I'm not going to worry about China right now. The more Western they're exposed, the more they'll change, and right now there's no good indication of where that's going. I'm willing to let it happen to find out.
Bullshit. Just because you want something, it doesn't mean you are going to get.
This applies doubly for someone who is thrown into jail for five years for expressing a desire for human rights.
Our best hope to help the political destiny of the Chinese is to simply stop trading with their masters.
Well, I don't think you need to worry about the lesbian studies department unless you take a class in feminism to get dates.
I'm not overly fond of "minority studies" when the delve into the whole "our people did this or that" thing. To me this is no different than listening to some white sumprecists rail off all the things that "white people" have invented as if that somehow meant that their ignorant trash asses where any better.
But there ARE real issues dealing with how sub-cultures interact with societies and economies. And they are certainly worth studying.
I did like "The Emperors New Groove"
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
I did like "The Emperors New Groove".
I think they got this pretty good story past the Disney anti-quality sensors by pretending that the Emperor "character" was a Llama and hence an annoying sidekick.
At the bare least multi-culturalism allows you to form your own bigotries based on peer interaction instead of relying on those projected by your elders.
Too often we form opinions on something we know nothing about. If we're going to have racists, at least they should be INFORMED racists.
Beyond that, it is a typical observation that people aren't so bad once you get to know them. That being said, it's just as easy to hate a black person for his personality as it is to hate an equally annoying white person. Than you have a choice to make. Is he annoying because he's black, or is he just an asshole?
Wow, you're right but you fail to understand what you say.
Say it with me again, " Correlation does not imply causation! "
Yes, people getting college degrees does not cause them to watch Jon Stewart.
But perhaps, just perhaps their exposure to diversity and complex ideas allow them to appreciate sarcasm and irony. Whereas people who live sheltered lives and who have only regurgitated the rhetoric they've been fed since they are 3 years old are more likely to see diversity as an attack on their person and their way of life.
If Andy Kauffmen were alive today, I think he'd be Bill O'Reilly. His right wing spew disguised as objective pragmatism outdoes even John Stossel.
Above all things, Bill O'Reilly is a liar. He lies about EVERYTHING. When he doesn't have a lie pre-prepared he makes one up.
He has a good shtick, I'll give him that. He is absoluetly hypnotic. I hate his guts and he pulls me in sometimes before I realize that he is the god of deception.
My best analogy to him would be Thulsa Doom. Conan know's he's an asshole who killed his girlfriend. But at the end, there is a point where Thulsa whips out that snake tongue of his and he ALMOST convinces Conan to be his son. Than Conan cuts his head off. If we all could only be more like Conan (ESPECIALLY Arnold Schwarzenneger).
Statistically speaking more than half of students at four-year colleges -- and at least 75 percent at two-year colleges -- lack the literacy to handle complex, real-life tasks such as understanding credit card offers.
Are you implying that people without college educations are MORE likely to understand credit card offers??? Have you ever read one of those things all the way through???
A more enlightening allusion may be comparing those with and without a law degree in their ability to understand a credit card agreement. Either that or con-men???
This goes to the heart of the REAL issue that conservatives are mimicking.
This is not a political issue. It's a TEACHING issue and it really has no bias.
Teachers being inappropriate in class is nothing new. Institutions just need good mechanisms to deal with this. It will NOT help for right wing groups to come in and try to nitpick everything a professor says. It will just make it harder for the Dean to discriminate between legitamite complaints (as listed above) and right-wing students baiting professors into off-topic discussions.
Science's dirty little secret is that they have no idea where anything came from. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
Science's plain in your face assertion is that it really isn't concerned. Science is the process of defining the natural world as it IS. It is doesn't care WHY it is.
The problem of the Cleric is that they believe they can find the definitive solution to everything in their moldy old tomes. They cannot accept the notion that creation itself is a better source of revelation than prophets.
I'll go one further. If you believe in creationism, you're a satanist. If you believe in intelligent design, your a satanist. The right wings arguments are typically that all these bones left in the dirt are just "demonic deceptions". This would imply that Satan has more power than god to affect natural revelation. If you believe that Satan is more powerful, you're a Satanist.
You intelligent design guys are SOOOOO self contradictory. If you would stick to what you KNOW, you wouldn't claim that life must have been directed by an intelligence. You would just say that you do not know.
Intelligent Design is religion disguised as bad science.
In case you misunderstood, I meant that Disney is all about squeezing as much content out of their IP regardless of the quality. Why should they bother?? The kids and parents will gobble in up regardless.
Pixar would (would have) sooner folded up shop rather than put out a poor Toy Story 3 the likes of "Return of Jafar".
