It's such a small part of the book's message that it doesn't do any good to try to draw conclusions from it.
If I met somebody and he held a gun to my head, only a very realistic waterpistol, because he wanted to scare me a little, and is actually a very, very nice guy, I'd still consider him an ass. Same thing with a books title. The author knows the title creates the first impression, so, if he chooses a wording which conveys an image I dislike, I can reasonably assume the author did it on purpose. But, as I said, I'm still going to read them, should I see them. "Judging a book by the cover" is wrong if that's all you're going to read, but I'll never leave it out of my final conclusion as well.
Who the heck said it was easy?
In my opinion the original poster did, I thought that much was clear by now...
There are lots of people who work very hard at teaching others to think critically (James Randi, for example), and it seems to me that your statements are an insult to all they have accomplished.
And your statements seem to me like an insult to anyone trying to apply those theories. Does that accomplish anything? No, so let's please not degrade into accusing each other of insulting anyone, I don't intend to and I bet you don't either.
Back on topic: I have never said, that theories are bad, just usually hard to apply, which you seem to agree to.
Their efforts are not wasted, and if more teachers followed their example there would be much fewer kids accepting at face value what they see all around them.
Followed their example and wrote theory books? Most of the time such authors are no example of actual teaching, which doesn't mean one should not learn their theories, but one should be cautious that actual implementation of a theory might prove a lot more difficult than expected. Whenever I have seen a theory being applied to Reality so far, it has been this way...
In essence our discussion boils down to me insisting RealWorld Application of Theories being hard and you insisting I read those books. Those two thoughts are unrelated from my POV and unless you can give me a good reason why those books, or theories in priniciple, are more important to teaching kids Critical Thought than actual experience of teachers, who, of course, have read (that includes me, naturally) such theories and usually found them a good starting point, but not more, I don't see why we should continue this. It's a farce already...
It's a public forum, and in any case your question was more of a statement than a question.
Hm, I think we differ here, as I don't expect others to answer for people, actually this whole thread is not too polite, because it has been taken from the original poster. Each to his own I guess...
Rather than dismiss the book for its title, how about reading the book and reviewing it accordingy?
Isn't that exactly what I said? "but should I stumble upon them I probably will"? A chosen title is part of the books "message" and I happen to dislike some implications of this one (title). Anything unfair about it? Just because I don't run to Amazon to order it right now?
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that the original poster was suggesting that it's possible to teach all kids to think critically. You don't have to reach them all to contribute significantly to their overall ability to tell the difference between fact and bullshit.
Would it not be possible that you "are operating under the mistaken assumption that the original poster was not suggesting that"? I felt he was, that is why I asked him, not you, in the first place. Sadly he has not elaborated yet, and, if having a look at this discussion, probably won't anymore, because he wouldn't feel welcome...
On the second part, again, I agree, completely. It's just not the question I stated, ok? No need to evangelize me:-/
No, but how can you claim to know how difficult it is to teach children to think critically if you're not familiar with some of the best books on critical thinking?
Probably because I'm familiar with the RealLife(TM) Application of Teaching Critical Thinking? That's exactly the dichotomy I've been arguing about, theory and practice. Theory is good, but applying it to practice is usually very hard.
Unless the oiginal poster decides to comment here I really don't think this leads anywhere, as we are, in fact, agreeing that Critical Thinking should be taught, however hard that may be:-)
As far As I see, I didn't ask you, but the original poster, but let's see anyway, shall we?
There is no "infallible way" to do that, but the lack of an ideal should not stop you from striving toward that ideal and achieving results that are as close to ideal as possible.
Quite exactly what I was trying to express, I was only attacking the notion that this was "easy".
If you're serious about teaching kids critical thinking you should begin by reading "How to Think About Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age" (by Schick and Vaughn) and "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" (by Shermer).
I'm not sure I'll enjoy any book titled "How to Think...", but should I stumble upon them I probably will.
