Did you see the video glasses? They aren't small screens, they were prisms. You put them on, and it means you can see your TV (which still has to been in your line of vision), while looking up at the celling etc. Not quite what you had in mind, I think.
What are you on about? This was not an anti-technology rant, this was an anti-gimic rant. There is a difference between free exploration of technology, and companies spending lots of money on things that are plain gimicy rather spending the money on exploring technology. Where in the artical did you pick up that he was anti-technology?
Even if he did say something like that, why on earth did you take it so literaly? Do you not know anything about journalism or writing? The idea of provoking thought through ideas that you may not agree with--playing devil's advocate etc?
Huh? Arrogant prick? Blasting them? Are you sure you read the right artical? He was just being honest, and since this looked like an informal meeting, I don't see anything wrong woth being blunt. Besides, these are billionare business men, I think they can handle a bit of harsh critisism, and he knows that.
A bit blunt, yes, but I think arrogant prick is a bit over the top. The irony is that your post is also pretty harsh.
I think it's quite the opposite. Most TV dosn't make you think at all. However, if you have nothing to do all day (assuming the stereotype that these people are bored and don't acctually do anything all day), they you are more likly to use your imagination to ammuse yourself (rather than someone elses; the director, or the head of marketing for a TV company, etc).
There are many contries that enjoy a similar or better standard of living than the US. But the thing is, while the 1st world, state-capitalist countries look as if they are "not pefect, but better than anything else", they always forget that all the big corporations are using resources in other countries (E.G. oil, labour). If the US was pretty much self sufficient, then you would have a good point. But it's not, the bad side is still there, it's just not right under your nose.
Besides, while a country can be poor, it doesn't nessesarily mean that their people suffer or live unhappy lives. That's partly why people oppose western culture so much. Because western culture thinks it's much better, and tries to force it's self on to other cultures, who may be just fine the way they are.
Unfortuantly, I think the quality of channels like the Discovery Channel have fallen quite a bit. A lot of tackiness has crept in, adds every 5 seconds telling you what's on next week, etc...
TV does still has hope; when we will be able to play it at the times we like, with no adds.
He's wrong. His point is about as valid as a complete stranger walking into someone's house and saying, "I think you should put the credenza over here and get rid of that throw rug." I.e., not at all
That's just silly, since he's not a complete stranger here, slashdot is a public site, and it is meant to be used by the public. In fact, he is even a member here. Just like you.
So? Everybody knows that Slashdot is a fucking disaster. There's nothing insightful about pointing that out.
Maybe some people a care enough that they want to try and improve the place by pointing these things out?
And if you think there should never be any meta disscusion, then aren't you being a hypocrite?
No, he didn't. He tried to express an UNINFORMED and UNINTELLIGENT opinion about editorial decisions. That's not a suggestion, it's bullshit.
No, he just expressed an opinion that you think is "UNINFORMED and UNINTELLIGENT".
No. I said that was part of the reason. Forums are for disscusion. Most of course, should be about the artical. But I don't see why you can't disscuss editorial things if they are realted to the artical. Are you some sort of topic nazi or something?
Of course, if the edtorial was done properly, then people wouldn't bother talking about it.
Bloody hell. I swear slashdot wasn't like this when I was first here (and I mean people like you, not the editors, they've always been the way they are).
This guy thinks he has a valid point. And I agree with him. He's just making a nice little suggestion to make it a better place and then you come along all foul-mouthed.
Well, I'm sure if the New York Times got many complaints, then they'd do something about it, maybe even replace the editor.
Armchair editor? The whole idea of an armchair whatever is when a person doesn't do something, eventhough they talk about it all the time. In this case, it's unfair, because he can't be an editor at slashdot. If he was at kuro5hin.org, then you could call him an armchair editor.
This guy thinks there is a problem, and it's the part of the point of disscusion forums to be able to bring up issues like this.
Now you say sorry to that person, like the good little kid you are.
Ah, the US couldn't find Bin Laden before they decided to attack. And they still haven't found him since. You make it sound as if he is hiding because he is too scared to plan terrorists acts anymore. He's hiding because it makes sence for him, that's what he's always done. If you honestly thing that the US attacks will prevented terrorists, then I think you are sadly deluded.
How would I spend it? First of all, I would fix up my own country; health and education etc. Then I would look for solutions for other contries, but they would be in the form of aid and other diplomatic solutions, not war.
I agree. But part of my point is how do you defend your self from terrorists acts? Once they happen it's too late to use weapons as a defence. And as I said before, weapons aren't that usefull in preventing terrorists either.
