How does an asexual microbe (from which evolutionists are dying to prove we came from) evolve into a two-gendered species of any sort without killing itself off in the process?
it must be fairly difficult to venture out in public without being "ON CAMERA". I'm really not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it might prevent some crime
You are gravely mistaken if you think that people will shy away from criminal activity if they know they are on camera.
In reality, if Slashdot collected my SIN number and stored it in a database (linked only with my email address, for login purposes), why would I care?
I'd care because I would have to self-censor heavily to make sure I don't write anything that could be construed by a powerfull entity as a reason to take actions against me.
I'm in the "RIAA and MPAA suxorz" camp, what if that ends up being enough to seize my computers and fine me for more than I'm worth? What if my political views end up being illegal later on? etc.
All those crap "videos" [...] YouTube is going to end up having to take down all material of that type unless the user goes through the copyright clearance process.
So, you're saying the byzantine copyright system is a good thing?;-)
if i lived in 3000 bc, i'd write it on a stone tablet. then it would persist almost forever.
lil' known fact, 5000 years ago most records were written on live sheep, and were therefore quickly lost to history;-)
5000 years from now people might also assume we only wrote in stone, and only wrote long lists of names of dead people, since by then our volatile media will also have been lost to history and all that will be left will be war monuments.
things are getting completely lost, in a way they never did before: the media is becoming inscrutable to modern eyes, very fast
Indeedy, but there's a simple, elegant solution to that: copy.
Everything stored in my old computers could fit on one DVD, if I bothered to dig the compys out of my closet, plug 'em in, and figure out a way to interface them with something recent (I'm thinking the modem would do). Which reason number 18764376428 for which I HATE and despise the RIAA, MPAA, and other similar assholes who wish to prevent the preservation of records out of greed. Sheer greed, they can't stand the fact that the recording is copied without their bank acount being inflated, so they would rather let it disapear, not making a dime, than letting it be saved, without profiting from it.
Have you ever tried freehand drawing with [a mouse]? Compare that to what you can do with a pen.
Compare that to what you COULD do when you first tried out a pen. Don't forget that you were trained for years and years to use a pen to scribble things.
With a pen I can make a stranger's portrait for cash, I would, I assume, have a harder time doing that with a mouse since I've spent so much more time drawing with a pen that with a mouse (I never actually tried a portrait with a mouse... you've given me a nice artistic exercise idea there, thanks).
Different tool, different technique: A pen lets you add pigment to a surface when you apply pressure with it, a mouse doesn't work the same way as pen, since you are always in contact with the surface, you "add pigment" when you use the button... imagine having to continuously push a button on your pen when you want it to dispense ink!
I find that the best method to draw with a mouse is to use it with the lasso and fill tool, not with the pen tool: You define an area, reshape it to your liking, and fill.
It's more akin to a modelling paradigm (though in 2D) than a drawing paradigm, using the pixels as your "clay".
To be clear, I am against ANYONE being stopped from reporting information, even if it is the government.
Yay information, but I'm against pretending the information comes from someone else than the government. It's that lil' bit of astroturfing that I abhor.
It seems to me that it is the government's DUTY to release information if they think the news is reporting false information. We can still choose to research it, compare it to other sources, and accept or reject it. I didn't see anywhere in the article that every US citizen was being forced to watch these new media channels, or being forced to accept the information as the truth.
Well, what you're saying makes sense. It works, if you see the world a certain way.
But the way I see it, the info that they want to correct isn't false, it's info that makes them look bad. Do you remember what was the immediate reaction to the Abu Grahib scandal? It was to ban all cameras from troops in iraqi prisons. The reaction wasn't to ban mistreatment of prisoners, it was to ban the documentation of these abuses.
And no, no one is forced to watch the news, but when all news source are in bed with the government (that would happen if all major news outlets were controlled by a handfull of corporations and the government was close to these private interests), the info becomes monolithic, the masses are manipulated as effectively if they watched the news or they heard of the news through those that did, and the small ripples that an independant news source can make go unnoticed in the sea of disinformation that the well-funded news source disseminate. Especially if those ripples are competing with a concerted effort to drown them out in contradictory ripples made to look like they come from an independant source.