STFU? I'm sure you'll make a great teacher telling people to shut the fuck up when they claim something different from what you believe.
I didn't tell him to STFU because he was believing something other than me. I told him so, because he implied, pretty harshly, that any teacher not achieving this noble goal, which I share, is a looser.
My take is: Try as hard as you can, but you probably won't reach them all. Anyone who claims it's easily possible should either share his wisdom or just has a big mouth.
Read those books. You need them.
a) That's in your opinion, of course
b) People have said that about quite a lot of so called "harmful" books, too. Do I have to trust your personal judgement?
Oh, great, an AC reply:-P
But, as I've done before, I'll still answer, because I love the stupid things people write when they're aware of it and feel the need to distance their "good name" from their thoughts... Pathetic, but amusing...
I do know my job, hich is precisely the reason I ask. I know how to present material in a ay to induce thinking, how to offer discussion, how to avoid black-and-white "facts", but I also know that no teacher or Professor I've ever met has always gotten all his students to "get it", most of them were happy if half the class did, not because they're incompetent, but because teaching critical thinking is amongst the most difficult things one can try. It's not as if you can just have them learn it by heart, they have to understand and actually want to apply it (all without indoctrinating them to do so)!
So, the post I as replying to claimed it was rather easy to do that, on the other hand I've seen a lot of teachers agree it's damn hard (And that would coincide with my on observations), so I simply ask: What magical recipe don't we know?
As a soon-to-be history teacher in germany (certainly you'd agree that I should be going the extra mile to make sure my pupils "get it right", right?), I'd like to ask you a question:
How, exactly, does your infallible way of teaching kids critical thinking work? As fas as I've seen that is amongst the most difficult things to do, because it requires effort on the kids part and most kids, like most adults, shun that, if at all possible... So, please, enlighten me.
Or was that just wishful thinking? Then I'd have to say, STFU.
Taken from Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland":
"You might as well say", added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!" ... The Dormouse shook its head impatiently, and said, without opening its eyes. "Of course: just what I was going to remark myself." ... Here the Dormouse shook itself, and began singing in its sleep "Twinkle, twinkle, twinkle, twinkle----" and went on so long that they had to pinch it to make it stop. ... The Dormouse slowly opened its eyes. "I wasn't asleep," it said in a hoarse, feeble voice, "I heard every word you fellows were saying." ... "Once upon a time there were three little sisters," the Dormouse began in great hurry; "and their names were Elsie, Lacie, and Tillie; and they lived at the bottom of a well----" ... "They lived on treacle," said the Dormouse, after thinking a minute or two. ... "So they were," said the Dormouse; "very ill." ... The Dormouse again took a minute or two to think about it, and then said "It was a treacle-well." ... ...and the Dormouse sulkily remarked "If you ca'n't be civil, you'd better finish the story for yourself." ... "One, indeed!" said the Dormouse indignantly. However, he consented to go on. "And so these three little sisters--they were learning to draw, you know----" ... "Treacle," said the Dormouse, without considering at, this time. ... "Of course they were," said the Dormouse: "well in." ... "They were learning to draw," the Dormouse went on, yawning and rubbing its eye, for it was getting very sleepy; "and they drew all manner of things--everything that begins with an M----" ... The Dormouse had closed its eyes by this time, and was going off into a doze; but, on being pinched by the Hatter, it woke up again with a little shriek, and went on: "----that begins with an M, such as mouse-traps, and the moon, and memory, and muchness--you know you say things are 'much of a muchness'--did you ever see such a thing as a drawing of a muchness!" ... "Sixteenth," said the Dormouse. ... "I wish you wouldn't squeeze so, "said the Dormouse, who was sitting next to her. "I can hardly breathe." ... "You've no right to grow here," said the Dormouse. ... "Yes, but I grow at a reasonable pace," said the Dormouse: "not in that ridiculous fashion." ... "Treacle," said a sleepy voice behind her.
