"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is." -- headline and first paragraph of column by New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent, July 25, 2004
Good, you got the title, but what did the article itself say?
That said, I think it is dumb we break naming conventions because of the Mexican tourist trade (and those ultrasensitive Caucasians who like to take offense for others, espeically if their is a policy debate they can naively call racist), and the pork industry decide that the name is an attack on them. Why the hell does politics even come to play in this? Its a virus, it doesn't care about your opinion of Mexico, or whether or whether not you swear brand fealty to Tyson pork products.
And being a pandemic, it doesn't even care about your nationality, so why does the U.S. and Mexico get to dictate terms?
Hasn't things gone a bit far now?
Back to the media, yes there is a left wing media, and it sucks (though I do have a soft-spot for Rachel Maddow), there also is a right wing media. Both of them are good at spreading FUD for ratings, and reinterpreting neutral facts towards what their viewers want to hear. And selectively ignoring proof against stupid partisan talking points, and the trite advertising-esque crap out pols through at us (Barak Obama birth certificate people I'm looking at you, you too Keith Olbermann in general) This, we might find, has always been somewhat true, even if the rapid blending of "Yellow" and "investigative" journalism is troubling, as is the further blending of news content with entertainment and blatant editorializing. Both "sides" do it though.
Smart people ignore the spin, and just take in the facts, they always have. Its called critical thinking, the modern dearth of this is much more disturbing than silly rants about the media not fully representing your opinion of what the truth is.
Fine. Then use the registration and licensing for riding bikes to fund their paths. As I said, most funding comes from gas taxes, so if you're not using your car you're not helping to fund the roads.
I'd say 95% of people who ride bikes past the age of 18, also own and drive cars. Its not either/or, so most bikers are paying for roads by taxes/fees.
What, is google broken for you?
Its a rhetorical question. Google it.
Well it'd be nice if they actually stayed in them, but they don't. It'd also be nice if they obeyed the stop sign on their path where it crosses an interstate on ramp (where the cars have no yield or stop signs)... but they don't. Oh, and then there's the problem where you need to make a right turn across the bike lane. No where else does a driver have to look completely behind him before making a turn. It creates a dangerous situtation, since you're basically making a right turn when you're not in the right most lane (because the rightmost lane is a bike lane). Of course, passing on the right is illegal.. but again I have yet to see a cyclist obey that law (or most of the others, for that matter).
Ah... here is the meat. Arguing about our opinions on financing things is rather boring, and meaningless.
You can't easy claim that all cyclists break these laws. A portion of them do, obviously (as do a portion of drivers completely ignore traffic laws), as to what that portion is, neither of us have any idea. Yes, you can say it is a large on, but that isn't a valid study, since your more likely to notice the idiots.
And people on Motorcycles are often guilty of many of these things, as well. But more dangerously, since they weave about within the main flow of traffic more.
I live 30 miles from work, a twenty minute drive. Of course part of that is in the city, which is crowded, and a bike can easily add 10 more minutes to my drive, because they are slowing an entire lane of traffic. So I spend more time in my car than I need to, meaning I have less time to get other things done.
Yes, and if there was proper infrastructure this wouldn't be a problem.
Not that I'm here to please others.. I really don't care if I'm popular or not. But I guess some people just need to be accepted by everyone... although that sounds pretty lame to me.
I just don't see how someone can be so annoyed by something so mundane. I personally don't care one bit about what people choose to get around, though I'd prefer more people using bikes/feet/public transportation, where possible, but not enough to mandate it, or really have any sort of emotional response. Its a bike, they've been part of the public landscape longer than cars, so they aren't really an inconvenience. Sure, I'd like my car commute to be easier, but in the end that is nothing but an egotistical statement, I'd also like my bike/foot/public transit commute to be easier. I'd like a lot of things, but none of them will, or should happen, since other people have the right to their preferences as well, so compromise happens.
I don't even bicycle much, I was just stepping in because it was odd that someone was so adamant against them. I can't really see much room for strong opinions on the topic, the harshest I could see is "bicycle ambivalence". Though there is a lesson here, someone, somewhere in the world, will hold a very strong opinion in opposition of anything, no matter how innocuous. This even truer now, since people somehow think that their opinion is objective, or somehow worthy of being enforced on the masses (not accusing you of this, per se, just an observation in general).
Though I think there is only two "progressive" bands right now, Tool, and The Mars Volta. Other than that its been eaten by the "post-x" genre tag, which has bloated beyond the point of usefulness.
Maybe people could use their brains and realize that killing kittens is not the worst thing in the world
Murder and rape in war torn countries, a okay, a kitten gets killed, lets all get together and catch the bastard.
Both of these statements either imply that killing kittens is fine (which I doubt your implying), or that its a lesser problem than war, and thus we shouldn't be mad about it.
Wow, welcome to the land of ad hominem. Am I allowed to ride bikes there?
I fail to see what your point about owning both a car and a bike is supposed to be; if I own two cars, I have to insure both, register both, and if someone else is driving my second card, they need to be licensed as well.
That was in reply to funding proper bike paths, which you are adamantly against.
I seriously doubt bikes every out number cars.
Notice the words "at some times", which is very different than "all the time".
Idiots on bikes can get themselve killed by stupid riding habits. Really here, why someone chooses to ride a bike in around all these heavy machines is beyond me. Its not safe.
Agreed. But why should I need license and registration for the ability to kill myself? The point is that cars can kill OTHERS when handled by morons.
Nope, you can cause serious injury.
How many people are killed or injured by people on bikes, as opposed to people in cars?
Oddly, some jackass kids on bikes were riding on the sidewalk...
So, no bikes on the streets, or trails, leaving only the sidewalk...
Nope. People ride bikes because they happen to live close to where they work... but planning it that way? Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.
Actually some people do. If enough people decided to pick houses by bicycle availability, it creates more localized growth. Obviously this isn't the only factor, but it helps.
Fail again here, sorry. Your stupid ass going 10mph on a bike while holding up a line of cars behind you ISN'T lowering pollution. Most of the fuel being burned by those cars is being wasted... because of you.