Disney can no longer put out good theatrical releases. They've become overly formulaic, repetitive and stupid.
In a philsophy course, that may very well be the case.
In a History or poli-sci course, I think you'll find that some ideological students will often lean on traditional urban myths that cannot be justified. A professor will try to show them the difference but they'll keep parroting these nonsense data points.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Professors have typically read enough scholarly papers to know the difference.
For example, if you wrote a paper about George Washington that talked about how the Cherry Tree incident influenced his character you would probably receive a poor grade because you relied on popular urban myths instead of doing research.
This is the point at which conservative synchopantic students get confused. It is not enough to muse on how bad the veitcong was in order to justify your opinions. You have to cite FACTS from scholarly sources instead of relying on personal sentiments (or the afore-mentioned bogus data points).
I think you'll find that philosiphy and history teachers really LIKE debating an informed counterpart. And they will very much appreciate engaging opposing viewpoints as this is the core of liberalism.
However, a students lecture on the problems of evolution to a biology teacher is a discussion probably best left to office hours.
By this, I don't mean he's a satanacist. An effective professor will challenge the student REGARDLESS of the students position. ESPECIALLY if the student agrees with him.
So I suppose that he should also be advocating forcing the economics department to employ openly enthusiastic advocates of Marxist planned economies???
Perhaps we should force theologians to take classes on athiesm.
Maybe ROTC students should be forced to pasifism seminars.
-------
Yes they have a lot to be opposed to from this group. These people have spent their life dedicated to their subjects and they want the ability to teach them instead of having to dribble out right wing talking points and allow paid disruptors masquerading as students to shut down teaching any subject objectionable to the right wing.
The right wingers are taking more and more chapters out of the Nazi playbook.
Creationism was a fairy tale. It is religion. Religion and science have a nice boundry as long as you can differentiate the issues of WHAT and WHY? Science doesn't have to have a deeper meaning, it just is how things work.
The reason is that intelligent design is a religion masquerading as a mish-mash of bad science whose sole purpose is to cast stones at modern biology. It is congnitive dissonance that teaches people to put their desires and needs over reason. One has to turn their brain into mush before they can accept intelligent design in an informed fashion.
This is what ANY cult does. They force their members to accept a myriad of conflicting rules and ideologies that are so farsicle to reason that it makes them succeptible to any degree of social programming.
This sounds like the way the Nazis injected their amazingly stupid notions of Aryanism and anti-Semetism into every subject and EVERY class.
If members of the legislature would like to engage kids in discussion, perhaps they should get a sub license and do it on the cheap. College professors are supposed to be teaching their subjects.
Yes, I'm sure you would like to have an Alan Colmes at EVERY University.
BTW, the ONLY professor I've ever had political discussions with was a Poli-Sci professor. In that case, the man was openly socialist and I would listen skeptically.
Music professor, I would have music discussions. CS professors, I would have CS discussions, etc... I think you'll find that most professors are pretty confident of their viewpoints and have no need to get students to agree with them. I think that MOST would consider debating some uninformed, wet behind the ears teenager about politics would consider that "a waste of time".
When some kid tries to draw ME into a political discussion, I consider THAT a waste of time. Invariably, I just distract them without addressing the issue.
I only had ONE class by an open socialist. And he was fairly unabashed about it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly how much communism you can get from a math or engineering professor.
I think what we see on Universities are a rich diversity of viewpoints through various extra-cirriculur activities. This in essense is considered "leftist" as righties typically seek to get their way by limiting people's options.
"Fair and Balanced" means a person who espouses your viewpoints and disparages the other. They schew you view.
Their are PLENTY of activities on college campuses that espouse right-wing views. And you will find that pretty much EVERY campus is very supportive of such groups speaking their peace and meeting on their campus. That is a LIBERAL idea, that everyone should be able to express themselves.
The true bias on college campuses is that students gravitate towards new ideas. They've already had the traditional stuff crammed down their throat. College is for experimentation (and drinking;-) ) So don't be surprised if students choose to learn about a different world view or pretend just to lay some pretty little socialist girl.
Conservatives shouldn't worry about higher education as deep down we all have a knuckle dragging egocentric caveman inside us just waiting to be nurtured by some hate spewing evangelist like Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity. The urge to be a didactic simpleton is very strong and must be CONSTANTLY fought with reason and compassion.
Conservatives have lazy minds and simple human greed on their side. You shouldn't really need to worry about communist computer science profs (or right wing economics professors for that matter).
Republicans stand for unfettered greed and a social darwinism that is based on survival of the theft-iest.
They only TOLD us these other things to get into office. Once they have all the reigns of power, they show their true stripes.