Interestingly the line doesn't play on any of these. Instead the Hatter, standing before the Court as witness, claims the Dormouse said something, but he couldn't remember it:-)
And another note, theres a line: "Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."
Anyone thinks, Adams consciously referenced this?
From reading the blog I see you want to invite a representative group to evaluate your work. Technically that is a good idea, but currently it suffers from some weaknesses.
Let's first assume you want more than just fanboys drooling, you want to evoke the feeling that you're actually listening to other opinions and impress the heck out of your "foes". If that assumption is false then any further interest by current non-MS-users is futile, go stick with Thurrott and his kin. If it is true, then there are two major problems:
1. Selection of participants. Shun any known fanboys at all costs, have some people with known anti-MS-but-fair reputations show up. Go get Torvalds, Cox, Raymond, Parens, and other OSS people (Other Companies people might have a corporate interest to uphold) and their best friends to show up (Actually read about their opinions first, otherwise you'll screw up and invite Free Software people, like Stallman, who cannot, under any circumstances, endorse any proprietary doings, for example). If those people are allowed to play with your new toy a few days, and openly voice their opinions and suggestions, THEN you'll impress the heck out of everyone.
2. NDAs. As pointed out in the blog itself, secrecy is bad, so don't f**king do it, ok? Have everyone allowed to say whatever they want afterwards, including screenshots, etc. Surly, that won't sound positive only, maybe even harshly negative (Though I actually doubt that), but noone would be able to say you're still the evil empire...
In short, if you invite fanboys, then don't expect anyone but fanboys to believe them.
"In other news: The pope is dead!
Netcraft Confirms it... The pope, dead at 84
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Head of the catholic church, Pope Johannes Paul II. was found dead in his Rome home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly a Christian icon."
I wouldn't bet, which is probably illegal in your country anyway, as so many fun things, like alcohol in public or hookers, who are a bit to "often-used" for my taste, on that, at least not if I were you, which I, who am not a native speaker of English, or whatever you Americans consider such, but one of german, which allows for very harsh sounding swear-words, am certainly not.:-P
Point in case: confusing subordinate clauses aren't related to the language they're expressed in, just to the Kafkaesqueness of the writers mind. Coders seem very likely to use such sentences in my experience, as they're trained to nesting complex expressions (usally involving brackets (such as these)) anyway:-)
Please don't let JMS have his way with Star Trek, B5 might have had an extremely loyal fan-base as well (I never belonged to it, for me the acting was bad and the story felt like it had been ripped from D&D's Manual of the Planes (Shadows vs. Old Ones, er, Grey Council), but that's not the point), but B5, simply put, is way more gritty, dirty and "Real Life" + "New Age" than ST ever was.
JMS can obviously do quite successfull shows, with a lot of appeal for a large group of viewers, but his "style" doesn't fit into the ST-universe at all! Should he gain command of ST, then I'd know the franchise dead for good, at least for me. (And I think it's pretty much stinking by now, Voyager was utter crap and Enterprise had a nice pilot episode, which even includes the explanation of why all those time-line inconsistencies are ok to show up, if you use your brains once in while, but ultimately, it was plain boring and having T'Pol be the Sexbomb-of-the-series sure did its fair share towards that end...)
Ah, another fine example of assuming things... I'm no leftist, sorry, just because you don't agree with me (I never disagreed with the original poster) that doesn't put me in a position diametrical to the label you choose for yourself, but that's just bean-counting, isn't it?
So, on to the argument at hand: Why does anyone think the UN is morally superior to any other nation? Well, first off, it's not a nation, but a council of nations. That gives it exactly the same amount of moral superioritity as any other representative council, say a parliament for example. Is that morally superior? No, it can never be so per se. It's the part about being more or less democratic that's interesting here. If a majority of those involved can reach a consensus, that's usually considered democratic and thus a more aceptable way of handling things than, say, one nation simply attacking another on a whim.
