not so much uptight, as forceful in preaching and pushing their beliefs on others whether they wanted to hear it or not. and THAT has definitely carried through into American culture:-)
It's a common misconception that Puritans were THAT repressive. Yeah, they didn't talk about sex in public, but they had healthy sex lives within marriage, and didn't view sex as something dirty or sinful. They just thought you should keep it within marriage, and it wasn't suitable dinner conversation. In a lot of ways, our culture today is MUCH more repressive than Puritan society was.
That's not an incredibly healthy attitude, either. Sexual development can't just be put on hold until you as a parent "flip the switch". Sexual development happens over a long period of time, usually starting by 10 or 12 years old, or even younger. It's very natural for children to be curious about each others bodies, etc, and by the time you hit mid-teens, for males at least that develops into a draw towards pornography. Trying to block that completely will just make your kids repressed and immature when they finally get exposure.
True, but DS9 managed to pull through despite their medling. I actually think that's my favorite, if you leave out the first two or three seasons. Everything after that (Voyager, Enterprise, later movies) went straight to shit, though.
Ah, I see. I would have read that as "we aren't smart enough to figure out what evolution has in 4 billion years of trial and error, no matter how flawed", which I completely buy.
It's not that the GP and GGP are saying human design is the "pinnacle of perfection". The point is that our mental abilities actually work AGAINST physical evolution, because we can use tools, medicine, and other artifacts of society to keep individuals alive who would have died in the wild. For example, has human eyesight gotten worse since the invention of the eyeglass? There's less selective pressure against poor eyesight now than there was before that invention, so it's a pretty safe bet that the genes for "bad eyes" are gradually spreading through the gene pool. Same goes for a lot of other traits as well.
Don't you think it might be a little more accurate if you separated those that are killing BECAUSE of religious reasons, as opposed to those that aren't? China and the USSR were doing all their killing for governmental/control reasons, to maintain their fascist state or during a revolution. That's pretty distinct from religious types who are killing people simply for worshiping the wrong gods. It's dishonest to try to put the two groups together. What you should be comparing are religious nuts who kill for religious reasons, and atheists who specifically target believers because of their religion. And if you actually do that, I'm pretty sure the religious types will win.
Bring on the open source tech support crew! People who just like helping others in their free time so much that they sit around and answer endless questions for free!
Just because they aren't computer gurus doesn't mean they are smarter than a brick. A lot of people completely switch off their brains when it comes to technology. You could show users an empty web page with a single button labeled "click me" in the center, and 25% of the population would take minutes to get it right. Granted, there are those that are trying, but simply don't have the technical expertise they might like, but there's another group that are terminally inept.
There's a major problem with the "only do things if you're comfortable with the cops knowing about" idea: laws in this country are made with the understanding that they will not be anywhere near 100% enforcable. Any law impacting private behavior, at this point, is basically moot provided you break that law with a reasonable amount of discretion.
Now, conducting that illegal action over the internet may not be a reasonable amount of discretion, but the point stands that society had never planned for the police to have perfect knowledge of every single infraction, and our behavior tends to reflect that fact.
Also, there's a big disconnect between what we personally may believe is okay, and what others in society believe is okay. I know plenty of religious people who think that using drugs is actually immoral, while I tend to think they're completely nuts for holding such a belief. If I then choose to use drugs, because I find nothing wrong with the practice, that doesn't mean I want judgemental and small-minded people to know about it. If they did, they would either shun my company or refuse to hire me for reasons that I believe are wrong, or I would have to spend most of my time arguing with them over it in an effort to get the respect that they would give me by default if I just kept that fact hidden. If hiding some part of my typical behavior enables me to interact more smoothly with groups who I believe are wrong in their beliefs, is that bad? It's not hypocritical, because I'm not ashamed of the action itself -- I'm just realistic about the consequences of the reactions of others to finding out a certain piece of information about myself.
In any case, the wikipedia article wasn't making fun of Peppers, it was documenting the fact that he was being made fun of. It was a perfectly valid page -- someone might see the picture and the name and think "gosh, I wonder what the real story is on this guy. Let's go check Wikipedia." If the entry had been left, they would have seen a list of the rumors that were circulated, as well as rebuttals and links to more factual sources on his legal case and medical condition. How is that going against the purpose of Wikipedia, or encyclopedias in general? Since they have the ability to handle these "low interest" topics, why would the remove them? Isn't the aim of any encyclopedia to answer any question that someone might ask of it?
No offense, but it's easy to bitch about taxes if you ignore all the things you get back from them. Many people in the US complain about high taxes too, without realizing that life without the programs and ammenities supported by taxes would be much less fruitful than it is at present. Without government supported schooling, uneducated or undereducated groups in society resort to crime, leading to an elevated crime rate. Without tax-supported public transportation, the roads (which are themselves supported by taxes, don't forget) would be clogged with many more drivers than they presently are, and likely in older, more dangerous vehicles, and without insurancce. Without taxes, we would be unable to support a court system, which clogged as it is, is doubtless better than none at all. Without taxes, there are no firemen rushing to the scene when your barbeque gets a little too close to the garage. If there's some money lost to red tape and pork barrel spending, then yes, that needs to be cut back, but you can't just cut taxes and expect society to magically improve as a result.