Fiscal responsibility???? I don't think so. They support hamstringing the IRS to audit their chronies while at the same time launching jihads against poor people who RIGHTFULLY claim the earned income tax deduction.
Support the military??? I don't think so. They support unending warfare and bloated defense contracts for political cronies.
Against abortion???? I have yet to see this congress vote on an anti-abortion amendment. Republicans only care that they have the abortion issue to harp on. They certainly don't care about abortion in the Marianas islands where sweatshop owners FORCE women into abortion.
The Republican party is just a conglomeration of liars and thiefs. They NEVER stood for ANYTHING!!!!
Is it just coincidental that the best and brightest minds are almost always liberals?
I see it all too clear that the righties will try to force all the liberals out of their university posts. Too me, this will be like trying to keep the gays out of seminary.
The big difference here is that before Steve Jobs BOUGHT his old company as CEO of his OLD, OLD company. Steve will NOT be in charge of Disney.
The first thing you'll see is BAD, BAD story lines in Pixar movies. They'll all be the same formulaic, coming of age swill that comes out of Disney. They'll all start with an "I wish" song and end with a pop ballad.
Look for the great creative minds in Pixar to leave and find someplace else where they can make good movies instead of DISNEY movies.
I've seen Disney sequels. By and large, they are TERRIBLE BEYOND TERRIBLE!!!
You couldn't get Brad Bird to come and do some dopey direct to video Incredibles sequels as they have have done with virtually EVERY one of their franchises.
Lassiter could very well be put in charge of the animators. But don't full yourself, someone else will be in charge of Lassiter, and if he orders an Incredibles series written by the same people as "Return of Jafar", that it shall be done.
BTW, have you ever noticed that Pixar films don't end with a romantic ballad by a pop star regurgitated from the film. Have you ever noticed that there is no "I wish" song at the beginning of the film. These are the elements that make even the theatrical release Disney animation so incredibly formulaic and predictable.
You would NEVER see a movie up to par of "The Incredibles" or "Monsters Inc." coming out of Disney. I would not expect to see another if Disney takes over. I would expect the Disney directors to jump ship to Dreamworks or start their own outfit.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to worry about China right now. The more Western they're exposed, the more they'll change, and right now there's no good indication of where that's going. I'm willing to let it happen to find out.
Bullshit. Just because you want something, it doesn't mean you are going to get.
This applies doubly for someone who is thrown into jail for five years for expressing a desire for human rights.
Our best hope to help the political destiny of the Chinese is to simply stop trading with their masters.
Well, I don't think you need to worry about the lesbian studies department unless you take a class in feminism to get dates.
I'm not overly fond of "minority studies" when the delve into the whole "our people did this or that" thing. To me this is no different than listening to some white sumprecists rail off all the things that "white people" have invented as if that somehow meant that their ignorant trash asses where any better.
But there ARE real issues dealing with how sub-cultures interact with societies and economies. And they are certainly worth studying.
I did like "The Emperors New Groove".
I think they got this pretty good story past the Disney anti-quality sensors by pretending that the Emperor "character" was a Llama and hence an annoying sidekick.
At the bare least multi-culturalism allows you to form your own bigotries based on peer interaction instead of relying on those projected by your elders.
Too often we form opinions on something we know nothing about. If we're going to have racists, at least they should be INFORMED racists.
Beyond that, it is a typical observation that people aren't so bad once you get to know them. That being said, it's just as easy to hate a black person for his personality as it is to hate an equally annoying white person. Than you have a choice to make. Is he annoying because he's black, or is he just an asshole?
Wow, you're right but you fail to understand what you say.
Say it with me again, " Correlation does not imply causation! "
Yes, people getting college degrees does not cause them to watch Jon Stewart.
But perhaps, just perhaps their exposure to diversity and complex ideas allow them to appreciate sarcasm and irony. Whereas people who live sheltered lives and who have only regurgitated the rhetoric they've been fed since they are 3 years old are more likely to see diversity as an attack on their person and their way of life.
If Andy Kauffmen were alive today, I think he'd be Bill O'Reilly. His right wing spew disguised as objective pragmatism outdoes even John Stossel.
Above all things, Bill O'Reilly is a liar. He lies about EVERYTHING. When he doesn't have a lie pre-prepared he makes one up.
He has a good shtick, I'll give him that. He is absoluetly hypnotic. I hate his guts and he pulls me in sometimes before I realize that he is the god of deception.