As far as being forced to accept the info, no one is forced to either. But remember: You're either with us, or against us. You must support the troops, you must show a united front to the enemy, you must! No one is forced, but people are coerced. America, love it or leave it, etc.
What is the matter with people? Can't they just learn the value of thinking or conversations with complete strangers on long journeys instead of having to be listening to music
What's the matter with people, can't we just go to work without some stranger harassing us in the bus? iPod or no, walkman or not, I've never seen anyone in the bus or the subway start a conversation with a stranger who wasn't politely trying to end the conversation as fast as possible.
Besidses, some of us can listen to music AND think at the same time. Heck, I can even chew gum and walk on top of that!
Not really. What you call "torture" has was done in many past conflicts without anyone raising a peep.
First of all, Amnesty International makes it their business to constantly "raise a peep" about these things.
Secondly, putting "torture" in quotes to imply it isn't is sickening. Believe me, if someone kidnapped you, tied you up, beat you, deprived you of sleep, and pretended to drown you, you'd mentally remove those quote marks from the word "torture"... if you could do anything but think "god when will this stop".
And finally, George W. Bush is not christian. He says he is, he pays lip service to a church, but every single action he takes, everything he says, goes against what Christ taught. Turn the other cheek? Bush says "preemtive war" Rich man getting in heaven? The priviledged are his base. Without sin, throw the first stone? Texas death-penalty record.
DISCLAIMER: I think Clinton is a fucking weasel, I hated him as soon as I heard him say "...but I did not inhale".
Difference is, Clinton lied on numerous occasions.
No, difference is Clinton did it with a conscenting adult.
If he had told the truth from the beginning
But he was being accused of sexual harassment, and questioned in a way to shape his answers so that it would seem like what he did was non-consenting. A chick offered him a blowjob, that ain't harassment, but "did you have sexual relations with that woman" makes him answer "yes" in an investigation where the implied question is "are you a sexual predator".
I'm not following the whole page thing closely, but I bet the guy didn't com clean on his own, that he lied on numerous occasions too.
Its not stealing, since you are not depriving anyone of the thing. The editors should be more careful with their phraseology.
It's straight from the article. And more to the point, it's the exact doublespeak that the RIAA wants to drill into these kid's heads, using them to spread their propaganda, astroturf style.
Charles Darwin, should, regardless of your personal belief of the veracity of evolutionary theory, be regarded as on of the greatest men to have ever lived. He, in the face of tremendous religious and scientific adversity
Those who's "personnal" belief go contrary to his theory happen to view his religious adversity as a reason to villify, not celebrate him.
maybe somebody will actually *read* the theory before attacking it
Boulderdash, you know as well as I do that those who attack it don't think for themselves, they just flame with what they were told to say when they were in that big room with the guy up front telling them what to think. Reading it would be a waste of time, they have a much more efficient system: One person does the thinking, and distributes it to a group.
Simple solution: Realize from the outset that you suck at this game and you're going to die.
Hilarious:)
I have a friend who's affraid of spiders, he's good at that game, except where there's giant spiders, I used to do those levels for him. People with phobias are funny.
Since this information could lead to slashdotters realising they have a problem, getting help, and not patronising this site as much, he's decrasing shareholder value through loss of pageviews with this article!
Slashdot Mirror
people like me found the PC dude much more amusing and likeable than the scruffy, elitist asshole Mac guy?
What are you guys like, exactly?
Why would you call Mac an asshole? He's done nothing but stand there and be likeable.
These rights include serving in the military, teaching, joining civic organizations and marriage amongst others.
I'm with you on all that except marriage. Just look at Tom Cruise and his lovely beard.
How does an asexual microbe (from which evolutionists are dying to prove we came from) evolve into a two-gendered species of any sort without killing itself off in the process?
The answer is LOVE, baby.
it must be fairly difficult to venture out in public without being "ON CAMERA".
I'm really not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it might prevent some crime
You are gravely mistaken if you think that people will shy away from criminal activity if they know they are on camera.
