Despite the fact that we just provide raw information, we have never developed a huge community around us. Sure we receive a ton of hits from the search engines, but I miss that feeling of having tons of users helping and supporting each other.
That probably stems more from that fact that there are so many, many more web sites now then there were "back in the day", than due to any commercialism.
Now I have to worry about everybody stealing my information and slapping their ads all over it...
Now that DOES probably stem from commercialism, or more correctly, individual greed. Part of the unfortunate nature of humans, I'd say.
On a related note, I often see a lot of complaints about the "commercializing of the web" as if that's a bad thing. True, there is a lot of crap out there, but most of the major corporate commercial sites actually have useful information, tech support, and driver downloads; which is a whole lot better than getting that off of some random site. For example, most "restaurant" chains have nutritional information available. If people are mourning the demise of "hobbyist" sites (of which there seems to be no shortage), I would think that was more the responsibility of the hobbyists themselves. Like anything, there is both good and bad in it, though.
Please note that I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just trying to add some hopefully interesting and relevant content of my own to your excellent comment.
And those conservatives are doing a wonderful job of stimulating the economy now, right?
Well, the economy was stimulated enough to actually reduce the deficit a bit. Not that I think it's going to continue that trend, but it does prove that it is possible to increase revenues without increasing taxes.
I think the real problem is that *no one* really totally understands the market economy, in the sense that it can be controlled, any more than we can control the weather. It's a very complex, dynamic system. Which also means that the situation can be easily spun to support any viewpoint.
Yeah, I was wondering how they could tell it was desert like, then I realized that some idiot probably posted the story about the planet with 3 suns, (adding the Tatooine bit trying to make it more/. worthy) not remembering that Tatooine had 2 suns.
The discovery also resulted *from* (not in) a new method of searching for extrasolar planets.
Sorry I got a bit sloppy/lazy with the emphasis/italics.
That provocative superior/inferior thing was only intended as a momentary attention-grabber. I expected people to immediately look past the attention grabber and look for the real message. I never expect people to take that kind of mine-is-bigger-than-yours competition seriously. I was mistaken.
Fair enough. There actually are people who seriously have that kind of competition mentality that you speak of, so when I read things like that on line, it is unfortunately hard to tell how serious one is on line.
Clearly I'm still not getting my message across to you. How can I make people aware of a danger if I'm not supposed to mention that danger?
You're right. There was a confusion of ideas there. You're certainly allowed to mention a danger, but your sig seemed to me, to be antagonistic and to take advantage of terrorism to support your ideas in the same way you were accusing the Bush administration of doing. You can't have it both ways, where you get to talk about it in terms that you believe in and they don't get to talk about it in terms that they believe in. Whether you think they believe that way, or whether you agree with that expressed opinion.
What you should take issue with is either that you disagree with the supposed point or that you think that the submitter doesn't believe it. The latter being a less tenable position as no one can prove what somebody thinks. That's a little vague and generalized, but I think you'll get the idea. If your earlier remark (i.e. the "fun and profit" style remark) was made as such for the sake of brevity, then like your sig, the point is made.
My complaint is that the US has (unintentionally) played into the hands of bin Laden and (unintentionally) fostered and encouraged terrorism by creating a tremendous breeding-ground for terrorism.
Now that is a good point, and certainly a defensible position. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is *definitely* a valid concern. So maybe if you could phrase it in a less antagonizing way, it might work better. (I see you have changed your sig, so I'm sure we get each other's point here). The case could be made that Iraq was already a breeding ground for terrorists, which is the reason we went there in the first place.
What you have said resonates with some of my concerns over the operations in Afghanistan, and figuring out what the terrorists "wanted". I've always said that we should never give in to them, (e.g. if they ask for release of some prisoner, or kidnap someone) don't give in to their demands, because it only legitimizes their actions, and probably encourages others to follow their example.
But the case September 11th attacks was different, the terrorists clearly wanted to kill Americans, and keep on doing so, but for what purpose? To keep us out of Saudi Arabia? This was the stated complaint of Osama Bin Laden. So in order to not give in, we would have to essentially stay there. Also (and probably most importantly) we have to stop them from being able to perpetrate such destructive acts. This is would be best accomplished by getting Afghanistan to turn over Osama, by force if necessary (which admittedly we didn't do very well). And getting rid of Saddam Heussein (like we should have a long time ago) because he was the most capable and most likely force to aid terrorism. If as you say, there was no connection to Al Queda, there shouldn't be much terrorist resistance as they were enemies of Saddam, they should be cheering us on (well ok, maybe not cheering, since they don't like us any more than Saddam, and actually quite a bit less).