So, is the UN too slow to handle things? Sometimes. I sure wish they'd have more power (The U.S. would have to face sanctions for attacking a whole lot of countries under fraudulent accusations then), but does lack of power and slow reaction time require someone to "simply have the guts to do it in their place"? That's the national equivalent of self-justice, a practice looked down upon as barbaric in most so-called "civilized" countries...
So, is the UN more right to order sanctions and eventually send troops? In my personal opinion, no (I'm no leftist, as I said, I prefer everyone to keep his nose out of other peoples life). But it sure has a way more democratic backing than anyone else, simply because it represent everyone else's consensus... If you don't believe in democracy, than, of course, I can understand your reaction, but please refrain from bringing your version of it to others by force, will you?
We have not even had an argument or an exchange of opinions in the first place... So how could I have even been intolerant of any opinion? (Adding that I can't even be sure I'm talking to the same Anonymous Coward all the time who apparently values his word so little he doesn't even risk his precious "Karma"). No I think this is simple flame-bait and trolling so far, I just tend to enjoy some trolls more than many "serious" posts on/. apparently:-) Maybe I'll get a good response this time, otherwise this discussion is over, it's getting pretty boring...
Actually I'm a student of history, specializing in WW2 and later. And, concerning macroeconomics, I doubt anyone seriously knowledgeable in any scientific field would outrightly disagree to such a statement as mine, because I said "not necessarily the best", which is another way of saying "I don't know, but a single value rarely accurately describes a complex system". But then, why am I discussing with an anonymous coward (who didn't get my remark as sarcastic, apparently) calling me a whiny-ass moron anyway?
Interesting... You automatically assumed I'm German... The US army is stationed all over Europe, you know?
On a side note GDP is not necessarily the best way to express a value for "economy", which is why I
a) used such a fuzzy term and
b) included the "not necessarily beat" snippet.
Oh, and please, go talk to your politicians how we will have to sort things out ourselves next time we start some shit, because personally I think the world would be far less war-torn if the US adopted that point of view and such problems could actually be discussed by the UN (It is their official (read: as undersigned by all members, e.g. countries) job, after all...)
As a european, I agree. Sounds good, right? Read on...
Microsoft can do whatever they please, in the US. Once they want to sell here, they have to abide by our rules. Simple isn't it? And why isn't Microsoft simply pulling out? Have you had a look at population and economy here lately? Europe can quite easily rival (not necessarily beat, but they're in the same order of magnitude) the US on these accounts and thus there's shitloads of money to made...
Oh, and, get your f**king army out of my country, BTW! There's no need for self-proclaimed world-police US (rather world-bully) to "protect" me from communism anymore (and no terrorism-discussion, please, it's utter bullshit from my point of view).
Congrats, you just realized that anything Computer Science produces (read: Software) is just Math and shouldn't be patentable as such. Now go tell that to lawyers and politicians, will ya?
Er, if you say so... Flame Troll:-P But seriously:
On 1600x1200 I can easily ignore that bit of advertising. Really. I use Firefox on my Linux Box, if that makes you happy, but it crashes too frequently for my taste... Oh and, just to react to your ideology: The internet is about connections between information providers, information should be free, but is whatever it's creator wants it to be until someone changes that by force, means to access are the same (you don't distinguish data and program, I hope?) and Opera is about a company (a pretty innovative one at that). So: Use whatever browser you like, I like Opera, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
It's such a small part of the book's message that it doesn't do any good to try to draw conclusions from it.
If I met somebody and he held a gun to my head, only a very realistic waterpistol, because he wanted to scare me a little, and is actually a very, very nice guy, I'd still consider him an ass. Same thing with a books title. The author knows the title creates the first impression, so, if he chooses a wording which conveys an image I dislike, I can reasonably assume the author did it on purpose. But, as I said, I'm still going to read them, should I see them. "Judging a book by the cover" is wrong if that's all you're going to read, but I'll never leave it out of my final conclusion as well.
