There's just too many people in America these days who are willing to give the government any powers it claims it needs, so long as there's the promise of them being kept safe.
And that's not even getting into the fact that our congress doesn't seem particularly interested in asserting it's power (and duty) to keep the executive branch in check.
The free and the brave are in short supply in the US, having been replaced by the cowardly and the cynically opportunistic.
You're impugning the credibility of Wikipedia as a way of dismissing anything that contradicts your argument, rather than dealing with the matter head on. That's intellectually dishonest, and a lazy, stupid way to argue.
Also, if you'd bothered to look at the article, you'd find that the quote provides a citation, and that citation points to a PDF file of the article in which Moore made the statement in question:
If you're deliberately not complying with the standards, that's not really embracing them, is it?
Though it's nice that they'll now start being up front about how they're introducing incompatibilities, as opposed to the quiet evil way they used to do it. Baby steps, I guess.
The problem is that you lead off with a pre-emptory attack on anyone that might consider Islamic culture conducive to the breeding of these crazies
No. What I did was call people who are willing to hold up such an article as being emblematic of the whole of Islam (by tagging it "religionofpeace") bigots.
My point was that tagging the article in that way is a condemnation of Islam, in its entirety, with no nuance. Tagging the article with the sarcastic "religionofpeace" moniker is not a way of criticizing the Islamic world's attitudes towards its radicals - it's an outright condemnation of the entire religion based on a small, radical subgroup.
... and you don't - in your own words - personally condemn them.
No, I didn't, but BFD. My failure to explicitly condemn them, however, in no way constitutes approval. I don't really think that a group as crazy and evil as the Taliban needs condemnation every time it's mentioned. My post was targeted specifically at the way discussions of anything involving Islam or Arabs happens on Slashdot.
[the Muslim world] needs to control their radicals. of course the majority of muslims are moderate. but if their radicals are allowed free reign, the muslim world invites deserved criticism
Absolutely! As do the Jewish, Christian, and Hindu worlds (and some of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka are a little scary too). Radicals need to be gotten under control in all of the world's religious communities.
so if you dismiss all criticism of the muslim world out of hand, simply because you think it is all bigotry, it is you, as well as the bigots, with a closed, simple partisan kneejerk mind
Ah, but I don't dismiss all criticism of the Muslim world out of hand. I dismiss criticism which amounts to saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban.
I doubt it. The internet is a handy tool - for economic purposes, for intelligence work, as an avenue of attack against one's enemies (read: India, in this case).
It's what we in the biz call "a load of bullshit," and probably comes from the legal department (by way of marketing), who're possibly worried that the EU might do something to them.
Slashdot Mirror
After, all that discovery is only producing documents which will torpedo their appeal of class action status.
Can't have that, can we?
Mostly cause I'd be curious to see how quickly someone stomped the thing till it broke.
And the water cannon? That'd get you shot.
There's just too many people in America these days who are willing to give the government any powers it claims it needs, so long as there's the promise of them being kept safe.
And that's not even getting into the fact that our congress doesn't seem particularly interested in asserting it's power (and duty) to keep the executive branch in check.
The free and the brave are in short supply in the US, having been replaced by the cowardly and the cynically opportunistic.
You're impugning the credibility of Wikipedia as a way of dismissing anything that contradicts your argument, rather than dealing with the matter head on. That's intellectually dishonest, and a lazy, stupid way to argue.
Also, if you'd bothered to look at the article, you'd find that the quote provides a citation, and that citation points to a PDF file of the article in which Moore made the statement in question:
ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf
In short, you lose on both style and substance.
I mean, the man's nearly destitute now. How's he supposed to start up a different set of fraud companies with just $7,500?
What's the world coming to?
Consumers' interests? Pfft. We're talking IP protections here!
And finding a reason to sell millions of people new DVD players.
I have respect for my fellow drivers, and only use the gas pedal. Breaking is for pussies.
It was something of a facetious remark.
If you're deliberately not complying with the standards, that's not really embracing them, is it?
Though it's nice that they'll now start being up front about how they're introducing incompatibilities, as opposed to the quiet evil way they used to do it. Baby steps, I guess.
Though it probably depends on your definition of the term grammar.
Nah. I was trolling. And I got you!
And the Bush administration once again puts politics above effective governance and management.
Complains the author of one of the biggest productivity destroyers in computing history.
No. What I did was call people who are willing to hold up such an article as being emblematic of the whole of Islam (by tagging it "religionofpeace") bigots.
My point was that tagging the article in that way is a condemnation of Islam, in its entirety, with no nuance. Tagging the article with the sarcastic "religionofpeace" moniker is not a way of criticizing the Islamic world's attitudes towards its radicals - it's an outright condemnation of the entire religion based on a small, radical subgroup.
No, I didn't, but BFD. My failure to explicitly condemn them, however, in no way constitutes approval. I don't really think that a group as crazy and evil as the Taliban needs condemnation every time it's mentioned. My post was targeted specifically at the way discussions of anything involving Islam or Arabs happens on Slashdot.
Absolutely! As do the Jewish, Christian, and Hindu worlds (and some of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka are a little scary too). Radicals need to be gotten under control in all of the world's religious communities.
Ah, but I don't dismiss all criticism of the Muslim world out of hand. I dismiss criticism which amounts to saying that the whole of Islam and the Muslim world may be fairly judged as being indistinguishable from the Taliban.
That way we can paint the whole Muslim world as being represented by the crazy activites of a small number of radicals.
Then someone can post a response to me and inform me that Islam is evil!
Yay! Slashbigots!
It's fine to hate the muzzie towelheads at Slashdot. Heaven forfend you actually notice that fact publicaly.
It's a great day, moderators. Thanks for being a bunch of right wing bigots.
You really do sound like a dumbshit.
Heh. Yeah, go ahead, support my point.
Actually, your post (and the explanation of it) are a rationalization of the actions of the Bush administration.
Cause he's actually insightful.
I doubt it. The internet is a handy tool - for economic purposes, for intelligence work, as an avenue of attack against one's enemies (read: India, in this case).
And make sure some clever wag adds a sarcastic "religionofpeace," tag. Then let's have a flame war.
Still, if the country's screwing up global routes, cut off their access.
It's what we in the biz call "a load of bullshit," and probably comes from the legal department (by way of marketing), who're possibly worried that the EU might do something to them.
Killing yourself because a neighbor taunted and humiliated you online?
You're probably not cut out to live as it is.