But, this is a win-win situation for the terrorists, because then they could claim (incorrectly, of course) that we were "oppressing" them. Those groups that thought we were oppressive before would really have a field day with this. This is where your statements play into their hands, so you have to be V
The fact that someone is critical of what the US is doing doesn't mean he's anti-US.
That's very true. And you're right, people should not remain blind and silent. But that doesn't change the fact that the sentiment around here (meaning slashdot) can be very anti-US, and it didn't start with the current Iraq efforts. So it was certainly easy for me to see you as one of those "weirdos" as you say. I'm not all that convinced that you aren't, but at least now I think you may not be - that's a step in the right direction. Your sig does imply an anti-US sentiment, it seems to say that America has failed, and Europe is somehow automatically better, and morally superior. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sure looks like it to me.
It's not an opinion that uses terrorism
No, I meant that it takes "advantage of terrorism." I didn't mean to imply that you were going out and throwing bombs at people, but you're not taking advantage of it any less than certain profiteers are. In fact, your statement may indeed be helping terrorism, by the fact that it seems to state that we should stop trying to capture guys like Al Zarqawi, and we are somehow just bullying Iraq by being there.
Iraq is at the backyard of Europe. The United States has turned our backyard into an indomitable breeding-ground for terrorism that is building up and getting ready to swarm over the borders, to spread over Europe and over the world.
If you're so concerned about these terrorists spreading into Europe, why aren't you helping round them up, or stop them in some other way, rather than supporting their views (i.e. that US aggression is causing terrorism - which, incidently, is like saying that a rape victim was asking for it). And I don't you you personally there, I'm talking about Europe in general.
This is the fear that the terrorists want to spread
I thought you just said that you had that same fear.
The terrorists do want to spread. That's not an irrational fear, but a verifiable fact. They wanted to spread before the recent Iraq invasion, before Sept. 11, 2001. They had recruiting and training camps.
So the reason why I have this sig is that I hope it will nudge some people into thinking critically about this.
The sig did not do so for me, it just angered me, and led me to believe that any response you had would be equally non-thought provoking. It happily turns out that that was not the case.
The problem is that I see a lot of highly moderated posts around here that amount to nothing more than "fuck Bush, fuck the USA." Therefore, we tend to get desensitized when any REAL criticism comes along.
I am certainly not saying that you should not have opinions, nor that you should not express them. I just hope that there is some way you could express them more constructively (maybe it can't be done, as you've said you have tried).
For example, when Bush went to the UN and said, let's get rid of Saddam, it would have been very much nicer if the response had been more along the lines of "we agree with you, but we think what you want to achieve could be better served by this action, and heres why we think that," rather than "we will reject any proposal put forward by the US..."
Thanks for the insight on your viewpoint. It wasn't wasted on me. Can you think critically about your own opinions (I'm guessing you did before you came to them)?
No, see in this strange thing called democracy, people get have a--marginal--say in what their government does. When 90% of the population doesn't want something, they should be listened [to].
Very true, I suppose if the citizens were against Iraq involvement in the first place, and the then current government went against that wish, then the Madrid bombing had no effect; but then Spain capitulated on its own, without needing the terrorists' prompting.
Also, as far as I understood it, this wasn't a war on terrorism but a war against a madman with WMDs.
Then what was the point of the bombing? If one of the reasons was to get Spain out of Iraq, then it would suggest that staying in Iraq is a good thing (and thus withdrawing support would be a capitulation).
So any army that participated in the war can't be expected to participate in a new objective.
So you're saying that Spain was okay with getting rid of Saddam, but when it comes time to stop Al Zarqawi, that's bad, simply because it is a "different objective," and Spain should therefore not fight terrorism? Regardless of whether that's a capitulation, it still helps the terrorists.
Another fact that should be highlighted is that Spain didn't capitulate in perhaps the most important way: it didn't change its lifestyle. Every continued as normal, which is the strongest message that can be sent to terrorist. "You can't scare me, punks!" No crazy laws were enacted, people didn't hide in their houses, no new anal probes were purchased. All that changed is that [intelligence] decided to devote more resources to radical [Islamic] terrorism. Spain won.
I would tend to agree with that point. I didn't mean that the Spanish capitulated in every way, I was just trying to illustrate (as asked) how they DID capitulate.
Well, as long as you are trying to make your sigs fit the subject of your comment, I can't take issue with that.
If you want to be modded Insightful or Interesting you have to express insightful or interesting opinions.