And bike lanes are a bad idea, why?
Typical cyclist snobbery. Nothing would change, except we'd be less productive than before.
How so? Riding a bike in no way adversely affects your productivity, unless you live 10 miles from work.
As a driver, I say go fuck yourself, and pay for your own damn bike trails.. which won't have people swtiching from driving to biking anytime soon regardless of how many you build. I live in a "bike friendly" city, and the paths are used no where as near as much as roads are used by cars.
So our system churning out happy idiots with stellar "self esteem" is how things should work? Because that's all it does.
The main source of problems here is that we're expecting kids to learn without any instruction really at all.
This obviously is a problem too. My whole rant takes for granted that kids are actually being educated. If they aren't, then the whole thing is a rather mute point, since we don't even have an educational system.
I'd put some of the blame in the fact that we're teaching a lot of this "self esteem" crap INSTEAD of actually teaching them the stuff that counts, like how to read. We lack focus.
Actually, part of my argument was that these feelings of self worth would naturally arise from actual academic achievement (as they used to), and thus focusing on them is nothing but a distraction for the only thing that really matters; learning.
You can be a genius and still do mediocre work. You can judge this both by individual ability, and by a group aggregate. You can be completely average in ability, and do below average work. You shouldn't feel good about that. No matter how smart you are, you can do badly. You shouldn't be proud of being intelligent, you should be proud of APPLYING it.
What is wrong with being an average, ordinary person? Do you really think it's a good education plan to tell 90% (or 99.99999% by the tone of your second statement) that they are completely worthless and can only become happy if they accomplish some great deed worthy of history books?
Actually, it would be the bottom 50% that I would goad. People can be average, but they shouldn't feel special about it, they should WANT to be better. Sure, we shouldn't drive them to suicide, but we should have some pressure for them to be better. A significant portion of these "average" kids have the potential to be more than average.
By my second statement I was overstating the fact that no one is special. So telling everyone that they are is a lie, and a lie that can have adverse consequences. There is NOTHING good about being average. To tell children otherwise is nothing but encouraging complacence.
To person below me has a point too, our idea of average is much lower than it used to be. Hell, in my state (Arizona) our idea of average is so low that it precludes the ability to get out of high school reading above a 5th grade level. Yes, these kids should be shamed... I mean, they can't even READ, if you feel good about that (or think they should) there is something terribly wrong with the system.
I guess part of the problem is that I really don't give a crap about individuals feeling good about themselves, I care more about having to live with them.
What have you done that's so great? Why do you feel this elitism when you will be just as faceless and unnoticed as pretty much every other person in the history of humanity?
I haven't done a damn thing that makes me special, neither have you, neither probably has anyone either of us knows. This is fine.
What elitism? I never claimed I was special. Though it is ironic they we should make everyone feel special, but I shouldn't. I'm a man with an opinion, your also a person with one. We're just debating the merits of our opinions. No where is elitism implied here.
I just never understood why people should feel good about merely existing. It's like "white pride" (or other racist ideals), what the hell is there to be proud of? I didn't have a hand in being Caucasian, so its rather nonsensical. You can only be proud of deeds, not passive phenomena that you have no control over. Same thing with being special, unless your some form of mutation, or you've actually done something, your not special.
I also HATE people with a sense of entitlement for no reason. This type of person is what our education system has decided to put value on, and churn out.
Maybe people could use their brains and realize that killing kittens is not the worst thing in the world. All this outrage is ridiculous. Murder and rape in war torn countries, a okay, a kitten gets killed, lets all get together and catch the bastard.
I shouldn't help that guy over there, because there are millions of other people who need my help in Africa!
That is fallacious reasoning.
People who kill kittens for fun are probably going to be dangerous in other ways. It is one of the signs of a burgeoning serial killer, for example. Actually, if I saw someone killing a kitten for fun on the street, I'd beat them within an inch of their lives, then take the kitten home with me, then call the cops on him, and his boss, and his family.
If you find hurting defenseless living things funny, then I really don't want you in my society, since I'm sure you can go far beyond "just" kittens.
Seriously, these morons RECORDED themselves killing kittens. Its not like there is a big mystery over who actually did it.
I have no problem with this, no one got hurt, and making someone lose their job for doing something disgusting is perfectly fine with me. Its not like they were lynched or anything serious.
Okay, you go to a fast food restaurant, and you see an employee wander out back and beat up a bum. Would it be wrong for me to go talk to his manager and call the cops on him? Even if he got fired?
Most reasonable people would have no problem with this. But just because its on the internet its now "scary".
The term "indie" has somehow become a genre, and not an actual signifier of "independent". This is also true for Hollywood, most "indie" films are produced by major studios, and the signifier basically means "emulating Juno" now. Indie in music basically means watered down punk rock, or "sounds kind of like Radiohead", or "pop for people over 15". Actually, it might be one of the most useless genre tags after "alternative".
There are TONS of decent independent labels out there. John Zorn's Tzadik, Mike Patton's Ipecac, Mimicry, Drag City, Relapse, etc... Odd thing, most of the music put of by the aforementioned labels would never actually be called "indie", even if they are independent artists.
Not true. If that one person paying their $15/mo causes too people to quit, they lose money. So they have some motivation to keep griefing down.
And yes, I've know a couple people who actually quit over people being asshats. And no, just moving to a PVE server doesn't help, since your experience is already tainted, and PVE servers are also full of morons (though to a lesser extent than PVP, obviously).
I thinks its more the case that he was one of the fat nerdy kids bullied at school, and now he decided to bully other people to build up his self-image, but lacks the cojones to do it in person. Its his shining moment to attempt to be an alpha male, and grab some sense of power in a world that he generally perceives himself to be completely powerless in.
Its like all the moronic trolls of the internet, basically. I doubt even 1% of them were abused as children, or such. Their just social rejects who were picked on by the cool kids, and the internet allows them to act in a way they perceive as cool, meaning being a dick to others.