Who the heck said it was easy?
In my opinion the original poster did, I thought that much was clear by now...
There are lots of people who work very hard at teaching others to think critically (James Randi, for example), and it seems to me that your statements are an insult to all they have accomplished.
And your statements seem to me like an insult to anyone trying to apply those theories. Does that accomplish anything? No, so let's please not degrade into accusing each other of insulting anyone, I don't intend to and I bet you don't either.
Back on topic: I have never said, that theories are bad, just usually hard to apply, which you seem to agree to.
Their efforts are not wasted, and if more teachers followed their example there would be much fewer kids accepting at face value what they see all around them.
Followed their example and wrote theory books? Most of the time such authors are no example of actual teaching, which doesn't mean one should not learn their theories, but one should be cautious that actual implementation of a theory might prove a lot more difficult than expected. Whenever I have seen a theory being applied to Reality so far, it has been this way...
In essence our discussion boils down to me insisting RealWorld Application of Theories being hard and you insisting I read those books. Those two thoughts are unrelated from my POV and unless you can give me a good reason why those books, or theories in priniciple, are more important to teaching kids Critical Thought than actual experience of teachers, who, of course, have read (that includes me, naturally) such theories and usually found them a good starting point, but not more, I don't see why we should continue this. It's a farce already...
It's a public forum, and in any case your question was more of a statement than a question.
:-/
:-)
Hm, I think we differ here, as I don't expect others to answer for people, actually this whole thread is not too polite, because it has been taken from the original poster. Each to his own I guess...
Rather than dismiss the book for its title, how about reading the book and reviewing it accordingy?
Isn't that exactly what I said? "but should I stumble upon them I probably will"? A chosen title is part of the books "message" and I happen to dislike some implications of this one (title). Anything unfair about it? Just because I don't run to Amazon to order it right now?
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that the original poster was suggesting that it's possible to teach all kids to think critically. You don't have to reach them all to contribute significantly to their overall ability to tell the difference between fact and bullshit.
Would it not be possible that you "are operating under the mistaken assumption that the original poster was not suggesting that"? I felt he was, that is why I asked him, not you, in the first place. Sadly he has not elaborated yet, and, if having a look at this discussion, probably won't anymore, because he wouldn't feel welcome...
On the second part, again, I agree, completely. It's just not the question I stated, ok? No need to evangelize me
No, but how can you claim to know how difficult it is to teach children to think critically if you're not familiar with some of the best books on critical thinking?
Probably because I'm familiar with the RealLife(TM) Application of Teaching Critical Thinking? That's exactly the dichotomy I've been arguing about, theory and practice. Theory is good, but applying it to practice is usually very hard.
Unless the oiginal poster decides to comment here I really don't think this leads anywhere, as we are, in fact, agreeing that Critical Thinking should be taught, however hard that may be
As far As I see, I didn't ask you, but the original poster, but let's see anyway, shall we?
There is no "infallible way" to do that, but the lack of an ideal should not stop you from striving toward that ideal and achieving results that are as close to ideal as possible.
Quite exactly what I was trying to express, I was only attacking the notion that this was "easy".
If you're serious about teaching kids critical thinking you should begin by reading "How to Think About Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age" (by Schick and Vaughn) and "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" (by Shermer).
I'm not sure I'll enjoy any book titled "How to Think...", but should I stumble upon them I probably will.
STFU? I'm sure you'll make a great teacher telling people to shut the fuck up when they claim something different from what you believe.
I didn't tell him to STFU because he was believing something other than me. I told him so, because he implied, pretty harshly, that any teacher not achieving this noble goal, which I share, is a looser.
My take is: Try as hard as you can, but you probably won't reach them all. Anyone who claims it's easily possible should either share his wisdom or just has a big mouth.
