these "pictures" have clearly been photoshopped. The article states that ice is *white* and the pictures are all rainbow coloured. Nice try Government.
1. No need to get partisan about the Hindu / Muslim thing in this debate. A Muslim might say that Islam shows more respect for women's equality, right to choose her path in life etc as evidenced by its very progressive views on divorce whereas Hindu doctrine requires women to be burned when their husbands die. This is of course an inflammatory gloss over the subtleties of both religions (excuse the pun) but that's my point - let's not go round and round the mulberry bush.
2. I don't agree with your example of the woman being the 'real' power in the house as being an example of matriarchal society. The same is true of most societies. It's apparent in the (western) feminist critique of the western liberal doctrine of the divide between private/public spheres. And if we were to adopt that distinction, it would quickly become apparent that a matriarchal society is one in which women hold power in public spheres. Maybe the Kerelan example suggested by a fellow poster - not familiar enough to judge myself.
It's worth noting that the ad doesn't actually claim that Macs are virus free (I note that your post also doesn't claim that the ads claim that). The point made is that the Mac is certainly not subject to the same deluge of virii that the PC faces. However, your point remains valid - people will still point to the ad if / when more virii written for the mac show up.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your post, I must nitpick.
You may have been reading MOSR for a longer than me, but ever since I started visiting it (circa 1997) it was always totally bollocks. It was outrageously entertaining though. I was always amazed with what those crazy kooks in Cupertino were cooking up - of course less than a 10th of it ever came into fruition (and even that tenth was usually close to unrecognisable) but gosh darn it all sounded fun.
Also, regarding Mr Sahaf - I think he actually has one up on MOSR. After all, he *did* tell you there were no WMD...
I don't suggest that Bush's Presidency is so godawful as to invite public uprising, and I'm not an American. However, it's important to note that the history of the US and the reason why, historically, you have the right to bear arms etc is that the American society decided a long time ago that public officials are not to be trusted. Even elected officials can abuse their power, and the people should always retain the right to call them on their abuses. A less extreme example is the trenchant insistence that Americans have for 'freedom of the press' sometimes to a degree other societies think is pushing the envelope just to make a point.
In any case, the point is, don't let respect for the office silence your criticism of the office holder. The two are separate and the holder of the office should not be allowed to bismirch it, or in time neither will be worth respecting.
To add to that vein of commentary, a while ago the Herald was running a news article about police in Sydney boarding buses and asking to randomly look through people's mobile phones (presumably looking for suspicious SMSs etc). This was in the context of racially motivated riots and racial incitement occuring via text messages.
The Herald, like any good big media company charges for any article more than a few days old, but this page cobbles together some of the story:
Guy: "Hi, sir, Could you help a poor man out and let me borrow your cell phone for a quick moment to call my family? I'm going to be late for my daughter's birthday."
I must say this is astounding from a legal services point of view. I've seen defence contracts here in Australia, working at a law firm that works for Defence (and other government agencies). The usual practice is to start with a standard form contract which says something to the effect that the contractor must comply with the Defence Security [Directive / Policy / Determination / etc] dated []. And you always do a search before the final draft for "" and replace with appropriate information if it hasn't already been done. Alternatively a contract will say the latest Defence Security Directive issued from time to time - so the latest one always applies.
So I really find it amazing that this could sneak through... who's drafting this stuff?
You are fucking kidding me right? In as far as Christian society can blame the Germans, Islamic society can blame the Crusaders and / or the Mongol Hordes. Take your pick. Either way and just like your statement it will be a matter of ludicrious historical reductionism with no insight into what happened.
This annoys me. People do it a lot in real life too, but at least when posting on the net you have an extra few seconds to think about what you're writing. Use it.
Your central statement may well be correct - that putting someone in jail just for taking a particular position is damaging to democracy, a morally inexcusable deprivation of rights, etc.
But why is there then a recourse to tendentious hyperbole in order to justify your position?? "This one incident dwarfs ANYTHING questionable the Bush administration may have done." What the *hell* are you talking about?!