Also the dynamics of the internet helps. Your semi-anonymous, so your actions have no consequences whatsoever, and its easier to dehumanize the other people sitting behind their computers at home. I find it kind of funny that these people probably are meek, timid, dorks in real life, completely lacking the gumption to act like they do online. It makes them even more sad an pathetic, I'd have more respect for them if they acted like they do in real life, and faced the consequences for it.
Sometimes I wish there was actual consequences for online behavior, or we'd get rid of online anonymity all together. But then I realize that it exists for a reason, so we have to accept the good along with the bad.
(I mean all other games don't have the ghost system as far as I know but instant respawn at your bind point)
When you die in WoW you respawn as a ghost at the nearest graveyard. You either have to run back to your corpse (which rarely, if ever takes 10 min, more like 1-2min), or get an instant rez from a "spirit healer" which hurts your items durability, and gives you a long debuff subtracting something like 75% from all stats.
Other than that there is no penalty to dying in WoW, especially from PKs.
That said, I personally can't stand griefers. There is something about people who get their jollies just from annoying other people that irks me (and probably most adults).
t. Schools are also around to give children confidence, physical fitness, social skills, discipline, etc.
I can see how some of these are important for schools. But we should still never sacrifice pure learning for any of them. Actually, the only one that has an overt place in schools is phys-ed. The rest of them should arise naturally from a learning environment. Confidence is covered the second a kid does an "impossible" problem, or reasons out a consequence on their own. Social skills arise from being stuck in a class room full of children trying to fit in and rise to the top of the social heap. Discipline is, and has, always been integral to ALL hard tasks. You can't tell me that those kids in the 1800's before modern "social education" didn't have it. You teach discipline by being a hard-ass, "you do it until you get it right, if you don't do it bad things happen".
You have obviously never tried to teach a smart child who lacks confidence in their ability because they've never been encouraged.
Not as a profession, though I've had to deal with them, and was one. You lead a child to confidence, you don't teach it. As stated, it comes from that first moment you make them find water on their own (as opposed to leading them to it). I was diagnosed as a "troubled" child as a kid, because of this 90% of my teachers decided they had to hold my hand, and thus I learned nothing, even if I was smart. Then I had a teacher that made me read a ton of books, synthesize the knowledge into a coherent plan (not contained in any of the books), and then design an application for it. It was hard, it was challenging, but I did it. I got an A, and a nice "atta boy!" from my teacher, after that my confidence issues were solved. Again, this is anecdotal, so... But the premise remains, self confidence is earned, all a teacher can do is make a child realize that they deserve it. For characteristics beyond the droll "you exist, and are special!" crap.
The secret to confidence is forcing kids to be surprised with their own abilities, not preaching it at them.
Apparently, you have never known anyone who has withdrawn from school and social life because they were having trouble at home.
This does happen, I agree. But this is not the majority of cases, nor enough of the population to force changes on general curriculum. Smart teachers can pick these kids out, and give them special attention, or call social services if it is bad enough.
This highlights a major problem with the system; aiming for the lowest common denominator. We can help the kids with real problems, AND help the best and brightest excel and become something special. We don't have to drag everyone down to the most level of the most wretched example.
You seem to have no understanding about how developmental psychology or education actually work
Have some understanding, did an undergrad in psychology. Granted my emphasis was pure research, but I did get stuck with some developmental classes (not claiming I'm an expert, just not unfamiliar). Developmental psych is probably one of the weakest areas in psych at the moment, though.
For some reason, you seem to think that our schools should teach average students to feel terrible about themselves because they are average, as if that would somehow motivate them to learn more.
Never said that. Well, if average kids can't read at their grade level, and don't know math at a comparable, then well yes, they should be judged by their higher level peers, and should feel that they can do better. I accept average as the high C to low A level of grades, and this is fine, though there should still be at least some pressure to do better. A percentage of average kids are capable of more, given proper goading.
We should try to make every kid rise to the maximum of their ability. We also, must accept that this level varies.
If you are truly an average student you shouldn't be made to feel bad about it, but y
I'm sure 99.9% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.
Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is an American multinational corporation which designs and manufactures consumer electronics and software products. The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, the iPod and the iPhone. Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating system, the iTunes media browser, the iLife suite of multimedia and creativity software, the iWork suite of productivity software, and Final Cut Studio, a suite of professional audio and film-industry software products. The company operates more than 250 retail stores in nine countries[2] and an online store where hardware and software products are sold.
Sorry for trolling, have a six pack and a day off.
Yes, the top 5% of our university system is very good. This leaves 95%. Then add to it that most people go to Universities for "practical" degrees (read high priced trade school), and very few go for degrees with long term benefit to society.
The problem isn't so much higher education, but k-12.
I'm dating a person working on their major in education (its free, and mostly for giggles),who has to interact with actual k-12 teachers. Reading some of the pop-psych drivel that teachers cough up, I sadly wouldn't doubt it you were serious.
Primary and secondary educations exists to make kids LEARN, not to make them feel good about themselves. When it comes to schooling, I actually don't care how they feel about it, as long as they leave being able to read at a 12th grade level, and know at least some math. Actually, I would like it if they knew something about history as well. If they leave feeling good about themselves, that is great, IF (and only if) they earned it through achievement.
People who do mediocre work should feel mediocre about it. Feeling bad about it forces them to do something about it. Telling them that being a moron is fine, isn't making them want to stop being a moron. Kids should be under some pressure to... you know... better themselves.
As for self-esteem... its a load of new-age crap. Self respect, like all other forms of respect, must be earned. Being proud of yourself for nothing but existing is rather stupid, it motivates nothing but egotism and some idiotic sense of entitlement. Being proud of yourself for doing something, that gives incentive to continue to achieve.
Also, no, they are not innately special. No one is. You are nothing but part of the faceless masses that will be completely forgotten within one generation of your death, this is the definition of not being special. Just because you like yourself, doesn't change this. If you feel good about this, there is something wrong. You only become special when you DO something that the vast majority of anonymous strangers in the world can't do. You don't get to the point where this is possible by sitting on your ass, staring into a mirror, and chanting a mantra about how awesome you are just because you are you.