In reality, if Slashdot collected my SIN number and stored it in a database (linked only with my email address, for login purposes), why would I care?
I'd care because I would have to self-censor heavily to make sure I don't write anything that could be construed by a powerfull entity as a reason to take actions against me.
I'm in the "RIAA and MPAA suxorz" camp, what if that ends up being enough to seize my computers and fine me for more than I'm worth?
What if my political views end up being illegal later on?
etc.
I like to be able to speak out freely.
All those crap "videos" [...] YouTube is going to end up having to take down all material of that type unless the user goes through the copyright clearance process.
;-)
So, you're saying the byzantine copyright system is a good thing?
if i lived in 3000 bc, i'd write it on a stone tablet. then it would persist almost forever.
;-)
lil' known fact, 5000 years ago most records were written on live sheep, and were therefore quickly lost to history
5000 years from now people might also assume we only wrote in stone, and only wrote long lists of names of dead people, since by then our volatile media will also have been lost to history and all that will be left will be war monuments.
things are getting completely lost, in a way they never did before: the media is becoming inscrutable to modern eyes, very fast
Indeedy, but there's a simple, elegant solution to that: copy.
Everything stored in my old computers could fit on one DVD, if I bothered to dig the compys out of my closet, plug 'em in, and figure out a way to interface them with something recent (I'm thinking the modem would do).
Which reason number 18764376428 for which I HATE and despise the RIAA, MPAA, and other similar assholes who wish to prevent the preservation of records out of greed. Sheer greed, they can't stand the fact that the recording is copied without their bank acount being inflated, so they would rather let it disapear, not making a dime, than letting it be saved, without profiting from it.
Music Pirates: Heroes of record keeping.
Have you ever tried freehand drawing with [a mouse]? Compare that to what you can do with a pen.
Compare that to what you COULD do when you first tried out a pen.
Don't forget that you were trained for years and years to use a pen to scribble things.
With a pen I can make a stranger's portrait for cash, I would, I assume, have a harder time doing that with a mouse since I've spent so much more time drawing with a pen that with a mouse (I never actually tried a portrait with a mouse... you've given me a nice artistic exercise idea there, thanks).
Different tool, different technique: A pen lets you add pigment to a surface when you apply pressure with it, a mouse doesn't work the same way as pen, since you are always in contact with the surface, you "add pigment" when you use the button... imagine having to continuously push a button on your pen when you want it to dispense ink!
I find that the best method to draw with a mouse is to use it with the lasso and fill tool, not with the pen tool: You define an area, reshape it to your liking, and fill.
It's more akin to a modelling paradigm (though in 2D) than a drawing paradigm, using the pixels as your "clay".
To be clear, I am against ANYONE being stopped from reporting information, even if it is the government.
Yay information, but I'm against pretending the information comes from someone else than the government.
It's that lil' bit of astroturfing that I abhor.
It seems to me that it is the government's DUTY to release information if they think the news is reporting false information. We can still choose to research it, compare it to other sources, and accept or reject it.
I didn't see anywhere in the article that every US citizen was being forced to watch these new media channels, or being forced to accept the information as the truth.
Well, what you're saying makes sense. It works, if you see the world a certain way.
But the way I see it, the info that they want to correct isn't false, it's info that makes them look bad.
Do you remember what was the immediate reaction to the Abu Grahib scandal? It was to ban all cameras from troops in iraqi prisons. The reaction wasn't to ban mistreatment of prisoners, it was to ban the documentation of these abuses.
And no, no one is forced to watch the news, but when all news source are in bed with the government (that would happen if all major news outlets were controlled by a handfull of corporations and the government was close to these private interests), the info becomes monolithic, the masses are manipulated as effectively if they watched the news or they heard of the news through those that did, and the small ripples that an independant news source can make go unnoticed in the sea of disinformation that the well-funded news source disseminate. Especially if those ripples are competing with a concerted effort to drown them out in contradictory ripples made to look like they come from an independant source.
As far as being forced to accept the info, no one is forced to either. But remember: You're either with us, or against us. You must support the troops, you must show a united front to the enemy, you must!