Read those books. You need them.
a) That's in your opinion, of course
b) People have said that about quite a lot of so called "harmful" books, too. Do I have to trust your personal judgement?
That should have been here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149490&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=1&tid=109&tid=141&tid=155&ti d=1&mode=thread&pid=12528538#12528567, damn hurry :-P
Oh, great, an AC reply :-P
But, as I've done before, I'll still answer, because I love the stupid things people write when they're aware of it and feel the need to distance their "good name" from their thoughts... Pathetic, but amusing...
I do know my job, hich is precisely the reason I ask. I know how to present material in a ay to induce thinking, how to offer discussion, how to avoid black-and-white "facts", but I also know that no teacher or Professor I've ever met has always gotten all his students to "get it", most of them were happy if half the class did, not because they're incompetent, but because teaching critical thinking is amongst the most difficult things one can try. It's not as if you can just have them learn it by heart, they have to understand and actually want to apply it (all without indoctrinating them to do so)!
So, the post I as replying to claimed it was rather easy to do that, on the other hand I've seen a lot of teachers agree it's damn hard (And that would coincide with my on observations), so I simply ask: What magical recipe don't we know?
As a soon-to-be history teacher in germany (certainly you'd agree that I should be going the extra mile to make sure my pupils "get it right", right?), I'd like to ask you a question:
How, exactly, does your infallible way of teaching kids critical thinking work? As fas as I've seen that is amongst the most difficult things to do, because it requires effort on the kids part and most kids, like most adults, shun that, if at all possible... So, please, enlighten me.
Or was that just wishful thinking? Then I'd have to say, STFU.
Taken from Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland":
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...and the Dormouse sulkily remarked "If you ca'n't be civil, you'd better finish the story for yourself."
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:-)
"You might as well say", added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"
The Dormouse shook its head impatiently, and said, without opening its eyes. "Of course: just what I was going to remark myself."
Here the Dormouse shook itself, and began singing in its sleep "Twinkle, twinkle, twinkle, twinkle----" and went on so long that they had to pinch it to make it stop.
The Dormouse slowly opened its eyes. "I wasn't asleep," it said in a hoarse, feeble voice, "I heard every word you fellows were saying."
"Once upon a time there were three little sisters," the Dormouse began in great hurry; "and their names were Elsie, Lacie, and Tillie; and they lived at the bottom of a well----"
"They lived on treacle," said the Dormouse, after thinking a minute or two.
"So they were," said the Dormouse; "very ill."
The Dormouse again took a minute or two to think about it, and then said "It was a treacle-well."
"One, indeed!" said the Dormouse indignantly. However, he consented to go on. "And so these three little sisters--they were learning to draw, you know----"
"Treacle," said the Dormouse, without considering at, this time.
"Of course they were," said the Dormouse: "well in."
"They were learning to draw," the Dormouse went on, yawning and rubbing its eye, for it was getting very sleepy; "and they drew all manner of things--everything that begins with an M----"
The Dormouse had closed its eyes by this time, and was going off into a doze; but, on being pinched by the Hatter, it woke up again with a little shriek, and went on: "----that begins with an M, such as mouse-traps, and the moon, and memory, and muchness--you know you say things are 'much of a muchness'--did you ever see such a thing as a drawing of a muchness!"
"Sixteenth," said the Dormouse.
"I wish you wouldn't squeeze so, "said the Dormouse, who was sitting next to her. "I can hardly breathe."
"You've no right to grow here," said the Dormouse.
"Yes, but I grow at a reasonable pace," said the Dormouse: "not in that ridiculous fashion."
"Treacle," said a sleepy voice behind her.
Interestingly the line doesn't play on any of these. Instead the Hatter, standing before the Court as witness, claims the Dormouse said something, but he couldn't remember it
And another note, theres a line:
"Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."
Anyone thinks, Adams consciously referenced this?