A quick question; should I be proud of myself for sitting at my desk eating cheetos? Or should I be proud of myself for getting off my ass and doing something interesting? Children are no different.
Really, we need more hard-ass eduction. We should just flunk everyone who can't actually read at their grade level, or perform basic mathematical operations, no questions asked. Continue to flunk them until they pass, turn twenty-one, or realize they should just get their GED and do something that befits their temperament.
When I bought my first Mac, an iBook G3 in 2003, it was the best value notebook for my needs. It was actually cheap in comparison to most PC notebooks, which really surprised me. The Mac notebook line has always been good value.
Sadly this doesn't hold true on the higher end. MacBooks and iBooks were a decent value, and at least comparable to Windows laptops with the same specs, but PowerBooks and MacBook Pro's are generally way too expensive for what you get.
My HP Pavilion Vista Laptop (now running Linux) was around $300 (maybe a little less) than my girlfriends MBP with the same hardware (less bundled RAM, Apple still thinks RAM is a rare commodity mined from the last rainforest on Venus in quantities over 1GB for some reason), and a smaller screen. This always confused me, how the entry level can be an good value, while the top-end is overpriced.
Its not even "bling" value, since I rarely see a MBP in the hands of a young person.
The same is true for iMacs, the low level is a good price for a computer/monitor, while the high level isn't.
I think Macs have become status symbols in spite of themselves, which is rather surprising.
Anecdotal, so take with a grain of salt, but I don't know anyone who bought a Mac for the status symbol aspect. ipods and iPhones, yes, but not the computers themselves. I might know the wrong crowd, or am too old to know many people who would do such a thing, though. Half the people in college bought them because that is what they grew up on (odd, I know), or because our school's computer shop only sold Macs, and the only retailer in my town (Flagstaff, AZ) was a OfficeMax (depot?), so you had to drive 150 miles to get any competition.
So, he cites fiction to prove his ideology, while you MAKE fiction to prove yours (and hence his wrong).
Neither of you really make much of a point based on evidence.
eel free to disprove this by doing a list of films about death row inmates and whether they are based on true events and whether that portrayal includes prior convictions.
I don't have to, since you never proved your initial hypothesis as correct.
The real reason for this law is probably that politicians are stupid, and water rights are rather serious business (and not just in the financial sense) out in the Four Corners states/desert southwest.
Good for you, except it isn't trolling/., its still trolling/b/ except now where no one from/b/ will ever read it. I'm pretty sure all their trolls are scripted by now, and generally are at least amusing, or... you know... someone in the flavor of trolling the average/. user.
I'd personally take the "did you hear about the singularity" guy, or the iPhone rectal stimulation guy, it at least is somewhat in the scope of/.
If your going to troll, please put some EFFORT into it.
Unlike the average Slashdotter, I know my personal anecdotes have nothing to do with reality, hence the apparent self-evidence.
I'm sure a lot of it dried up because the web is generally more convenient when you already have a browser open. I hate to say it, but sadly Usenet had better, more intelligent discussions than the web does. I'm not sure if I'm insulting web forums, or complimenting Usenet though.
Odd, I got a Mac in college when my PC crapped out thanks to some defective parts after $300 of upgrades. I decided I had enough of futzing with my computer, and fixing things, so I bought an iBook. With student discounts it was cheaper than most comparable Wintel laptops, and did pretty much the same stuff, and I got a free iPod with it. Sure, I couldn't game, but I had more important things to do.
It actually served my purposes fine, and it was damn cheap. Hardly a status symbol. Hell, even if it was a status symbol it might have left my dorm room 4 times 3 years.
Stop generalizing to justify your own selection of OS as being far superior to everyone elses. And stop deluding yourself into thinking you OS choice has anything to do with anything that actually matters. Its shallow, and obnoxious.
And just so you don't call me a fan-boy (which is also vapid, I might add) I'm typing this on my Windows gaming rig, sitting next to my Ubuntu laptop, which is sitting next to a Mac Mini I'm fitting into a mini media center.
So... Let me see if I got this straight, bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. Bikes shouldn't have trails unless bike people pay for them (since no one with a car would EVER buy a bike, and no one would ever use them for any other purpose, I suppose), but people with bikes should have to hemorrhage money for them like people with cars do.
You'd hate a lot of smaller college towns. In Flagstaff, at times, bikes can outnumber cars on the roads. Bikes have turning lanes just for them, and you can get nasty tickets for ignoring general traffic laws while riding them. Actually, I've known people getting tickets or warnings for riding them on sidewalks when there was a perfectly good road lane for them. Would have been hell for you, I suppose. Flagstaff also had an AWESOME system of urban trails and bike paths, and easy access to a bike trail that bisects the state vertically (if your really hardcore).
Cars require licensing, and registration because idiots can kill people when they use them. Cars are heavy fast moving complex machines, bikes are small slowish moving simple machines. If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed. If I hit you going at a moderate speed with a car, your dead. If you don't see the difference, then I really don't think you deserve the privilege of driving on my streets.
I have nothing against you gas dollars subsidizing my riding a bike. I'm doing you a favor. Bikes combat against urban sprawl, pollution, middle eastern oil dependency, obesity, etc... If more people rode them, the world would be a better place. I agree with a lot of European cities, cars should be banned from the city center (or have to pay a huge fee).
When the parent say "anti-cyclist" I scoffed, since I never thought such a strange animal could exist. And now I know, sadly. Also, the parent said:
Cyclists should indeed be using reflectors and lights (as should the cars).
, which I take to mean that cars should have their damn lights on. Don't nitpick things to fit your idea of what people should be saying to justify your bias.
As a person living in one of the least bike friendly cities in the US (Phoenix) now, I say gas should be taxed 2c a gallon more, to build bike lanes, and trails. Less sprawl, less brown cloud... its worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is."
-- headline and first paragraph of column by New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent, July 25, 2004
Good, you got the title, but what did the article itself say?
That said, I think it is dumb we break naming conventions because of the Mexican tourist trade (and those ultrasensitive Caucasians who like to take offense for others, espeically if their is a policy debate they can naively call racist), and the pork industry decide that the name is an attack on them. Why the hell does politics even come to play in this? Its a virus, it doesn't care about your opinion of Mexico, or whether or whether not you swear brand fealty to Tyson pork products.
