I have to admit that Dave Chapelle, whose comedy many times has to do with race, is one of the best/original comedians out there today. Of course his is meant for comedy rather than hate, but where does one draw the line?
FTFA: "They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore."
I think the difference is that laughing about, say, people's noses is ok. Stating that their funny noses is a reason not to employ them, lodge them, or reason to shoot them or whatnot, is not ok.
The difference is that when its a business, competition eventually provides a safer product. Company A bends the rules and gets caught, Company B plays fair and grows. With government, there IS no competition. They are a monopoly
First of all, "eventually" is not good enough when it comes to life and death.
Secondly, what magical process is preventing a Corporate monopoly in your regulations-free world? The monopolies of the past were broken up by those governments you dislike so. Standard Oil, for example...
And as for what happens when you deregulate... remember the rolling brownouts of california when they deregulated power?
Remember the giant international blackout caused by deregulated pruning of the trees around Ohio's powerlines?
There is no basis in reality to this fantasy that businesses would make a safer world if only the regulations were removed. In fact, it's pretty consistent that they do the opposite. The regulations came about precisely because busonesses were NOT working towards the common good, but in fact (shock!) were only working for profit.
I bet you think that tobacco companies provide a safer product through competition or something? And not, you know, an addictive poison.
I've never understood the left-wing rubes that want to "flee to Canada" whenever Bushitler does something they dislike (such as getting reelected in a landslide this time)
Lets see...
Republican Bush (Incumbent)
62,040,606 51% 286
Democratic Kerry
59,028,109 48% 252
51%... now, what's a landslide again?
Main Entry: 1landslide Pronunciation: 'lan(d)-"slId Function: noun 1 : the usually rapid downward movement of a mass of rock, earth, or artificial fill on a slope; also : the mass that moves down 2 a : a great majority of votes for one side b : an overwhelming victory
Oh, yeah, 51%! WOW! That is overwhelming! It's not, you know, just barely over the oponent's results, noooo, it's HUGE!
Like most others defending "Intelligent Design", you too are quite dishonest.
e.g. Dishonestly putting words in my mouth: You are correct that people involved with religion tend to understand philosophical issues better than others
Here are MY words: People involved DO NOT tend to understand philosophical issues better than others. Quite the contrary. They tend to obsess over one philosophy, irrationally clinging to it no matter what, without understanding it.
And, honestly, I can't stop you from polluting science threads with your "I know you are, but what I am" attemps at equating science and religion, but neither can you fool me in believing that you are honest in your discourse. So, STFU&GBTW.
They used political power to attempt to discredit the content of a science book because it does not correspond to their religious beliefs. To do this, they disguised their religious agenda under a veil of pseudoscience because they aren't allowed to overtly censor scientific teaching based on religious grounds.
It is sneaky because they snuck their faith in a science class through the ballot box.
It is dishonest because they hid their religious motivations.
It is underhanded because it was worded so as to evade notice of their religious motivations.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious movement using scientific jargon to discredit actual science. That is not honest.
Games that are movie tie-ins suck 99.999% of the time.
Games that are related to a movie, but that do not come out at the same time as the movie, are not covered by that rule.
The reason for that is, when the games comes out with the movie, it's just [generic product] with the name of the movie attached, it doesn't have to be good, because no one will buy it for what it is, but will buy it for what it reminds them of. They are rushed in production, given no time for testing, and vomited out of the poor, starving devellopers according to the movie's schedule. Turst me, I've been given insane deadlines for movie-games. Like, one week for testing. One. WEEK!
Games that come out independantly of the movie, however, have a chance of being given the ressources needed to make a quality product (although, that's not a given).
Without naming names: The people involved in attempting to put stickers on science books discrediting evolution as "just a theory". That was sneaky, underhanded, dishonest.
After all, what has been the driving force behind the evolution of the brain? Big-brained people surviving and succeeding in reproduction where little-brained people fail.
This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.
Man is a wolf for man, the ability to outsmart big dumb bullies has never stopped being a factor in social circumstances where survival to adulthood is not a given (i.e. the circumstances of about two thirds of the current global population).
And the summary mentions 60 000 years, you say civilisation makes that unlikely? What 60 000 year old civilisation are you referring to, exactly? I'm hard pressed to find one over five thousand years of age.
I'm sick of people touting Intelligent Design when they don't even understand Evolution.
Most people touting Intelligent Design do it because they don't understand Evolution, or they do it to dishonestly promote their religious beliefs, hiding them under pseudoscience.
I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect.
It's nice to make new friends : )
I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery.