My best analogy to him would be Thulsa Doom. Conan know's he's an asshole who killed his girlfriend. But at the end, there is a point where Thulsa whips out that snake tongue of his and he ALMOST convinces Conan to be his son. Than Conan cuts his head off. If we all could only be more like Conan (ESPECIALLY Arnold Schwarzenneger).
Statistically speaking more than half of students at four-year colleges -- and at least 75 percent at two-year colleges -- lack the literacy to handle complex, real-life tasks such as understanding credit card offers.
Are you implying that people without college educations are MORE likely to understand credit card offers??? Have you ever read one of those things all the way through???
A more enlightening allusion may be comparing those with and without a law degree in their ability to understand a credit card agreement. Either that or con-men???
Isn't it a shame that the most outspoken people always percieve bias the strongest??? Or is their a statistical bias of perception there???
This goes to the heart of the REAL issue that conservatives are mimicking.
This is not a political issue. It's a TEACHING issue and it really has no bias.
Teachers being inappropriate in class is nothing new. Institutions just need good mechanisms to deal with this. It will NOT help for right wing groups to come in and try to nitpick everything a professor says. It will just make it harder for the Dean to discriminate between legitamite complaints (as listed above) and right-wing students baiting professors into off-topic discussions.
Multi-culturalism is not a scientific theory. It's a social programmed designed to brake down the walls of racism in our society.
Science's dirty little secret is that they have no idea where anything came from. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
Science's plain in your face assertion is that it really isn't concerned. Science is the process of defining the natural world as it IS. It is doesn't care WHY it is.
The problem of the Cleric is that they believe they can find the definitive solution to everything in their moldy old tomes. They cannot accept the notion that creation itself is a better source of revelation than prophets.
I'll go one further. If you believe in creationism, you're a satanist. If you believe in intelligent design, your a satanist. The right wings arguments are typically that all these bones left in the dirt are just "demonic deceptions". This would imply that Satan has more power than god to affect natural revelation. If you believe that Satan is more powerful, you're a Satanist.
Stick to what we do know.
You intelligent design guys are SOOOOO self contradictory. If you would stick to what you KNOW, you wouldn't claim that life must have been directed by an intelligence. You would just say that you do not know.
Intelligent Design is religion disguised as bad science.
In case you misunderstood, I meant that Disney is all about squeezing as much content out of their IP regardless of the quality. Why should they bother?? The kids and parents will gobble in up regardless.
Pixar would (would have) sooner folded up shop rather than put out a poor Toy Story 3 the likes of "Return of Jafar".
Disney can no longer put out good theatrical releases. They've become overly formulaic, repetitive and stupid.
In a philsophy course, that may very well be the case.
In a History or poli-sci course, I think you'll find that some ideological students will often lean on traditional urban myths that cannot be justified. A professor will try to show them the difference but they'll keep parroting these nonsense data points.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Professors have typically read enough scholarly papers to know the difference.
For example, if you wrote a paper about George Washington that talked about how the Cherry Tree incident influenced his character you would probably receive a poor grade because you relied on popular urban myths instead of doing research.
This is the point at which conservative synchopantic students get confused. It is not enough to muse on how bad the veitcong was in order to justify your opinions. You have to cite FACTS from scholarly sources instead of relying on personal sentiments (or the afore-mentioned bogus data points).
I think you'll find that philosiphy and history teachers really LIKE debating an informed counterpart. And they will very much appreciate engaging opposing viewpoints as this is the core of liberalism.
However, a students lecture on the problems of evolution to a biology teacher is a discussion probably best left to office hours.
By this, I don't mean he's a satanacist. An effective professor will challenge the student REGARDLESS of the students position. ESPECIALLY if the student agrees with him.
So I suppose that he should also be advocating forcing the economics department to employ openly enthusiastic advocates of Marxist planned economies???
Perhaps we should force theologians to take classes on athiesm.
Maybe ROTC students should be forced to pasifism seminars.
-------
Yes they have a lot to be opposed to from this group. These people have spent their life dedicated to their subjects and they want the ability to teach them instead of having to dribble out right wing talking points and allow paid disruptors masquerading as students to shut down teaching any subject objectionable to the right wing.
The right wingers are taking more and more chapters out of the Nazi playbook.
Creationism was a fairy tale. It is religion. Religion and science have a nice boundry as long as you can differentiate the issues of WHAT and WHY? Science doesn't have to have a deeper meaning, it just is how things work.
The reason is that intelligent design is a religion masquerading as a mish-mash of bad science whose sole purpose is to cast stones at modern biology. It is congnitive dissonance that teaches people to put their desires and needs over reason. One has to turn their brain into mush before they can accept intelligent design in an informed fashion.