And being a pandemic, it doesn't even care about your nationality, so why does the U.S. and Mexico get to dictate terms?
Hasn't things gone a bit far now?
Back to the media, yes there is a left wing media, and it sucks (though I do have a soft-spot for Rachel Maddow), there also is a right wing media. Both of them are good at spreading FUD for ratings, and reinterpreting neutral facts towards what their viewers want to hear. And selectively ignoring proof against stupid partisan talking points, and the trite advertising-esque crap out pols through at us (Barak Obama birth certificate people I'm looking at you, you too Keith Olbermann in general) This, we might find, has always been somewhat true, even if the rapid blending of "Yellow" and "investigative" journalism is troubling, as is the further blending of news content with entertainment and blatant editorializing. Both "sides" do it though.
Smart people ignore the spin, and just take in the facts, they always have. Its called critical thinking, the modern dearth of this is much more disturbing than silly rants about the media not fully representing your opinion of what the truth is.
Fine. Then use the registration and licensing for riding bikes to fund their paths. As I said, most funding comes from gas taxes, so if you're not using your car you're not helping to fund the roads.
I'd say 95% of people who ride bikes past the age of 18, also own and drive cars. Its not either/or, so most bikers are paying for roads by taxes/fees.
What, is google broken for you?
Its a rhetorical question. Google it.
Well it'd be nice if they actually stayed in them, but they don't. It'd also be nice if they obeyed the stop sign on their path where it crosses an interstate on ramp (where the cars have no yield or stop signs)... but they don't. Oh, and then there's the problem where you need to make a right turn across the bike lane. No where else does a driver have to look completely behind him before making a turn. It creates a dangerous situtation, since you're basically making a right turn when you're not in the right most lane (because the rightmost lane is a bike lane). Of course, passing on the right is illegal.. but again I have yet to see a cyclist obey that law (or most of the others, for that matter).
Ah... here is the meat. Arguing about our opinions on financing things is rather boring, and meaningless.
You can't easy claim that all cyclists break these laws. A portion of them do, obviously (as do a portion of drivers completely ignore traffic laws), as to what that portion is, neither of us have any idea. Yes, you can say it is a large on, but that isn't a valid study, since your more likely to notice the idiots.
And people on Motorcycles are often guilty of many of these things, as well. But more dangerously, since they weave about within the main flow of traffic more.
I live 30 miles from work, a twenty minute drive. Of course part of that is in the city, which is crowded, and a bike can easily add 10 more minutes to my drive, because they are slowing an entire lane of traffic. So I spend more time in my car than I need to, meaning I have less time to get other things done.
Yes, and if there was proper infrastructure this wouldn't be a problem.
Not that I'm here to please others.. I really don't care if I'm popular or not. But I guess some people just need to be accepted by everyone... although that sounds pretty lame to me.
I just don't see how someone can be so annoyed by something so mundane. I personally don't care one bit about what people choose to get around, though I'd prefer more people using bikes/feet/public transportation, where possible, but not enough to mandate it, or really have any sort of emotional response. Its a bike, they've been part of the public landscape longer than cars, so they aren't really an inconvenience. Sure, I'd like my car commute to be easier, but in the end that is nothing but an egotistical statement, I'd also like my bike/foot/public transit commute to be easier. I'd like a lot of things, but none of them will, or should happen, since other people have the right to their preferences as well, so compromise happens.
I don't even bicycle much, I was just stepping in because it was odd that someone was so adamant against them. I can't really see much room for strong opinions on the topic, the harshest I could see is "bicycle ambivalence". Though there is a lesson here, someone, somewhere in the world, will hold a very strong opinion in opposition of anything, no matter how innocuous. This even truer now, since people somehow think that their opinion is objective, or somehow worthy of being enforced on the masses (not accusing you of this, per se, just an observation in general).
Nah, there still is a bit of life in that genre.
Though I think there is only two "progressive" bands right now, Tool, and The Mars Volta. Other than that its been eaten by the "post-x" genre tag, which has bloated beyond the point of usefulness.
Actually you did say basically that.
Maybe people could use their brains and realize that killing kittens is not the worst thing in the world
Murder and rape in war torn countries, a okay, a kitten gets killed, lets all get together and catch the bastard.
Both of these statements either imply that killing kittens is fine (which I doubt your implying), or that its a lesser problem than war, and thus we shouldn't be mad about it.
Wow, welcome to the land of ad hominem. Am I allowed to ride bikes there?
I fail to see what your point about owning both a car and a bike is supposed to be; if I own two cars, I have to insure both, register both, and if someone else is driving my second card, they need to be licensed as well.
That was in reply to funding proper bike paths, which you are adamantly against.
I seriously doubt bikes every out number cars.
Notice the words "at some times", which is very different than "all the time".
Idiots on bikes can get themselve killed by stupid riding habits. Really here, why someone chooses to ride a bike in around all these heavy machines is beyond me. Its not safe.
Agreed. But why should I need license and registration for the ability to kill myself? The point is that cars can kill OTHERS when handled by morons.
Nope, you can cause serious injury.
How many people are killed or injured by people on bikes, as opposed to people in cars?
Oddly, some jackass kids on bikes were riding on the sidewalk...
So, no bikes on the streets, or trails, leaving only the sidewalk...
Nope. People ride bikes because they happen to live close to where they work... but planning it that way? Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.
Actually some people do. If enough people decided to pick houses by bicycle availability, it creates more localized growth. Obviously this isn't the only factor, but it helps.
Fail again here, sorry. Your stupid ass going 10mph on a bike while holding up a line of cars behind you ISN'T lowering pollution. Most of the fuel being burned by those cars is being wasted... because of you.
And bike lanes are a bad idea, why?
Typical cyclist snobbery. Nothing would change, except we'd be less productive than before.
How so? Riding a bike in no way adversely affects your productivity, unless you live 10 miles from work.