Though... I still play a couple of times a year. I see it as a very high-risk investment. I'm willing to invest that dollar in the government's coffers on the off chance that I'll get an astronomical return. If not, then eh, I like roads, hospitals, and the likes (I don't gamble in private casinos though, that's just pathological IMO).
And horoscopes are good for a laugh! I like to compare them from different sources on the same day, to see how wildly off they all can simultaneously be. The best one I ever saw said "Today is a good day to consult your astrologist"... the people in te restaurant were wondering why I was suddenly laughing maniacally from reading the paper : )
I'm also working on the notion that there is something to the idea that the month of your birth could have a developmental influence on your mind... at what age was your first spring? First fall? At what stage of maturing was your brain when that happened? That kind of stuff. Chicks who are into astrology can tell you things about your personality simply from your sign. I'm 100% sure that has nothing to do with the shape or colours of the stars, but they are right too often to be a coincidence all the time. Just because the explanation of the phenomenon is crap, doesn't make their observations and predictions any less valid.
From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two?
How many instances of homo sapiens meeting a slightly different group of homo sapiens do you know of that didn't result in violence? None? Right.
Why always violence? Because it's human nature. There are peacefull humans... they tend to get killed by the violent ones, though.
He's pissed that he lost budget when global warming became an issue.
G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing--all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases?
Right, right. The new communists aren't the terrorists, no, they're the pertrochemical industry. Sure.
Sure, but wouldn't be nice if the biosphere sitting on it would make it too?
Watch a bit of New Orleans news, and think about how readily people dismiss the warnings about increasing severity of storms and other atmospheric extremes due to global warming.
And don't forget to stop treating the employees like disposable wage-slaves.
Insane hours, outlandish conditions, high turn-out, it WILL come back to haunt you. I got out, I was tired of having 60-70 hour weeks scheduled by management routinely.
They are squeezing the life out of their people, because they know a fresh batch of naive workers comes out of schools every year, eager to get into the glamourous biz. It's how it is now, it's not a sustainable way of going at it.
So, did you know that when doing research into fixing spine damage, they actually have to break the spines of the rats? Think about how they do that for a while.
a space laser can probably be put into space and used to start pushing small stuff down into the atmosphere.
Yeah? Well, I just hope my hordes of undead ninja monkeys overtakes the launch pad before your mad plan for world domination and unecessary widespread devastation is in effect...
All chemical substances are natural as well - they're only made natural in a laboratory. They aren't supernatural.
They aren't natural, they are artificial. As in: Not produced by nature (meaning that no natural processes exist to biodegrade the substance since no organism has evolved to deal with the substance).
Artificial chemicals are often a health risk and subject to great concern. But that doesn't mean that the opposite (natural substances) are intrinsically safe, as the GP-poster believed.
just publishing the results of such a test is trolling, as there's no question it's going to be attacked and flamed, no matter whether it's valid or not.
Well, as I see it, in trolling there's a question of intent. Just because you know that what you're about to say will cause an adverse reaction in 51% of the population is no reason to self-censor! Nor is it trolling per se.
e.g. Any time biology news is reported, the creationists start flaming. That's no reason to give in to them and abandon life sciences, or to censor them. Nor does their flaming make the article flamebait. It's not baiting if you say it DESPITE of the flames: the difference is who, in the relationship, wants the flames.
I didn't use 'flamebait' in the direct sense. I was more a metaphore. A flame bait article is something that attracts attention and provokes a response (it sure did on Slashdot!), mostly a negative one, but it is still one way to put your name and the name of your research group out there. How much do you really hear about Ulster University, now there you go, their name is out there.
Ah, I see.
Hmmm, I guess you can file that under flamebait, but, it's... imprecise. Attention-whoring?
Notice, I _never_ said that "everyone is the same", I don't think that is true.
Well, good. I might have been making a general point about people's reaction while replying to you. No offense meant : )
Slashdot Mirror
I have to admit that Dave Chapelle, whose comedy many times has to do with race, is one of the best/original comedians out there today.
Of course his is meant for comedy rather than hate, but where does one draw the line?
FTFA: "They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore."
I think the difference is that laughing about, say, people's noses is ok.
Stating that their funny noses is a reason not to employ them, lodge them, or reason to shoot them or whatnot, is not ok.
The difference is that when its a business, competition eventually provides a safer product. Company A bends the rules and gets caught, Company B plays fair and grows.
With government, there IS no competition. They are a monopoly
First of all, "eventually" is not good enough when it comes to life and death.
Secondly, what magical process is preventing a Corporate monopoly in your regulations-free world?