No, you usually have to express opinions that don't go contrary to the prevailing opinions. For example, your previous comment about using terrorism for fun and profit (praphrasing), and your corresponding sig got modded up to +5, which I found neither interesting nor insightful; it just echoed the prevailing anti-US sentiment around here, and got modded up. While I wouldn't call your comment flamebait, I find your sig actually insulting (the main reason I don't view sigs). Isn't your sig using terrorism to support your views?
If you don't express your opinions people won't listen to your opinions. They can't.
That's a very good point. I suppose there were other reasons (along with the stated frustrations) why I didn't comment. Thanks for the nice reply.
Declaring that you won't say what you think usually isn't enough.
I totally agree there, which is why I said in my previous comment that I didn't think it deserved to get modded up.
"-- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe."
If that is your sig, please use the signature field properly.
I'm not going to comment on it or the rest of your post, because the way this stuff gets modded +5 insightful around here, *anything* I might say to the contrary would be viewed as flamebait (even what I am posting now), no matter how true.
If anybody would care to prove me wrong, mod this insightful (not that I think my comment really deserves it).
No, not that it should not exist, just that there needs to be a certain, reasonable amount of regulation on it. Just because people need a driver's license to drive a car, does not mean that the freedom ceases to exist (note that this is somewhat different from a "right"). That being said, $350,000 for a cab license does seem excessive (but since I know little of the economics of taxi service and what it costs to regulate, I really can't speak with authority). Things aren't as black and white as people would like to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Even English speakers get that one wrong, so don't feel too bad. :-)
Despite the fact that we just provide raw information, we have never developed a huge community around us. Sure we receive a ton of hits from the search engines, but I miss that feeling of having tons of users helping and supporting each other.
That probably stems more from that fact that there are so many, many more web sites now then there were "back in the day", than due to any commercialism.
Now I have to worry about everybody stealing my information and slapping their ads all over it...
Now that DOES probably stem from commercialism, or more correctly, individual greed. Part of the unfortunate nature of humans, I'd say.
On a related note, I often see a lot of complaints about the "commercializing of the web" as if that's a bad thing. True, there is a lot of crap out there, but most of the major corporate commercial sites actually have useful information, tech support, and driver downloads; which is a whole lot better than getting that off of some random site. For example, most "restaurant" chains have nutritional information available. If people are mourning the demise of "hobbyist" sites (of which there seems to be no shortage), I would think that was more the responsibility of the hobbyists themselves. Like anything, there is both good and bad in it, though.
Please note that I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just trying to add some hopefully interesting and relevant content of my own to your excellent comment.
And those conservatives are doing a wonderful job of stimulating the economy now, right?
Well, the economy was stimulated enough to actually reduce the deficit a bit. Not that I think it's going to continue that trend, but it does prove that it is possible to increase revenues without increasing taxes.
I think the real problem is that *no one* really totally understands the market economy, in the sense that it can be controlled, any more than we can control the weather. It's a very complex, dynamic system. Which also means that the situation can be easily spun to support any viewpoint.
Minimum wages are so low and without a wellfare state, some people have to work two jobs just to get by.
:)
Or even one job.
Yeah, I was wondering how they could tell it was desert like, then I realized that some idiot probably posted the story about the planet with 3 suns, (adding the Tatooine bit trying to make it more /. worthy) not remembering that Tatooine had 2 suns.
The discovery also resulted *from* (not in) a new method of searching for extrasolar planets.
In fact, supposedly the reason Stonehenge was built was to convert people from Moon-worship to Sun-worship.
Also, the moon balances the earth rotation around it's axle
[smart ass comment]
So that's why my wagon wheels always fall off the axle! I'd been using a cotter pin instead of a moon.
[/smart ass comment]
[more helpful comment]
I think the word you meant was 'axis'.
[/more helpful comment]
Sorry, I got this funny image of someone stopping the earth by grabbing its 'axle'.
Slashdot has now become "News for wannabe nerds".
Oh, wannabe nerds, not wannabe women?
So Drupal isn't that cross-dresser? This wasn't an article about him needing some new clothes?
can I take this to mean that you don't have any principles in which you strongly believe?
No, but I think it means that he STRONGLY believes in not having any principles in which he strongly believes.
I'm not sure why two mods decided this was Funny.
I'm sure it was because they thought it would be funny to do so, given that the commenter didn't want to be modded funny.
Sorry I got a bit sloppy/lazy with the emphasis/italics.
That provocative superior/inferior thing was only intended as a momentary attention-grabber. I expected people to immediately look past the attention grabber and look for the real message. I never expect people to take that kind of mine-is-bigger-than-yours competition seriously. I was mistaken.
Fair enough. There actually are people who seriously have that kind of competition mentality that you speak of, so when I read things like that on line, it is unfortunately hard to tell how serious one is on line.