As a driver, I say go fuck yourself, and pay for your own damn bike trails.. which won't have people swtiching from driving to biking anytime soon regardless of how many you build. I live in a "bike friendly" city, and the paths are used no where as near as much as roads are used by cars.
You must be the most popular guy on your block.
So our system churning out happy idiots with stellar "self esteem" is how things should work? Because that's all it does.
The main source of problems here is that we're expecting kids to learn without any instruction really at all.
This obviously is a problem too. My whole rant takes for granted that kids are actually being educated. If they aren't, then the whole thing is a rather mute point, since we don't even have an educational system.
I'd put some of the blame in the fact that we're teaching a lot of this "self esteem" crap INSTEAD of actually teaching them the stuff that counts, like how to read. We lack focus.
Actually, part of my argument was that these feelings of self worth would naturally arise from actual academic achievement (as they used to), and thus focusing on them is nothing but a distraction for the only thing that really matters; learning.
Yes, I am prone to hyperbole.
Actually, you did:
You can be a genius and still do mediocre work. You can judge this both by individual ability, and by a group aggregate. You can be completely average in ability, and do below average work. You shouldn't feel good about that. No matter how smart you are, you can do badly. You shouldn't be proud of being intelligent, you should be proud of APPLYING it.
What is wrong with being an average, ordinary person? Do you really think it's a good education plan to tell 90% (or 99.99999% by the tone of your second statement) that they are completely worthless and can only become happy if they accomplish some great deed worthy of history books?
Actually, it would be the bottom 50% that I would goad. People can be average, but they shouldn't feel special about it, they should WANT to be better. Sure, we shouldn't drive them to suicide, but we should have some pressure for them to be better. A significant portion of these "average" kids have the potential to be more than average.
By my second statement I was overstating the fact that no one is special. So telling everyone that they are is a lie, and a lie that can have adverse consequences. There is NOTHING good about being average. To tell children otherwise is nothing but encouraging complacence.
To person below me has a point too, our idea of average is much lower than it used to be. Hell, in my state (Arizona) our idea of average is so low that it precludes the ability to get out of high school reading above a 5th grade level. Yes, these kids should be shamed... I mean, they can't even READ, if you feel good about that (or think they should) there is something terribly wrong with the system.
I guess part of the problem is that I really don't give a crap about individuals feeling good about themselves, I care more about having to live with them.
What have you done that's so great? Why do you feel this elitism when you will be just as faceless and unnoticed as pretty much every other person in the history of humanity?
I haven't done a damn thing that makes me special, neither have you, neither probably has anyone either of us knows. This is fine.
What elitism? I never claimed I was special. Though it is ironic they we should make everyone feel special, but I shouldn't. I'm a man with an opinion, your also a person with one. We're just debating the merits of our opinions. No where is elitism implied here.
I just never understood why people should feel good about merely existing. It's like "white pride" (or other racist ideals), what the hell is there to be proud of? I didn't have a hand in being Caucasian, so its rather nonsensical. You can only be proud of deeds, not passive phenomena that you have no control over. Same thing with being special, unless your some form of mutation, or you've actually done something, your not special.
I also HATE people with a sense of entitlement for no reason. This type of person is what our education system has decided to put value on, and churn out.
Maybe people could use their brains and realize that killing kittens is not the worst thing in the world. All this outrage is ridiculous. Murder and rape in war torn countries, a okay, a kitten gets killed, lets all get together and catch the bastard.
I shouldn't help that guy over there, because there are millions of other people who need my help in Africa!
That is fallacious reasoning.
People who kill kittens for fun are probably going to be dangerous in other ways. It is one of the signs of a burgeoning serial killer, for example. Actually, if I saw someone killing a kitten for fun on the street, I'd beat them within an inch of their lives, then take the kitten home with me, then call the cops on him, and his boss, and his family.
If you find hurting defenseless living things funny, then I really don't want you in my society, since I'm sure you can go far beyond "just" kittens.
By forcing an innocent person to kill a kitten?
Seriously, these morons RECORDED themselves killing kittens. Its not like there is a big mystery over who actually did it.
I have no problem with this, no one got hurt, and making someone lose their job for doing something disgusting is perfectly fine with me. Its not like they were lynched or anything serious.
Okay, you go to a fast food restaurant, and you see an employee wander out back and beat up a bum. Would it be wrong for me to go talk to his manager and call the cops on him? Even if he got fired?
Most reasonable people would have no problem with this. But just because its on the internet its now "scary".
The term "indie" has somehow become a genre, and not an actual signifier of "independent". This is also true for Hollywood, most "indie" films are produced by major studios, and the signifier basically means "emulating Juno" now. Indie in music basically means watered down punk rock, or "sounds kind of like Radiohead", or "pop for people over 15". Actually, it might be one of the most useless genre tags after "alternative".
There are TONS of decent independent labels out there. John Zorn's Tzadik, Mike Patton's Ipecac, Mimicry, Drag City, Relapse, etc... Odd thing, most of the music put of by the aforementioned labels would never actually be called "indie", even if they are independent artists.
Not true. If that one person paying their $15/mo causes too people to quit, they lose money. So they have some motivation to keep griefing down.
And yes, I've know a couple people who actually quit over people being asshats. And no, just moving to a PVE server doesn't help, since your experience is already tainted, and PVE servers are also full of morons (though to a lesser extent than PVP, obviously).
I thinks its more the case that he was one of the fat nerdy kids bullied at school, and now he decided to bully other people to build up his self-image, but lacks the cojones to do it in person. Its his shining moment to attempt to be an alpha male, and grab some sense of power in a world that he generally perceives himself to be completely powerless in.
Its like all the moronic trolls of the internet, basically. I doubt even 1% of them were abused as children, or such. Their just social rejects who were picked on by the cool kids, and the internet allows them to act in a way they perceive as cool, meaning being a dick to others.
Also the dynamics of the internet helps. Your semi-anonymous, so your actions have no consequences whatsoever, and its easier to dehumanize the other people sitting behind their computers at home. I find it kind of funny that these people probably are meek, timid, dorks in real life, completely lacking the gumption to act like they do online. It makes them even more sad an pathetic, I'd have more respect for them if they acted like they do in real life, and faced the consequences for it.