The monopolies of the past were broken up by those governments you dislike so. Standard Oil, for example...
And as for what happens when you deregulate... remember the rolling brownouts of california when they deregulated power?
Remember the giant international blackout caused by deregulated pruning of the trees around Ohio's powerlines?
There is no basis in reality to this fantasy that businesses would make a safer world if only the regulations were removed. In fact, it's pretty consistent that they do the opposite. The regulations came about precisely because busonesses were NOT working towards the common good, but in fact (shock!) were only working for profit.
I bet you think that tobacco companies provide a safer product through competition or something? And not, you know, an addictive poison.
let the INSURANCE companies dictate what is safe and what isn't.
Yes, let us surrender our lives to for-profit corporations. Good call.
Everyone knows you can get around city code with a little cash in the hand of the inspector.
And BY MAGIC, when the Corporation is in charge, you won't be able to find anyone willing to bend the rules for money in their pocket.
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level
Off course not.
No one would ever compromise security for profit by cutting corners. Never happen in a million years.
I've never understood the left-wing rubes that want to "flee to Canada" whenever Bushitler does something they dislike (such as getting reelected in a landslide this time)
Lets see...
Republican Bush
(Incumbent)
62,040,606 51% 286
Democratic Kerry
59,028,109 48% 252
51%... now, what's a landslide again?
Main Entry: 1landslide
Pronunciation: 'lan(d)-"slId
Function: noun
1 : the usually rapid downward movement of a mass of rock, earth, or artificial fill on a slope; also : the mass that moves down
2 a : a great majority of votes for one side b : an overwhelming victory
Oh, yeah, 51%! WOW! That is overwhelming! It's not, you know, just barely over the oponent's results, noooo, it's HUGE!
Like most others defending "Intelligent Design", you too are quite dishonest.
e.g. Dishonestly putting words in my mouth: You are correct that people involved with religion tend to understand philosophical issues better than others
Here are MY words: People involved DO NOT tend to understand philosophical issues better than others. Quite the contrary.
They tend to obsess over one philosophy, irrationally clinging to it no matter what, without understanding it.
And, honestly, I can't stop you from polluting science threads with your "I know you are, but what I am" attemps at equating science and religion, but neither can you fool me in believing that you are honest in your discourse. So, STFU&GBTW.
They used political power to attempt to discredit the content of a science book because it does not correspond to their religious beliefs. To do this, they disguised their religious agenda under a veil of pseudoscience because they aren't allowed to overtly censor scientific teaching based on religious grounds.
It is sneaky because they snuck their faith in a science class through the ballot box.
It is dishonest because they hid their religious motivations.
It is underhanded because it was worded so as to evade notice of their religious motivations.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious movement using scientific jargon to discredit actual science. That is not honest.
can I trust this reviewer after that quote?
Games that are movie tie-ins suck 99.999% of the time.
Games that are related to a movie, but that do not come out at the same time as the movie, are not covered by that rule.
The reason for that is, when the games comes out with the movie, it's just [generic product] with the name of the movie attached, it doesn't have to be good, because no one will buy it for what it is, but will buy it for what it reminds them of.
They are rushed in production, given no time for testing, and vomited out of the poor, starving devellopers according to the movie's schedule. Turst me, I've been given insane deadlines for movie-games. Like, one week for testing. One. WEEK!
Games that come out independantly of the movie, however, have a chance of being given the ressources needed to make a quality product (although, that's not a given).
Who in the ID community is being dishonest?
Without naming names:
The people involved in attempting to put stickers on science books discrediting evolution as "just a theory". That was sneaky, underhanded, dishonest.
only let the people with an IQ above X have sex
;-)
Wait, you haven't thought this through!
First of all, we need to test Salma Hayek for I.Q., and we make sure that "X" is below her score.
THEN, I'll be on-board
After all, what has been the driving force behind the evolution of the brain? Big-brained people surviving and succeeding in reproduction where little-brained people fail.
This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.
Man is a wolf for man, the ability to outsmart big dumb bullies has never stopped being a factor in social circumstances where survival to adulthood is not a given (i.e. the circumstances of about two thirds of the current global population).
And the summary mentions 60 000 years, you say civilisation makes that unlikely? What 60 000 year old civilisation are you referring to, exactly? I'm hard pressed to find one over five thousand years of age.
We love them, because their strategy to become an unstopable giant has been to have a better product than everyone else.
Not... FUDing their competitors to death.
I'm sick of people touting Intelligent Design when they don't even understand Evolution.