Clearly I'm still not getting my message across to you. How can I make people aware of a danger if I'm not supposed to mention that danger?
You're right. There was a confusion of ideas there. You're certainly allowed to mention a danger, but your sig seemed to me, to be antagonistic and to take advantage of terrorism to support your ideas in the same way you were accusing the Bush administration of doing. You can't have it both ways, where you get to talk about it in terms that you believe in and they don't get to talk about it in terms that they believe in. Whether you think they believe that way, or whether you agree with that expressed opinion.
What you should take issue with is either that you disagree with the supposed point or that you think that the submitter doesn't believe it. The latter being a less tenable position as no one can prove what somebody thinks. That's a little vague and generalized, but I think you'll get the idea. If your earlier remark (i.e. the "fun and profit" style remark) was made as such for the sake of brevity, then like your sig, the point is made.
My complaint is that the US has (unintentionally) played into the hands of bin Laden and (unintentionally) fostered and encouraged terrorism by creating a tremendous breeding-ground for terrorism.
Now that is a good point, and certainly a defensible position. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is *definitely* a valid concern. So maybe if you could phrase it in a less antagonizing way, it might work better. (I see you have changed your sig, so I'm sure we get each other's point here). The case could be made that Iraq was already a breeding ground for terrorists, which is the reason we went there in the first place.
What you have said resonates with some of my concerns over the operations in Afghanistan, and figuring out what the terrorists "wanted". I've always said that we should never give in to them, (e.g. if they ask for release of some prisoner, or kidnap someone) don't give in to their demands, because it only legitimizes their actions, and probably encourages others to follow their example.
But the case September 11th attacks was different, the terrorists clearly wanted to kill Americans, and keep on doing so, but for what purpose? To keep us out of Saudi Arabia? This was the stated complaint of Osama Bin Laden. So in order to not give in, we would have to essentially stay there. Also (and probably most importantly) we have to stop them from being able to perpetrate such destructive acts. This is would be best accomplished by getting Afghanistan to turn over Osama, by force if necessary (which admittedly we didn't do very well). And getting rid of Saddam Heussein (like we should have a long time ago) because he was the most capable and most likely force to aid terrorism. If as you say, there was no connection to Al Queda, there shouldn't be much terrorist resistance as they were enemies of Saddam, they should be cheering us on (well ok, maybe not cheering, since they don't like us any more than Saddam, and actually quite a bit less).
But, this is a win-win situation for the terrorists, because then they could claim (incorrectly, of course) that we were "oppressing" them. Those groups that thought we were oppressive before would really have a field day with this. This is where your statements play into their hands, so you have to be V
The fact that someone is critical of what the US is doing doesn't mean he's anti-US.
That's very true. And you're right, people should not remain blind and silent. But that doesn't change the fact that the sentiment around here (meaning slashdot) can be very anti-US, and it didn't start with the current Iraq efforts. So it was certainly easy for me to see you as one of those "weirdos" as you say. I'm not all that convinced that you aren't, but at least now I think you may not be - that's a step in the right direction. Your sig does imply an anti-US sentiment, it seems to say that America has failed, and Europe is somehow automatically better, and morally superior. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sure looks like it to me.
It's not an opinion that uses terrorism
No, I meant that it takes "advantage of terrorism." I didn't mean to imply that you were going out and throwing bombs at people, but you're not taking advantage of it any less than certain profiteers are. In fact, your statement may indeed be helping terrorism, by the fact that it seems to state that we should stop trying to capture guys like Al Zarqawi, and we are somehow just bullying Iraq by being there.
Iraq is at the backyard of Europe. The United States has turned our backyard into an indomitable breeding-ground for terrorism that is building up and getting ready to swarm over the borders, to spread over Europe and over the world.
If you're so concerned about these terrorists spreading into Europe, why aren't you helping round them up, or stop them in some other way, rather than supporting their views (i.e. that US aggression is causing terrorism - which, incidently, is like saying that a rape victim was asking for it). And I don't you you personally there, I'm talking about Europe in general.
This is the fear that the terrorists want to spread
I thought you just said that you had that same fear.
The terrorists do want to spread. That's not an irrational fear, but a verifiable fact. They wanted to spread before the recent Iraq invasion, before Sept. 11, 2001. They had recruiting and training camps.
So the reason why I have this sig is that I hope it will nudge some people into thinking critically about this.
The sig did not do so for me, it just angered me, and led me to believe that any response you had would be equally non-thought provoking. It happily turns out that that was not the case.