Sometimes I wish there was actual consequences for online behavior, or we'd get rid of online anonymity all together. But then I realize that it exists for a reason, so we have to accept the good along with the bad.
(I mean all other games don't have the ghost system as far as I know but instant respawn at your bind point)
When you die in WoW you respawn as a ghost at the nearest graveyard. You either have to run back to your corpse (which rarely, if ever takes 10 min, more like 1-2min), or get an instant rez from a "spirit healer" which hurts your items durability, and gives you a long debuff subtracting something like 75% from all stats.
Other than that there is no penalty to dying in WoW, especially from PKs.
That said, I personally can't stand griefers. There is something about people who get their jollies just from annoying other people that irks me (and probably most adults).
t. Schools are also around to give children confidence, physical fitness, social skills, discipline, etc.
I can see how some of these are important for schools. But we should still never sacrifice pure learning for any of them. Actually, the only one that has an overt place in schools is phys-ed. The rest of them should arise naturally from a learning environment. Confidence is covered the second a kid does an "impossible" problem, or reasons out a consequence on their own. Social skills arise from being stuck in a class room full of children trying to fit in and rise to the top of the social heap. Discipline is, and has, always been integral to ALL hard tasks. You can't tell me that those kids in the 1800's before modern "social education" didn't have it. You teach discipline by being a hard-ass, "you do it until you get it right, if you don't do it bad things happen".
You have obviously never tried to teach a smart child who lacks confidence in their ability because they've never been encouraged.
Not as a profession, though I've had to deal with them, and was one. You lead a child to confidence, you don't teach it. As stated, it comes from that first moment you make them find water on their own (as opposed to leading them to it). I was diagnosed as a "troubled" child as a kid, because of this 90% of my teachers decided they had to hold my hand, and thus I learned nothing, even if I was smart. Then I had a teacher that made me read a ton of books, synthesize the knowledge into a coherent plan (not contained in any of the books), and then design an application for it. It was hard, it was challenging, but I did it. I got an A, and a nice "atta boy!" from my teacher, after that my confidence issues were solved. Again, this is anecdotal, so... But the premise remains, self confidence is earned, all a teacher can do is make a child realize that they deserve it. For characteristics beyond the droll "you exist, and are special!" crap.
The secret to confidence is forcing kids to be surprised with their own abilities, not preaching it at them.
Apparently, you have never known anyone who has withdrawn from school and social life because they were having trouble at home.
This does happen, I agree. But this is not the majority of cases, nor enough of the population to force changes on general curriculum. Smart teachers can pick these kids out, and give them special attention, or call social services if it is bad enough.
This highlights a major problem with the system; aiming for the lowest common denominator. We can help the kids with real problems, AND help the best and brightest excel and become something special. We don't have to drag everyone down to the most level of the most wretched example.
You seem to have no understanding about how developmental psychology or education actually work
Have some understanding, did an undergrad in psychology. Granted my emphasis was pure research, but I did get stuck with some developmental classes (not claiming I'm an expert, just not unfamiliar). Developmental psych is probably one of the weakest areas in psych at the moment, though.
For some reason, you seem to think that our schools should teach average students to feel terrible about themselves because they are average, as if that would somehow motivate them to learn more.
Never said that. Well, if average kids can't read at their grade level, and don't know math at a comparable, then well yes, they should be judged by their higher level peers, and should feel that they can do better. I accept average as the high C to low A level of grades, and this is fine, though there should still be at least some pressure to do better. A percentage of average kids are capable of more, given proper goading.
We should try to make every kid rise to the maximum of their ability. We also, must accept that this level varies.
If you are truly an average student you shouldn't be made to feel bad about it, but y
Hmm.. karma whore much?
I'm sure 99.9% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.
But hell, lets see if I can do this too:
Apple:
Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is an American multinational corporation which designs and manufactures consumer electronics and software products. The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, the iPod and the iPhone. Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating system, the iTunes media browser, the iLife suite of multimedia and creativity software, the iWork suite of productivity software, and Final Cut Studio, a suite of professional audio and film-industry software products. The company operates more than 250 retail stores in nine countries[2] and an online store where hardware and software products are sold.
Sorry for trolling, have a six pack and a day off.
Yes, the top 5% of our university system is very good. This leaves 95%. Then add to it that most people go to Universities for "practical" degrees (read high priced trade school), and very few go for degrees with long term benefit to society.
The problem isn't so much higher education, but k-12.
Your trolling, right?
Please tell me your trolling.
I'm dating a person working on their major in education (its free, and mostly for giggles),who has to interact with actual k-12 teachers. Reading some of the pop-psych drivel that teachers cough up, I sadly wouldn't doubt it you were serious.
Primary and secondary educations exists to make kids LEARN, not to make them feel good about themselves. When it comes to schooling, I actually don't care how they feel about it, as long as they leave being able to read at a 12th grade level, and know at least some math. Actually, I would like it if they knew something about history as well. If they leave feeling good about themselves, that is great, IF (and only if) they earned it through achievement.
People who do mediocre work should feel mediocre about it. Feeling bad about it forces them to do something about it. Telling them that being a moron is fine, isn't making them want to stop being a moron. Kids should be under some pressure to... you know... better themselves.
As for self-esteem... its a load of new-age crap. Self respect, like all other forms of respect, must be earned. Being proud of yourself for nothing but existing is rather stupid, it motivates nothing but egotism and some idiotic sense of entitlement. Being proud of yourself for doing something, that gives incentive to continue to achieve.
Also, no, they are not innately special. No one is. You are nothing but part of the faceless masses that will be completely forgotten within one generation of your death, this is the definition of not being special. Just because you like yourself, doesn't change this. If you feel good about this, there is something wrong. You only become special when you DO something that the vast majority of anonymous strangers in the world can't do. You don't get to the point where this is possible by sitting on your ass, staring into a mirror, and chanting a mantra about how awesome you are just because you are you.