I agree that it's always good to have weapons for self defence, but it just seems to me that the US spends too much on the millitary, instead of spending it on preventing the problem in the first place (and I believe that happens because their intentions are elsewhere).
And how are you going to stop potential terrorists? You have to find them first. How are you going to know that you have them all? How do you stop more being created? That was my whole point.
Bad leaders? I wish everything was so black and white. I wish it was also that simple. But it's not. Weapons are never going to solve the real issues in this world.
Tempory defence? Yes. Permenant solution? No.
So, you show them conglomeration, mechanized labor, GM-foods (which can increase yield up to 25%), etc., and now they can produce enough food.
But, oh, wait, now they're dependent on us for the GM seeds, the trucks/tractors/etc. parts, oil, and the little farms have been pushed out of business by the conglomerates, thus increasing the amount of unemployment. Bad solution.
GM is not nessesary. And why are they dependant on the 1st world for machinery? They are large countries, capable of producting these things themselves. And why do the little farmers have to be pushed out of bussiness? Never heard of collectivism? Even if they don't go down that road, how could it be worse that it is in the 1st world?
To really fix it, you need to stop over-population in those countries. How do you do that? By educating their women (women are much more likely to follow birth control regimens than men - studies found this in South Africa, among other places), birth rates will fall, population will shrink, and farms will be able to support the country.
But, oh, wait, educating their women is against their religion. So, now they hate you again, and they've stoned all the women who got educated to death, ensuring that no more women come to your schools. What now?
Now you're jumping to extreme conclusions again. Societies can change, they may still be far from perfect, but they will listen to logic and reason when it is obvious. Over-population is an obvious problem, and they may choose to see birth control as a good way to stop this. However, that doesn't mean they will completely change their attitudes towards women (unfortunatly), so that doesn't nessesarily mean that will reject such ideas becasue it interferes with their religion.
You haven't really come up with any solution, so I haven't really come up with any excuses.
real solutions are complex, and require a good understaning of the problem. This is not something I have the time to disscuss here right now. This a part of the problem, people think they can talk about debate solutions accuratly in so little words. This is why I'm reluctant to disscuss solutions here, because I would not be able to address all the points and issues, and therefore, I would be missleading.
And honestly, do you think I get my kicks preventing third-world countries from becoming first-world? This is really what gets me off? Come on. Stop making personal attacks and start thinking.
I don't believe that at all. I do however think that you think it is not possible because you're not optimistic in this area, and believe it is too hard.
How about you teach them how to make their own food. And give them the basic nessesities to produce it if they don't alread have it. Sure, you may say that people might complain that they aren't doing enough to help or something. But how realistic is that really? And does it matter once they see things starting to work out for them?
You see the problem - people will disagree with any solution you present, and the worst part is those people, even disagreeing with each other, are right.
No. SOME people will always dissagree.
Unfortunately, there is no real solution, short of giving them, individually, everything they want - riches, health, power, etc. There will always be someone who wants more, and is pissed 'cause you have it and they don't.
These people are a minority. But you're better having 99% of people happy than only 5%.
It's seems to me that you're just making excuses. There are solutions to these problems, it just people like you who stop them.
Me? I'm an anarchist (not the bomb throwing type). I believe in mutial aid, inderviduality, self orginisation, and freedom (like some of the principals in open-source software). I try to do my part by showing these ideas to others, in hope to change society. Pipe dream? Maybe. But atleast I am doing something.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you see the video glasses? They aren't small screens, they were prisms. You put them on, and it means you can see your TV (which still has to been in your line of vision), while looking up at the celling etc. Not quite what you had in mind, I think.
Even if he did say something like that, why on earth did you take it so literaly? Do you not know anything about journalism or writing? The idea of provoking thought through ideas that you may not agree with--playing devil's advocate etc?
I'm affraid that your deep, personal involvment with the Segway appears to have blinded you to the humor of GWBush's Segway incident.
A bit blunt, yes, but I think arrogant prick is a bit over the top. The irony is that your post is also pretty harsh.
Exactly, go back to your TV and consumer culture fake reality. ;)
I think it's quite the opposite. Most TV dosn't make you think at all. However, if you have nothing to do all day (assuming the stereotype that these people are bored and don't acctually do anything all day), they you are more likly to use your imagination to ammuse yourself (rather than someone elses; the director, or the head of marketing for a TV company, etc).
Besides, while a country can be poor, it doesn't nessesarily mean that their people suffer or live unhappy lives. That's partly why people oppose western culture so much. Because western culture thinks it's much better, and tries to force it's self on to other cultures, who may be just fine the way they are.
Ha, it seems if we are the one's who have taken the blue pill, and that they took the red pill 1000's of years ago.
TV does still has hope; when we will be able to play it at the times we like, with no adds.