From reading the blog I see you want to invite a representative group to evaluate your work. Technically that is a good idea, but currently it suffers from some weaknesses.
Let's first assume you want more than just fanboys drooling, you want to evoke the feeling that you're actually listening to other opinions and impress the heck out of your "foes". If that assumption is false then any further interest by current non-MS-users is futile, go stick with Thurrott and his kin. If it is true, then there are two major problems:
1. Selection of participants. Shun any known fanboys at all costs, have some people with known anti-MS-but-fair reputations show up. Go get Torvalds, Cox, Raymond, Parens, and other OSS people (Other Companies people might have a corporate interest to uphold) and their best friends to show up (Actually read about their opinions first, otherwise you'll screw up and invite Free Software people, like Stallman, who cannot, under any circumstances, endorse any proprietary doings, for example). If those people are allowed to play with your new toy a few days, and openly voice their opinions and suggestions, THEN you'll impress the heck out of everyone.
2. NDAs. As pointed out in the blog itself, secrecy is bad, so don't f**king do it, ok? Have everyone allowed to say whatever they want afterwards, including screenshots, etc. Surly, that won't sound positive only, maybe even harshly negative (Though I actually doubt that), but noone would be able to say you're still the evil empire...
In short, if you invite fanboys, then don't expect anyone but fanboys to believe them.
You mean like:
... The pope, dead at 84
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Head of the catholic church, Pope Johannes Paul II. was found dead in his Rome home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly a Christian icon."
:-P
"In other news: The pope is dead!
Netcraft Confirms it
?
Likely to happen today, Film at eleven
I wouldn't bet, which is probably illegal in your country anyway, as so many fun things, like alcohol in public or hookers, who are a bit to "often-used" for my taste, on that, at least not if I were you, which I, who am not a native speaker of English, or whatever you Americans consider such, but one of german, which allows for very harsh sounding swear-words, am certainly not. :-P
:-)
Point in case: confusing subordinate clauses aren't related to the language they're expressed in, just to the Kafkaesqueness of the writers mind. Coders seem very likely to use such sentences in my experience, as they're trained to nesting complex expressions (usally involving brackets (such as these)) anyway
Please don't let JMS have his way with Star Trek, B5 might have had an extremely loyal fan-base as well (I never belonged to it, for me the acting was bad and the story felt like it had been ripped from D&D's Manual of the Planes (Shadows vs. Old Ones, er, Grey Council), but that's not the point), but B5, simply put, is way more gritty, dirty and "Real Life" + "New Age" than ST ever was. JMS can obviously do quite successfull shows, with a lot of appeal for a large group of viewers, but his "style" doesn't fit into the ST-universe at all! Should he gain command of ST, then I'd know the franchise dead for good, at least for me. (And I think it's pretty much stinking by now, Voyager was utter crap and Enterprise had a nice pilot episode, which even includes the explanation of why all those time-line inconsistencies are ok to show up, if you use your brains once in while, but ultimately, it was plain boring and having T'Pol be the Sexbomb-of-the-series sure did its fair share towards that end...)
Ah, another fine example of assuming things... I'm no leftist, sorry, just because you don't agree with me (I never disagreed with the original poster) that doesn't put me in a position diametrical to the label you choose for yourself, but that's just bean-counting, isn't it?
So, on to the argument at hand: Why does anyone think the UN is morally superior to any other nation? Well, first off, it's not a nation, but a council of nations. That gives it exactly the same amount of moral superioritity as any other representative council, say a parliament for example. Is that morally superior? No, it can never be so per se. It's the part about being more or less democratic that's interesting here. If a majority of those involved can reach a consensus, that's usually considered democratic and thus a more aceptable way of handling things than, say, one nation simply attacking another on a whim.
So, is the UN too slow to handle things? Sometimes. I sure wish they'd have more power (The U.S. would have to face sanctions for attacking a whole lot of countries under fraudulent accusations then), but does lack of power and slow reaction time require someone to "simply have the guts to do it in their place"? That's the national equivalent of self-justice, a practice looked down upon as barbaric in most so-called "civilized" countries...