A quick question; should I be proud of myself for sitting at my desk eating cheetos? Or should I be proud of myself for getting off my ass and doing something interesting? Children are no different.
Really, we need more hard-ass eduction. We should just flunk everyone who can't actually read at their grade level, or perform basic mathematical operations, no questions asked. Continue to flunk them until they pass, turn twenty-one, or realize they should just get their GED and do something that befits their temperament.
Yes.
When I bought my first Mac, an iBook G3 in 2003, it was the best value notebook for my needs. It was actually cheap in comparison to most PC notebooks, which really surprised me. The Mac notebook line has always been good value.
Sadly this doesn't hold true on the higher end. MacBooks and iBooks were a decent value, and at least comparable to Windows laptops with the same specs, but PowerBooks and MacBook Pro's are generally way too expensive for what you get.
My HP Pavilion Vista Laptop (now running Linux) was around $300 (maybe a little less) than my girlfriends MBP with the same hardware (less bundled RAM, Apple still thinks RAM is a rare commodity mined from the last rainforest on Venus in quantities over 1GB for some reason), and a smaller screen. This always confused me, how the entry level can be an good value, while the top-end is overpriced.
Its not even "bling" value, since I rarely see a MBP in the hands of a young person.
The same is true for iMacs, the low level is a good price for a computer/monitor, while the high level isn't.
I think Macs have become status symbols in spite of themselves, which is rather surprising.
Anecdotal, so take with a grain of salt, but I don't know anyone who bought a Mac for the status symbol aspect. ipods and iPhones, yes, but not the computers themselves. I might know the wrong crowd, or am too old to know many people who would do such a thing, though. Half the people in college bought them because that is what they grew up on (odd, I know), or because our school's computer shop only sold Macs, and the only retailer in my town (Flagstaff, AZ) was a OfficeMax (depot?), so you had to drive 150 miles to get any competition.
So, he cites fiction to prove his ideology, while you MAKE fiction to prove yours (and hence his wrong).
Neither of you really make much of a point based on evidence.
eel free to disprove this by doing a list of films about death row inmates and whether they are based on true events and whether that portrayal includes prior convictions.
I don't have to, since you never proved your initial hypothesis as correct.
The real reason for this law is probably that politicians are stupid, and water rights are rather serious business (and not just in the financial sense) out in the Four Corners states/desert southwest.
Did you just copy that from /b/?
Good for you, except it isn't trolling /., its still trolling /b/ except now where no one from /b/ will ever read it. I'm pretty sure all their trolls are scripted by now, and generally are at least amusing, or... you know... someone in the flavor of trolling the average /. user.
I'd personally take the "did you hear about the singularity" guy, or the iPhone rectal stimulation guy, it at least is somewhat in the scope of /.
If your going to troll, please put some EFFORT into it.
Unlike the average Slashdotter, I know my personal anecdotes have nothing to do with reality, hence the apparent self-evidence.
I'm sure a lot of it dried up because the web is generally more convenient when you already have a browser open. I hate to say it, but sadly Usenet had better, more intelligent discussions than the web does. I'm not sure if I'm insulting web forums, or complimenting Usenet though.
Odd, I got a Mac in college when my PC crapped out thanks to some defective parts after $300 of upgrades. I decided I had enough of futzing with my computer, and fixing things, so I bought an iBook. With student discounts it was cheaper than most comparable Wintel laptops, and did pretty much the same stuff, and I got a free iPod with it. Sure, I couldn't game, but I had more important things to do.
It actually served my purposes fine, and it was damn cheap. Hardly a status symbol. Hell, even if it was a status symbol it might have left my dorm room 4 times 3 years.
Stop generalizing to justify your own selection of OS as being far superior to everyone elses. And stop deluding yourself into thinking you OS choice has anything to do with anything that actually matters. Its shallow, and obnoxious.
And just so you don't call me a fan-boy (which is also vapid, I might add) I'm typing this on my Windows gaming rig, sitting next to my Ubuntu laptop, which is sitting next to a Mac Mini I'm fitting into a mini media center.
So... Let me see if I got this straight, bikes shouldn't be allowed on roads. Bikes shouldn't have trails unless bike people pay for them (since no one with a car would EVER buy a bike, and no one would ever use them for any other purpose, I suppose), but people with bikes should have to hemorrhage money for them like people with cars do.
You'd hate a lot of smaller college towns. In Flagstaff, at times, bikes can outnumber cars on the roads. Bikes have turning lanes just for them, and you can get nasty tickets for ignoring general traffic laws while riding them. Actually, I've known people getting tickets or warnings for riding them on sidewalks when there was a perfectly good road lane for them. Would have been hell for you, I suppose. Flagstaff also had an AWESOME system of urban trails and bike paths, and easy access to a bike trail that bisects the state vertically (if your really hardcore).
Cars require licensing, and registration because idiots can kill people when they use them. Cars are heavy fast moving complex machines, bikes are small slowish moving simple machines. If I hit you on my Schwin, I might hurt you slightly, even at full speed. If I hit you going at a moderate speed with a car, your dead. If you don't see the difference, then I really don't think you deserve the privilege of driving on my streets.
I have nothing against you gas dollars subsidizing my riding a bike. I'm doing you a favor. Bikes combat against urban sprawl, pollution, middle eastern oil dependency, obesity, etc... If more people rode them, the world would be a better place. I agree with a lot of European cities, cars should be banned from the city center (or have to pay a huge fee).
When the parent say "anti-cyclist" I scoffed, since I never thought such a strange animal could exist. And now I know, sadly. Also, the parent said:
Cyclists should indeed be using reflectors and lights (as should the cars).
, which I take to mean that cars should have their damn lights on. Don't nitpick things to fit your idea of what people should be saying to justify your bias.
As a person living in one of the least bike friendly cities in the US (Phoenix) now, I say gas should be taxed 2c a gallon more, to build bike lanes, and trails. Less sprawl, less brown cloud... its worth it.
I am Mexican, you idiot! ...and I live in Mexico, before you reply with more racist stupidities
Well go back to... erm...
Wait...
Stop taking my Mexican jobs!