Reference.com defines "manse" as "A large stately residence." I think it's just a matter of which dictionary you're looking at, but the term doesn't seem to be out of line.
While we're defining things, it should be noted that you've defined communism completely wrong. The entire goal is to do away with a ruling class, not get more stuff for "those in power" as you put it. A true communist state would have an anarchic system of government.
Also for the record, China is not, and never has been, anything approaching a true communist state. If anything, they're a fascist military dictatorship with a somewhat socialist economic system. A much better example would be Switzerland or Sweden, both much more socialist than most other countries in the world, and both quite peaceful and happy as well.
These people weren't trying to stop the 13 year old contingent from using these words as they were, offensive or no. They weren't starting a cause in any way. All they were doing was saying "hey, we're starting a guild and welcome people who prefer to play in a more respectful atmosphere" and they got their account banned for it. That's pretty ridiculous to me.
> You wat to be gay? Fine. Why do you have to announce that in a game where odds are you'll never even meet any of these people?
heterosexual culture, especially among gamer geeks, has an amazing amount of innate homophobia. Everything bad in a game is "gay" this, or "fag" that. The article even says, the impetus to start a LGBT guild was because of the language in the game at large.
rubbing it in everyone's face is not the same thing as just being yourself. People shouldn't have to pretend to be something they're not just to play a game
the point of the guild is that it DOES let them meet others in the same situation
The core responsibility on any programming team is never going to go to a telecommuter. There's simply no substitute for talking to the rest of the team face to face, or being able to walk down the hall and bug somebody about a design question. Humans have so many visual communication ques that it becomes impossible to interact on the same level with a voice on a telephone, or even an image on a screen.
That's not to say there won't be more "heads down from home two days a week" types of arrangements, but on the days that you need to be working as a team, you'll be in the office, whether it's 5 years from now, or 500.
To be fair,/. users are not the target market he's talking about. There are a decent number of people out there who will just see "oh, my latest Schwarzenager DVD doesn't play on Linux? Well, I better not try to use it, then", and not understand that it's restrictive media policies that are the problem rather than Linux support. The question is how many of them will take it out on the media companies, and how many will take it out on alternative OSes.
Slashdot Mirror
not so much uptight, as forceful in preaching and pushing their beliefs on others whether they wanted to hear it or not. and THAT has definitely carried through into American culture :-)
It's a common misconception that Puritans were THAT repressive. Yeah, they didn't talk about sex in public, but they had healthy sex lives within marriage, and didn't view sex as something dirty or sinful. They just thought you should keep it within marriage, and it wasn't suitable dinner conversation. In a lot of ways, our culture today is MUCH more repressive than Puritan society was.
That's not an incredibly healthy attitude, either. Sexual development can't just be put on hold until you as a parent "flip the switch". Sexual development happens over a long period of time, usually starting by 10 or 12 years old, or even younger. It's very natural for children to be curious about each others bodies, etc, and by the time you hit mid-teens, for males at least that develops into a draw towards pornography. Trying to block that completely will just make your kids repressed and immature when they finally get exposure.
Hey now. At least B5 has better acting than both of the Stargate series put together. And the writing is quite a bit better than TOS and Voyager on.
True, but DS9 managed to pull through despite their medling. I actually think that's my favorite, if you leave out the first two or three seasons. Everything after that (Voyager, Enterprise, later movies) went straight to shit, though.
You need to have a sit-down with a good grammar book, my friend.
Ah, I see. I would have read that as "we aren't smart enough to figure out what evolution has in 4 billion years of trial and error, no matter how flawed", which I completely buy.
It's not that the GP and GGP are saying human design is the "pinnacle of perfection". The point is that our mental abilities actually work AGAINST physical evolution, because we can use tools, medicine, and other artifacts of society to keep individuals alive who would have died in the wild. For example, has human eyesight gotten worse since the invention of the eyeglass? There's less selective pressure against poor eyesight now than there was before that invention, so it's a pretty safe bet that the genes for "bad eyes" are gradually spreading through the gene pool. Same goes for a lot of other traits as well.
Don't you think it might be a little more accurate if you separated those that are killing BECAUSE of religious reasons, as opposed to those that aren't? China and the USSR were doing all their killing for governmental/control reasons, to maintain their fascist state or during a revolution. That's pretty distinct from religious types who are killing people simply for worshiping the wrong gods. It's dishonest to try to put the two groups together. What you should be comparing are religious nuts who kill for religious reasons, and atheists who specifically target believers because of their religion. And if you actually do that, I'm pretty sure the religious types will win.
Bring on the open source tech support crew! People who just like helping others in their free time so much that they sit around and answer endless questions for free!