Most people touting Intelligent Design do it because they don't understand Evolution, or they do it to dishonestly promote their religious beliefs, hiding them under pseudoscience.
I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect.
It's nice to make new friends : )
I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery.
Though... I still play a couple of times a year. I see it as a very high-risk investment. I'm willing to invest that dollar in the government's coffers on the off chance that I'll get an astronomical return. If not, then eh, I like roads, hospitals, and the likes (I don't gamble in private casinos though, that's just pathological IMO).
And horoscopes are good for a laugh! I like to compare them from different sources on the same day, to see how wildly off they all can simultaneously be.
The best one I ever saw said "Today is a good day to consult your astrologist"... the people in te restaurant were wondering why I was suddenly laughing maniacally from reading the paper : )
I'm also working on the notion that there is something to the idea that the month of your birth could have a developmental influence on your mind... at what age was your first spring? First fall? At what stage of maturing was your brain when that happened? That kind of stuff. Chicks who are into astrology can tell you things about your personality simply from your sign. I'm 100% sure that has nothing to do with the shape or colours of the stars, but they are right too often to be a coincidence all the time. Just because the explanation of the phenomenon is crap, doesn't make their observations and predictions any less valid.
From TFA: In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive. Why do we always need to reduce the possibilities to just these two?
How many instances of homo sapiens meeting a slightly different group of homo sapiens do you know of that didn't result in violence? None? Right.
Why always violence? Because it's human nature.
There are peacefull humans... they tend to get killed by the violent ones, though.
He's pissed that he lost budget when global warming became an issue.
G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing--all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases?
Right, right. The new communists aren't the terrorists, no, they're the pertrochemical industry. Sure.
Fox! After all, they're fair and balanced!
FoxNews: Superficially (2) and aesthetically pleasing (6a).
the earth will be fine
Sure, but wouldn't be nice if the biosphere sitting on it would make it too?
Watch a bit of New Orleans news, and think about how readily people dismiss the warnings about increasing severity of storms and other atmospheric extremes due to global warming.
And don't forget to stop treating the employees like disposable wage-slaves.
Insane hours, outlandish conditions, high turn-out, it WILL come back to haunt you. I got out, I was tired of having 60-70 hour weeks scheduled by management routinely .
They are squeezing the life out of their people, because they know a fresh batch of naive workers comes out of schools every year, eager to get into the glamourous biz. It's how it is now, it's not a sustainable way of going at it.
So, did you know that when doing research into fixing spine damage, they actually have to break the spines of the rats?
Think about how they do that for a while.
Tiny, tiny skateboards?
a space laser can probably be put into space and used to start pushing small stuff down into the atmosphere.
Yeah? Well, I just hope my hordes of undead ninja monkeys overtakes the launch pad before your mad plan for world domination and unecessary widespread devastation is in effect...
All chemical substances are natural as well - they're only made natural in a laboratory. They aren't supernatural.
They aren't natural, they are artificial.
As in: Not produced by nature (meaning that no natural processes exist to biodegrade the substance since no organism has evolved to deal with the substance).
Artificial chemicals are often a health risk and subject to great concern. But that doesn't mean that the opposite (natural substances) are intrinsically safe, as the GP-poster believed.
Coffee is a naturally grown product, thus does not have bad influence on your body
Curare is also a naturally grown product, and it's influence on your body is paralysis, leading to death as you no longer breathe.
I'll let you decide if that influence is good or bad... personally, I'm thinking it ain't great.
just publishing the results of such a test is trolling, as there's no question it's going to be attacked and flamed, no matter whether it's valid or not.
Well, as I see it, in trolling there's a question of intent.
Just because you know that what you're about to say will cause an adverse reaction in 51% of the population is no reason to self-censor! Nor is it trolling per se.
e.g. Any time biology news is reported, the creationists start flaming.
That's no reason to give in to them and abandon life sciences, or to censor them. Nor does their flaming make the article flamebait.
It's not baiting if you say it DESPITE of the flames: the difference is who, in the relationship, wants the flames.
I didn't use 'flamebait' in the direct sense. I was more a metaphore. A flame bait article is something that attracts attention and provokes a response (it sure did on Slashdot!), mostly a negative one, but it is still one way to put your name and the name of your research group out there. How much do you really hear about Ulster University, now there you go, their name is out there.
Ah, I see.
Hmmm, I guess you can file that under flamebait, but, it's... imprecise. Attention-whoring?
Notice, I _never_ said that "everyone is the same", I don't think that is true.
Well, good. I might have been making a general point about people's reaction while replying to you. No offense meant : )