Let's not even argue about the killing of tens of thousands of civilians as a direct result of an invasion based on evidence that was not only shown to be wrong in due course, but that everyone else thought was wrong from the start. (Wilful blindness anyone? At law, this gives rise to a constructive inference of knowledge).
Let's compare oranges to oranges. You're talking about the unjustifiable imprisonment of people. Hmm... how about the hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay *who haven't had a freakin trial?!?!* Innocent till proven guilty? Unless you're the wrong colour or wear a towel on your head. Right? Oh, the US constitution doesn't protect them? Hmm... well, the German Constitution doesn't protect hate speech. Guess it's okay then is it?
I could go on, but it could be bad for my blood pressure. Grrrr.... Stick to your point, don't fsck it up by making stupid tangential claims.
This is a bloody ridiculous argument. Reasons I might want government department X, corporation Y or snoopy neighbour Z not to read what I have to say:
1. I'm doing research on a socially sensitive topic; 2. I'm looking into a topic that's politically sensitive (in the age of the War on Terrorism (tm) thinking the wrong thing - or thinking *about* the wrong thing - is a crime); 3. I'm working through a topic that's personally sensitive to me (eg, emailing my therapist, or best friend, etc); 4. I'm talking about difficult family issues with a family member;
Man that's just off the top of my head. There's probably a brazillion reasons why I don't want people reading my mail. Just because your life's boring doesn't mean everyone's is. More importantly buddy, just cuz your life is boring now, doesn't mean it always will be:P
For the asset-hording corporations of which you speak, there is one reason why perpetually copyrighted content would be even better than a 'box of bolts'. You sell a box of bolts and you have to create more. You can sell copyrighted content forever and oh! look! why, it's still there, you can sell it again. And again. And again.
Another reason why it does not resemble tangible property, and cannot be treated the same way.
mmmm, yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and hit you with a cluestick here: There is no continent known as America. There is South America. There is North America. There's central America which isn't its own continent. Not really sure what it's status is. There two continents are sometimes known as "the Americas".
While you make an interesting point in your post, clearly we are entitled to shorten words and phrases, even proper nouns... Everyone knew what he was talking about. I'm the first to do the Marge Simpson "hmmmm..." when someone misuses an apostrophe, etc, but dude - pedantic ++
I agree with everything you've said, but it is interesting to note the big ruckus that Page and Brin made during the IPO. Acting as mouthpieces for the corporation, they said that Google's character as an organisation would not be tainted by going public and having to satisfy shareholders. IIRC, there was some talk about structuring share classes in a way similar to media companies like the Wash Post, so as to maintain the equivalent of journalistic integrity (I may be getting confused with some other net company). Now, as your post suggests, (unsurprisingly, but contrary to public pronouncements) doing what's right by the shareholder has become a major driving factor in Google's actions.
Google might not be defenders of democracy or freedom, but they certainly style themselves as such. This story is about the veil being drawn aside.
I remember walking into a department store's computer section (Harvey Norman for the Aussies) back around '96 to check out their Macs (back when they still sold them in Harvey Norman). I asked about some model (don't remember which) that I knew had a powerpc 603e processor. I didn't know what speed it ran at so I made the terrible error of asking the guy... he was pretty sure it was a pentium III. I was pretty sure he was a d*ck. (sure have used a lot of parentheses in this post...)
My work has elevators that tell sense if you're standing close to the doors as they close and then say in a smooth male voice "Please stand clear, of the closing doors" (yes there's a comma there; no it doesn't make sense). The thing is it says this after the doors have closed. It's just creepy.
A couple of weeks ago, in one of the elevators, the little LCD screen that shows you what the elevator's doing and how cool the building is just had Windows 95/8 desktops showing. I nearly got back out before realising it was *just the screen* that was running that sh*t. I've been stuck in those elevators before...
Slashdot Mirror
these "pictures" have clearly been photoshopped. The article states that ice is *white* and the pictures are all rainbow coloured. Nice try Government.
Two points to make:
1. No need to get partisan about the Hindu / Muslim thing in this debate. A Muslim might say that Islam shows more respect for women's equality, right to choose her path in life etc as evidenced by its very progressive views on divorce whereas Hindu doctrine requires women to be burned when their husbands die. This is of course an inflammatory gloss over the subtleties of both religions (excuse the pun) but that's my point - let's not go round and round the mulberry bush.