From the tone of your own post, it seems obvious that you have plenty of these business skills which you accuse others of lacking :roll:
Just because they aren't computer gurus doesn't mean they are smarter than a brick. A lot of people completely switch off their brains when it comes to technology. You could show users an empty web page with a single button labeled "click me" in the center, and 25% of the population would take minutes to get it right. Granted, there are those that are trying, but simply don't have the technical expertise they might like, but there's another group that are terminally inept.
There's a major problem with the "only do things if you're comfortable with the cops knowing about" idea: laws in this country are made with the understanding that they will not be anywhere near 100% enforcable. Any law impacting private behavior, at this point, is basically moot provided you break that law with a reasonable amount of discretion.
Now, conducting that illegal action over the internet may not be a reasonable amount of discretion, but the point stands that society had never planned for the police to have perfect knowledge of every single infraction, and our behavior tends to reflect that fact.
Also, there's a big disconnect between what we personally may believe is okay, and what others in society believe is okay. I know plenty of religious people who think that using drugs is actually immoral, while I tend to think they're completely nuts for holding such a belief. If I then choose to use drugs, because I find nothing wrong with the practice, that doesn't mean I want judgemental and small-minded people to know about it. If they did, they would either shun my company or refuse to hire me for reasons that I believe are wrong, or I would have to spend most of my time arguing with them over it in an effort to get the respect that they would give me by default if I just kept that fact hidden. If hiding some part of my typical behavior enables me to interact more smoothly with groups who I believe are wrong in their beliefs, is that bad? It's not hypocritical, because I'm not ashamed of the action itself -- I'm just realistic about the consequences of the reactions of others to finding out a certain piece of information about myself.
In any case, the wikipedia article wasn't making fun of Peppers, it was documenting the fact that he was being made fun of. It was a perfectly valid page -- someone might see the picture and the name and think "gosh, I wonder what the real story is on this guy. Let's go check Wikipedia." If the entry had been left, they would have seen a list of the rumors that were circulated, as well as rebuttals and links to more factual sources on his legal case and medical condition. How is that going against the purpose of Wikipedia, or encyclopedias in general? Since they have the ability to handle these "low interest" topics, why would the remove them? Isn't the aim of any encyclopedia to answer any question that someone might ask of it?
that was aMAZingly random :-)
No offense, but it's easy to bitch about taxes if you ignore all the things you get back from them. Many people in the US complain about high taxes too, without realizing that life without the programs and ammenities supported by taxes would be much less fruitful than it is at present. Without government supported schooling, uneducated or undereducated groups in society resort to crime, leading to an elevated crime rate. Without tax-supported public transportation, the roads (which are themselves supported by taxes, don't forget) would be clogged with many more drivers than they presently are, and likely in older, more dangerous vehicles, and without insurancce. Without taxes, we would be unable to support a court system, which clogged as it is, is doubtless better than none at all. Without taxes, there are no firemen rushing to the scene when your barbeque gets a little too close to the garage. If there's some money lost to red tape and pork barrel spending, then yes, that needs to be cut back, but you can't just cut taxes and expect society to magically improve as a result.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=manse
Reference.com defines "manse" as "A large stately residence." I think it's just a matter of which dictionary you're looking at, but the term doesn't seem to be out of line.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=manse
While we're defining things, it should be noted that you've defined communism completely wrong. The entire goal is to do away with a ruling class, not get more stuff for "those in power" as you put it. A true communist state would have an anarchic system of government.
Also for the record, China is not, and never has been, anything approaching a true communist state. If anything, they're a fascist military dictatorship with a somewhat socialist economic system. A much better example would be Switzerland or Sweden, both much more socialist than most other countries in the world, and both quite peaceful and happy as well.
These people weren't trying to stop the 13 year old contingent from using these words as they were, offensive or no. They weren't starting a cause in any way. All they were doing was saying "hey, we're starting a guild and welcome people who prefer to play in a more respectful atmosphere" and they got their account banned for it. That's pretty ridiculous to me.
> We've been at war with cancer for over 50 years and we are loosing that war. Loosing that war on who? Loosing it on "ze Germans"?
The core responsibility on any programming team is never going to go to a telecommuter. There's simply no substitute for talking to the rest of the team face to face, or being able to walk down the hall and bug somebody about a design question. Humans have so many visual communication ques that it becomes impossible to interact on the same level with a voice on a telephone, or even an image on a screen.
That's not to say there won't be more "heads down from home two days a week" types of arrangements, but on the days that you need to be working as a team, you'll be in the office, whether it's 5 years from now, or 500.
She did, but he came back as Ares
To be fair, /. users are not the target market he's talking about. There are a decent number of people out there who will just see "oh, my latest Schwarzenager DVD doesn't play on Linux? Well, I better not try to use it, then", and not understand that it's restrictive media policies that are the problem rather than Linux support. The question is how many of them will take it out on the media companies, and how many will take it out on alternative OSes.