So, is the UN more right to order sanctions and eventually send troops? In my personal opinion, no (I'm no leftist, as I said, I prefer everyone to keep his nose out of other peoples life). But it sure has a way more democratic backing than anyone else, simply because it represent everyone else's consensus... If you don't believe in democracy, than, of course, I can understand your reaction, but please refrain from bringing your version of it to others by force, will you?
And how exactly have I displayed being "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"? (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+bigot)
/. apparently :-)
We have not even had an argument or an exchange of opinions in the first place... So how could I have even been intolerant of any opinion? (Adding that I can't even be sure I'm talking to the same Anonymous Coward all the time who apparently values his word so little he doesn't even risk his precious "Karma"). No I think this is simple flame-bait and trolling so far, I just tend to enjoy some trolls more than many "serious" posts on
Maybe I'll get a good response this time, otherwise this discussion is over, it's getting pretty boring...
I've waited years to be able to actually say this:
:-)
I don't think that word means what you think it does
Actually I'm a student of history, specializing in WW2 and later. And, concerning macroeconomics, I doubt anyone seriously knowledgeable in any scientific field would outrightly disagree to such a statement as mine, because I said "not necessarily the best", which is another way of saying "I don't know, but a single value rarely accurately describes a complex system". But then, why am I discussing with an anonymous coward (who didn't get my remark as sarcastic, apparently) calling me a whiny-ass moron anyway?
Interesting... You automatically assumed I'm German... The US army is stationed all over Europe, you know?
On a side note GDP is not necessarily the best way to express a value for "economy", which is why I
a) used such a fuzzy term and
b) included the "not necessarily beat" snippet.
Oh, and please, go talk to your politicians how we will have to sort things out ourselves next time we start some shit, because personally I think the world would be far less war-torn if the US adopted that point of view and such problems could actually be discussed by the UN (It is their official (read: as undersigned by all members, e.g. countries) job, after all...)
As a european, I agree. Sounds good, right? Read on...
Microsoft can do whatever they please, in the US. Once they want to sell here, they have to abide by our rules. Simple isn't it? And why isn't Microsoft simply pulling out? Have you had a look at population and economy here lately? Europe can quite easily rival (not necessarily beat, but they're in the same order of magnitude) the US on these accounts and thus there's shitloads of money to made...
Oh, and, get your f**king army out of my country, BTW! There's no need for self-proclaimed world-police US (rather world-bully) to "protect" me from communism anymore (and no terrorism-discussion, please, it's utter bullshit from my point of view).
The Goatse-Man I can understand, but why haven't you put tubgirl on the second screen? It's lame this way... :-P
Actually they had his retarded second and hitherto unknown brother take his place, which is a lot worse than simply killing him...
Google define Seems, many defintions have a different take, now please calm down a bit and quit stomping the "I'm right and you're not"-routine, ok?
When you take something without securing permission to take it The word is "take" as in "I take it away, you don't have it anymore"...
Congrats, you just realized that anything Computer Science produces (read: Software) is just Math and shouldn't be patentable as such. Now go tell that to lawyers and politicians, will ya?
http://brackeen.com/javagamebook/
Er, if you say so... Flame Troll :-P But seriously:
On 1600x1200 I can easily ignore that bit of advertising. Really. I use Firefox on my Linux Box, if that makes you happy, but it crashes too frequently for my taste... Oh and, just to react to your ideology: The internet is about connections between information providers, information should be free, but is whatever it's creator wants it to be until someone changes that by force, means to access are the same (you don't distinguish data and program, I hope?) and Opera is about a company (a pretty innovative one at that). So: Use whatever browser you like, I like Opera, ok?
Just get opera, swap your pageview (CSS) to "Nostalgia" and live the c64 ! :-P