2. I don't agree with your example of the woman being the 'real' power in the house as being an example of matriarchal society. The same is true of most societies. It's apparent in the (western) feminist critique of the western liberal doctrine of the divide between private/public spheres. And if we were to adopt that distinction, it would quickly become apparent that a matriarchal society is one in which women hold power in public spheres. Maybe the Kerelan example suggested by a fellow poster - not familiar enough to judge myself.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Yeah, I figured - that was just a little joke :o)
Nice idea dude, but it's been done: http://www.memention.com/js/
England, 17th century - New Model Army defeats forces of the English King Charles I in three successive civil wars.
History did not begin with the American War of Independence.
It's worth noting that the ad doesn't actually claim that Macs are virus free (I note that your post also doesn't claim that the ads claim that). The point made is that the Mac is certainly not subject to the same deluge of virii that the PC faces. However, your point remains valid - people will still point to the ad if / when more virii written for the mac show up.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your post, I must nitpick.
You may have been reading MOSR for a longer than me, but ever since I started visiting it (circa 1997) it was always totally bollocks. It was outrageously entertaining though. I was always amazed with what those crazy kooks in Cupertino were cooking up - of course less than a 10th of it ever came into fruition (and even that tenth was usually close to unrecognisable) but gosh darn it all sounded fun.
Also, regarding Mr Sahaf - I think he actually has one up on MOSR. After all, he *did* tell you there were no WMD...
I don't suggest that Bush's Presidency is so godawful as to invite public uprising, and I'm not an American. However, it's important to note that the history of the US and the reason why, historically, you have the right to bear arms etc is that the American society decided a long time ago that public officials are not to be trusted. Even elected officials can abuse their power, and the people should always retain the right to call them on their abuses. A less extreme example is the trenchant insistence that Americans have for 'freedom of the press' sometimes to a degree other societies think is pushing the envelope just to make a point.
In any case, the point is, don't let respect for the office silence your criticism of the office holder. The two are separate and the holder of the office should not be allowed to bismirch it, or in time neither will be worth respecting.
Some interesting points.
n .php
To add to that vein of commentary, a while ago the Herald was running a news article about police in Sydney boarding buses and asking to randomly look through people's mobile phones (presumably looking for suspicious SMSs etc). This was in the context of racially motivated riots and racial incitement occuring via text messages.
The Herald, like any good big media company charges for any article more than a few days old, but this page cobbles together some of the story:
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0603/02-goggi
Guy: "Hi, sir, Could you help a poor man out and let me borrow your cell phone for a quick moment to call my family? I'm going to be late for my daughter's birthday."
You: "Sure, what's the number?"
Guy: "Um..."
There you go, problem solved.
I must say this is astounding from a legal services point of view. I've seen defence contracts here in Australia, working at a law firm that works for Defence (and other government agencies). The usual practice is to start with a standard form contract which says something to the effect that the contractor must comply with the Defence Security [Directive / Policy / Determination / etc] dated []. And you always do a search before the final draft for "" and replace with appropriate information if it hasn't already been done. Alternatively a contract will say the latest Defence Security Directive issued from time to time - so the latest one always applies.
So I really find it amazing that this could sneak through... who's drafting this stuff?
"At least Xianity can blame the Germans."
You are fucking kidding me right? In as far as Christian society can blame the Germans, Islamic society can blame the Crusaders and / or the Mongol Hordes. Take your pick. Either way and just like your statement it will be a matter of ludicrious historical reductionism with no insight into what happened.
This annoys me. People do it a lot in real life too, but at least when posting on the net you have an extra few seconds to think about what you're writing. Use it.
Your central statement may well be correct - that putting someone in jail just for taking a particular position is damaging to democracy, a morally inexcusable deprivation of rights, etc.
But why is there then a recourse to tendentious hyperbole in order to justify your position?? "This one incident dwarfs ANYTHING questionable the Bush administration may have done." What the *hell* are you talking about?!