You obviously haven't sat infront of the TV for a while.
That's just silly, since he's not a complete stranger here, slashdot is a public site, and it is meant to be used by the public. In fact, he is even a member here. Just like you.
So? Everybody knows that Slashdot is a fucking disaster. There's nothing insightful about pointing that out.
Maybe some people a care enough that they want to try and improve the place by pointing these things out?
And if you think there should never be any meta disscusion, then aren't you being a hypocrite?
No, he didn't. He tried to express an UNINFORMED and UNINTELLIGENT opinion about editorial decisions. That's not a suggestion, it's bullshit.
No, he just expressed an opinion that you think is "UNINFORMED and UNINTELLIGENT".
Of course, if the edtorial was done properly, then people wouldn't bother talking about it.
Bloody hell. I swear slashdot wasn't like this when I was first here (and I mean people like you, not the editors, they've always been the way they are).
This guy thinks he has a valid point. And I agree with him. He's just making a nice little suggestion to make it a better place and then you come along all foul-mouthed.
Armchair editor? The whole idea of an armchair whatever is when a person doesn't do something, eventhough they talk about it all the time. In this case, it's unfair, because he can't be an editor at slashdot. If he was at kuro5hin.org, then you could call him an armchair editor.
This guy thinks there is a problem, and it's the part of the point of disscusion forums to be able to bring up issues like this.
Now you say sorry to that person, like the good little kid you are.
If you spent a few seconds at Apple's website, you'd know that you can get a cable to plug in directly.
How would I spend it? First of all, I would fix up my own country; health and education etc. Then I would look for solutions for other contries, but they would be in the form of aid and other diplomatic solutions, not war.
Perahps you shoudl read the artical or some of a comments posted above you?
...but does it come in blueberry?
I agree that it's always good to have weapons for self defence, but it just seems to me that the US spends too much on the millitary, instead of spending it on preventing the problem in the first place (and I believe that happens because their intentions are elsewhere).
Bad leaders? I wish everything was so black and white. I wish it was also that simple. But it's not. Weapons are never going to solve the real issues in this world.
Tempory defence? Yes. Permenant solution? No.
But, oh, wait, now they're dependent on us for the GM seeds, the trucks/tractors/etc. parts, oil, and the little farms have been pushed out of business by the conglomerates, thus increasing the amount of unemployment. Bad solution.
GM is not nessesary. And why are they dependant on the 1st world for machinery? They are large countries, capable of producting these things themselves. And why do the little farmers have to be pushed out of bussiness? Never heard of collectivism? Even if they don't go down that road, how could it be worse that it is in the 1st world?
To really fix it, you need to stop over-population in those countries. How do you do that? By educating their women (women are much more likely to follow birth control regimens than men - studies found this in South Africa, among other places), birth rates will fall, population will shrink, and farms will be able to support the country.
But, oh, wait, educating their women is against their religion. So, now they hate you again, and they've stoned all the women who got educated to death, ensuring that no more women come to your schools. What now?
Now you're jumping to extreme conclusions again. Societies can change, they may still be far from perfect, but they will listen to logic and reason when it is obvious. Over-population is an obvious problem, and they may choose to see birth control as a good way to stop this. However, that doesn't mean they will completely change their attitudes towards women (unfortunatly), so that doesn't nessesarily mean that will reject such ideas becasue it interferes with their religion.
You haven't really come up with any solution, so I haven't really come up with any excuses.
real solutions are complex, and require a good understaning of the problem. This is not something I have the time to disscuss here right now. This a part of the problem, people think they can talk about debate solutions accuratly in so little words. This is why I'm reluctant to disscuss solutions here, because I would not be able to address all the points and issues, and therefore, I would be missleading.
And honestly, do you think I get my kicks preventing third-world countries from becoming first-world? This is really what gets me off? Come on. Stop making personal attacks and start thinking.
I don't believe that at all. I do however think that you think it is not possible because you're not optimistic in this area, and believe it is too hard.
You see the problem - people will disagree with any solution you present, and the worst part is those people, even disagreeing with each other, are right.
No. SOME people will always dissagree.
Unfortunately, there is no real solution, short of giving them, individually, everything they want - riches, health, power, etc. There will always be someone who wants more, and is pissed 'cause you have it and they don't.
These people are a minority. But you're better having 99% of people happy than only 5%.
It's seems to me that you're just making excuses. There are solutions to these problems, it just people like you who stop them.
But then they'd have not reason to attack other countries! ;)
Probably right there. But how many new terrorists have both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq created?
What are YOU doing?
You prevent terrorist attacks by not bulling others in the international community, and instead, trying to help them out.