This is what ANY cult does. They force their members to accept a myriad of conflicting rules and ideologies that are so farsicle to reason that it makes them succeptible to any degree of social programming.
This sounds like the way the Nazis injected their amazingly stupid notions of Aryanism and anti-Semetism into every subject and EVERY class.
If members of the legislature would like to engage kids in discussion, perhaps they should get a sub license and do it on the cheap. College professors are supposed to be teaching their subjects.
Yes, I'm sure you would like to have an Alan Colmes at EVERY University.
BTW, the ONLY professor I've ever had political discussions with was a Poli-Sci professor. In that case, the man was openly socialist and I would listen skeptically.
Music professor, I would have music discussions. CS professors, I would have CS discussions, etc... I think you'll find that most professors are pretty confident of their viewpoints and have no need to get students to agree with them. I think that MOST would consider debating some uninformed, wet behind the ears teenager about politics would consider that "a waste of time".
When some kid tries to draw ME into a political discussion, I consider THAT a waste of time. Invariably, I just distract them without addressing the issue.
I only had ONE class by an open socialist. And he was fairly unabashed about it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly how much communism you can get from a math or engineering professor.
I think what we see on Universities are a rich diversity of viewpoints through various extra-cirriculur activities. This in essense is considered "leftist" as righties typically seek to get their way by limiting people's options.
"Fair and Balanced" means a person who espouses your viewpoints and disparages the other. They schew you view.
Their are PLENTY of activities on college campuses that espouse right-wing views. And you will find that pretty much EVERY campus is very supportive of such groups speaking their peace and meeting on their campus. That is a LIBERAL idea, that everyone should be able to express themselves.
The true bias on college campuses is that students gravitate towards new ideas. They've already had the traditional stuff crammed down their throat. College is for experimentation (and drinking
Conservatives shouldn't worry about higher education as deep down we all have a knuckle dragging egocentric caveman inside us just waiting to be nurtured by some hate spewing evangelist like Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity. The urge to be a didactic simpleton is very strong and must be CONSTANTLY fought with reason and compassion.
Conservatives have lazy minds and simple human greed on their side. You shouldn't really need to worry about communist computer science profs (or right wing economics professors for that matter).
Republicans stand for unfettered greed and a social darwinism that is based on survival of the theft-iest.
They only TOLD us these other things to get into office. Once they have all the reigns of power, they show their true stripes.
Fiscal responsibility???? I don't think so. They support hamstringing the IRS to audit their chronies while at the same time launching jihads against poor people who RIGHTFULLY claim the earned income tax deduction.
Support the military??? I don't think so. They support unending warfare and bloated defense contracts for political cronies.
Against abortion???? I have yet to see this congress vote on an anti-abortion amendment. Republicans only care that they have the abortion issue to harp on. They certainly don't care about abortion in the Marianas islands where sweatshop owners FORCE women into abortion.
The Republican party is just a conglomeration of liars and thiefs. They NEVER stood for ANYTHING!!!!
Is it just coincidental that the best and brightest minds are almost always liberals?
I see it all too clear that the righties will try to force all the liberals out of their university posts. Too me, this will be like trying to keep the gays out of seminary.
The big difference here is that before Steve Jobs BOUGHT his old company as CEO of his OLD, OLD company. Steve will NOT be in charge of Disney.
The first thing you'll see is BAD, BAD story lines in Pixar movies. They'll all be the same formulaic, coming of age swill that comes out of Disney. They'll all start with an "I wish" song and end with a pop ballad.
Look for the great creative minds in Pixar to leave and find someplace else where they can make good movies instead of DISNEY movies.
I've seen Disney sequels. By and large, they are TERRIBLE BEYOND TERRIBLE!!!
You couldn't get Brad Bird to come and do some dopey direct to video Incredibles sequels as they have have done with virtually EVERY one of their franchises.
Lassiter could very well be put in charge of the animators. But don't full yourself, someone else will be in charge of Lassiter, and if he orders an Incredibles series written by the same people as "Return of Jafar", that it shall be done.
BTW, have you ever noticed that Pixar films don't end with a romantic ballad by a pop star regurgitated from the film. Have you ever noticed that there is no "I wish" song at the beginning of the film. These are the elements that make even the theatrical release Disney animation so incredibly formulaic and predictable.
You would NEVER see a movie up to par of "The Incredibles" or "Monsters Inc." coming out of Disney. I would not expect to see another if Disney takes over. I would expect the Disney directors to jump ship to Dreamworks or start their own outfit.
Pixar's standards are WAAAYY to high for Disney. Disney is all about money. Pixar is all about art that is profitable.
Just look back and see what happened to Miramax for a blueprint of what will happen to Pixar.