Let's not even argue about the killing of tens of thousands of civilians as a direct result of an invasion based on evidence that was not only shown to be wrong in due course, but that everyone else thought was wrong from the start. (Wilful blindness anyone? At law, this gives rise to a constructive inference of knowledge).
Let's compare oranges to oranges. You're talking about the unjustifiable imprisonment of people. Hmm... how about the hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay *who haven't had a freakin trial?!?!* Innocent till proven guilty? Unless you're the wrong colour or wear a towel on your head. Right? Oh, the US constitution doesn't protect them? Hmm... well, the German Constitution doesn't protect hate speech. Guess it's okay then is it?
I could go on, but it could be bad for my blood pressure. Grrrr.... Stick to your point, don't fsck it up by making stupid tangential claims.
That's disgusting. Also illegal.
Dude, thanks. Seriously. Very handy to have a short explanation of background concepts like this.
This is a bloody ridiculous argument. Reasons I might want government department X, corporation Y or snoopy neighbour Z not to read what I have to say:
:P
1. I'm doing research on a socially sensitive topic;
2. I'm looking into a topic that's politically sensitive (in the age of the War on Terrorism (tm) thinking the wrong thing - or thinking *about* the wrong thing - is a crime);
3. I'm working through a topic that's personally sensitive to me (eg, emailing my therapist, or best friend, etc);
4. I'm talking about difficult family issues with a family member;
Man that's just off the top of my head. There's probably a brazillion reasons why I don't want people reading my mail. Just because your life's boring doesn't mean everyone's is. More importantly buddy, just cuz your life is boring now, doesn't mean it always will be
For the asset-hording corporations of which you speak, there is one reason why perpetually copyrighted content would be even better than a 'box of bolts'. You sell a box of bolts and you have to create more. You can sell copyrighted content forever and oh! look! why, it's still there, you can sell it again. And again. And again.
Another reason why it does not resemble tangible property, and cannot be treated the same way.
mmmm, yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and hit you with a cluestick here: There is no continent known as America. There is South America. There is North America. There's central America which isn't its own continent. Not really sure what it's status is. There two continents are sometimes known as "the Americas".
While you make an interesting point in your post, clearly we are entitled to shorten words and phrases, even proper nouns... Everyone knew what he was talking about. I'm the first to do the Marge Simpson "hmmmm..." when someone misuses an apostrophe, etc, but dude - pedantic ++
Stupid 15 year old script-running-juvenile. Kids these days. When will they learn?
a "descent" lawyer huh? I've got an image of a guy in a suit rappelling down the pillars of a court building. Carrying a briefcase.
I agree with everything you've said, but it is interesting to note the big ruckus that Page and Brin made during the IPO. Acting as mouthpieces for the corporation, they said that Google's character as an organisation would not be tainted by going public and having to satisfy shareholders. IIRC, there was some talk about structuring share classes in a way similar to media companies like the Wash Post, so as to maintain the equivalent of journalistic integrity (I may be getting confused with some other net company). Now, as your post suggests, (unsurprisingly, but contrary to public pronouncements) doing what's right by the shareholder has become a major driving factor in Google's actions.
Google might not be defenders of democracy or freedom, but they certainly style themselves as such. This story is about the veil being drawn aside.
Fool! There is no Creator. No "Evolution". There is only The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I remember walking into a department store's computer section (Harvey Norman for the Aussies) back around '96 to check out their Macs (back when they still sold them in Harvey Norman). I asked about some model (don't remember which) that I knew had a powerpc 603e processor. I didn't know what speed it ran at so I made the terrible error of asking the guy... he was pretty sure it was a pentium III. I was pretty sure he was a d*ck. (sure have used a lot of parentheses in this post...)
My work has elevators that tell sense if you're standing close to the doors as they close and then say in a smooth male voice "Please stand clear, of the closing doors" (yes there's a comma there; no it doesn't make sense). The thing is it says this after the doors have closed. It's just creepy.
A couple of weeks ago, in one of the elevators, the little LCD screen that shows you what the elevator's doing and how cool the building is just had Windows 95/8 desktops showing. I nearly got back out before realising it was *just the screen* that was running that sh*t. I've been stuck in those elevators before...
Irish Roulette. Luck of the draw man, luck of the draw.