somebody steals your credit card or computer password, for example, you can just get another card or change your password, thereby limiting the damage. That can't be done with behavioral data, they say. Who would be willing or able to change their real world pattern of person-to-person relationships, friendships and family ties
ooooh. you spent 15 minutes yesterday on google looking for pet carriers. now i know who you will marry!
behavioral data is not mind reading or future predicting. its application is extremely narrow. this story is scaremongering stupid bs
when they invented the gun, there was much handwringing about the threat to age old standards of "gentlemanly" combat
when they invented the automobile, the laws of the road going back millenia had to change
when they invented the printing press, the middle class was born, religion was challenged, and democracy became possible, and the old feudal systems of centuries was wiped off the map
and now that they have invented the internet, copyright law has to change too
disruptive technology changes society, and the law, and arguing against that process is fruitless and nothing more than a demented form of nostalgia
a system put in place when distributors pressed LPs and cassette tapes does not hold any water in a world where one teenager with a modem has more publishing power globally than time warner, bertelsmann, etc, in 1988
economically speaking, it simply means that i, by myself, can distribute 10,000 copies of a song or a movie to johannesburg, novosibirsk, kyoto, and belo horinzonte with zero cost and zero effort. that's a game changer my friend. the laws written before the internet about media distribution are now simply neutered and powerless and unenforceable
morality is not going away. technology simply changes the status quo. you are confusing the death of morality with the death of just a specific economic agreement specific to its technological time that is now antiquated. deal with it
there's an entire range of variables in there that you aren't considering
you don't win moral arguments by appealing to simplicity. simplicity is for fundamentalists. are you a fundamentalist? real morality is complex, its about subtlety and nuance, not brutal categorization. and if your thinking isn't complex, you have no right talking about morality at all
"As another poster pointed out, Christianists are indeed trying to make the US military into a Christian organization..."
that's what you wrote. you're obviously not interested in an honest discussion. you're not an idiot, you're just an asshole
"Since neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever said they were"
i stopped reading here. you just said they were in the comment i was responding to. do you have some sort of short term memory defect?