No one is forced, but people are coerced. America, love it or leave it, etc.
What is the matter with people? Can't they just learn the value of thinking or conversations with complete strangers on long journeys instead of having to be listening to music
What's the matter with people, can't we just go to work without some stranger harassing us in the bus?
iPod or no, walkman or not, I've never seen anyone in the bus or the subway start a conversation with a stranger who wasn't politely trying to end the conversation as fast as possible.
Besidses, some of us can listen to music AND think at the same time. Heck, I can even chew gum and walk on top of that!
Not really. What you call "torture" has was done in many past conflicts without anyone raising a peep.
First of all, Amnesty International makes it their business to constantly "raise a peep" about these things.
Secondly, putting "torture" in quotes to imply it isn't is sickening. Believe me, if someone kidnapped you, tied you up, beat you, deprived you of sleep, and pretended to drown you, you'd mentally remove those quote marks from the word "torture"... if you could do anything but think "god when will this stop".
And finally, George W. Bush is not christian. He says he is, he pays lip service to a church, but every single action he takes, everything he says, goes against what Christ taught.
Turn the other cheek? Bush says "preemtive war"
Rich man getting in heaven? The priviledged are his base.
Without sin, throw the first stone? Texas death-penalty record.
DISCLAIMER: I think Clinton is a fucking weasel, I hated him as soon as I heard him say "...but I did not inhale".
Difference is, Clinton lied on numerous occasions.
No, difference is Clinton did it with a conscenting adult.
If he had told the truth from the beginning
But he was being accused of sexual harassment, and questioned in a way to shape his answers so that it would seem like what he did was non-consenting.
A chick offered him a blowjob, that ain't harassment, but "did you have sexual relations with that woman" makes him answer "yes" in an investigation where the implied question is "are you a sexual predator".
I'm not following the whole page thing closely, but I bet the guy didn't com clean on his own, that he lied on numerous occasions too.
I once heard a gay activist emphatically state that almost all child molesters were heterosexual,
And almost all nobel prize laureates.
The whole "huge majority of people being heterosexual" thing might, MIGHT have something to do with that.
including the ones that molested boys.
Did he say if they molested them in closets?
Its not stealing, since you are not depriving anyone of the thing.
The editors should be more careful with their phraseology.
It's straight from the article.
And more to the point, it's the exact doublespeak that the RIAA wants to drill into these kid's heads, using them to spread their propaganda, astroturf style.
Nitpick: that's "balderdash" actually.
:)
I was wondering about that, and yet I was too lazy to crack open a dictionary
unless you were talking about the computer game...
Ah! I knew I'd seen it written like that somewhere! Thanks.
Your post is completely ridiculous.
Considering that I still see people argue "the human eye is perfect" to 'disprove' evolution, I think not.
me want to troll you
Aww, someone's upset I didn't allow comments!
Charles Darwin, should, regardless of your personal belief of the veracity of evolutionary theory, be regarded as on of the greatest men to have ever lived. He, in the face of tremendous religious and scientific adversity
Those who's "personnal" belief go contrary to his theory happen to view his religious adversity as a reason to villify, not celebrate him.
innerweb
:D
*golf clap*
maybe somebody will actually *read* the theory before attacking it
Boulderdash, you know as well as I do that those who attack it don't think for themselves, they just flame with what they were told to say when they were in that big room with the guy up front telling them what to think.
Reading it would be a waste of time, they have a much more efficient system: One person does the thinking, and distributes it to a group.
Think smart, not hard, dummy!
(Let the flamewar commence.)
Hey!? It's been half an hour, where are all the obcurantism proponents at?
Simple solution:
:)
Realize from the outset that you suck at this game and you're going to die.
Hilarious
I have a friend who's affraid of spiders, he's good at that game, except where there's giant spiders, I used to do those levels for him.
People with phobias are funny.
Since this information could lead to slashdotters realising they have a problem, getting help, and not patronising this site as much, he's decrasing shareholder value through loss of pageviews with this article!
Zonk, we care, you can get better!