The problem is that I see a lot of highly moderated posts around here that amount to nothing more than "fuck Bush, fuck the USA." Therefore, we tend to get desensitized when any REAL criticism comes along.
I am certainly not saying that you should not have opinions, nor that you should not express them. I just hope that there is some way you could express them more constructively (maybe it can't be done, as you've said you have tried).
For example, when Bush went to the UN and said, let's get rid of Saddam, it would have been very much nicer if the response had been more along the lines of "we agree with you, but we think what you want to achieve could be better served by this action, and heres why we think that," rather than "we will reject any proposal put forward by the US..."
Thanks for the insight on your viewpoint. It wasn't wasted on me. Can you think critically about your own opinions (I'm guessing you did before you came to them)?
Sorry, I didn't mean any hard feelings by it. :-)
No, see in this strange thing called democracy, people get have a--marginal--say in what their government does. When 90% of the population doesn't want something, they should be listened [to].
Very true, I suppose if the citizens were against Iraq involvement in the first place, and the then current government went against that wish, then the Madrid bombing had no effect; but then Spain capitulated on its own, without needing the terrorists' prompting.
Also, as far as I understood it, this wasn't a war on terrorism but a war against a madman with WMDs.
Then what was the point of the bombing? If one of the reasons was to get Spain out of Iraq, then it would suggest that staying in Iraq is a good thing (and thus withdrawing support would be a capitulation).
So any army that participated in the war can't be expected to participate in a new objective.
So you're saying that Spain was okay with getting rid of Saddam, but when it comes time to stop Al Zarqawi, that's bad, simply because it is a "different objective," and Spain should therefore not fight terrorism? Regardless of whether that's a capitulation, it still helps the terrorists.
Another fact that should be highlighted is that Spain didn't capitulate in perhaps the most important way: it didn't change its lifestyle. Every continued as normal, which is the strongest message that can be sent to terrorist. "You can't scare me, punks!" No crazy laws were enacted, people didn't hide in their houses, no new anal probes were purchased. All that changed is that [intelligence] decided to devote more resources to radical [Islamic] terrorism. Spain won.
I would tend to agree with that point. I didn't mean that the Spanish capitulated in every way, I was just trying to illustrate (as asked) how they DID capitulate.
Well, as long as you are trying to make your sigs fit the subject of your comment, I can't take issue with that.
If you want to be modded Insightful or Interesting you have to express insightful or interesting opinions.
No, you usually have to express opinions that don't go contrary to the prevailing opinions. For example, your previous comment about using terrorism for fun and profit (praphrasing), and your corresponding sig got modded up to +5, which I found neither interesting nor insightful; it just echoed the prevailing anti-US sentiment around here, and got modded up. While I wouldn't call your comment flamebait, I find your sig actually insulting (the main reason I don't view sigs). Isn't your sig using terrorism to support your views?
If you don't express your opinions people won't listen to your opinions. They can't.
That's a very good point. I suppose there were other reasons (along with the stated frustrations) why I didn't comment. Thanks for the nice reply.
Declaring that you won't say what you think usually isn't enough.
I totally agree there, which is why I said in my previous comment that I didn't think it deserved to get modded up.
I'd actually venture to guess that 100% of people who voted, did so for somebody who lied.
Yeah, like only American politicians lie.
"-- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe."
If that is your sig, please use the signature field properly.
I'm not going to comment on it or the rest of your post, because the way this stuff gets modded +5 insightful around here, *anything* I might say to the contrary would be viewed as flamebait (even what I am posting now), no matter how true.
If anybody would care to prove me wrong, mod this insightful (not that I think my comment really deserves it).
How did the Spanish capitulate?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the perception was that the Madrid bombings were a direct result of the involvement in the Iraq war.
You seem to answer your own question when you say, It was also because of the governement [sic] being involved in the Iraqi war.
There's your capitulation.
While not supporting it in the first place may be a different matter, withdrawing support now only supports the terrorists.
I do not believe it is, at heart, a religion issue.
You're absolutely right. Religion does not kill people. People do.
Whoa! What's with the BSA ad I see associated with this article?
Even more confusing: maybe you could do both?
How about tax breaks for folks _without_ cars?
They already have one, in the form of not having to license their cars.
No, not that it should not exist, just that there needs to be a certain, reasonable amount of regulation on it. Just because people need a driver's license to drive a car, does not mean that the freedom ceases to exist (note that this is somewhat different from a "right"). That being said, $350,000 for a cab license does seem excessive (but since I know little of the economics of taxi service and what it costs to regulate, I really can't speak with authority). Things aren't as black and white as people would like to believe.
You say that as if by being "late" makes it not work. It's never too late to start doing good things. The sooner the better, though.