Just like the other Aussies who started smacking me around here and mindlessly modding me down, you don't really seem to know what your government and industries are actually doing (or not doing). The program however was demonstrating a different story, and keep in mind that the people in the program were also Aussies. The most shocking fact, mentioned out of hand and not the point of the program:
the Queensland rainforest is being destroyed at the same rate as the Amazon rainforest.
Does that sound like sustainable natural resource management to you?
Assholes who haven't learned how to be impartial have once again modded unfairly. Another Aussie expressed the same skepticism, claiming that they are being good shepherds of the remaining koalas and rainforest, but watching the program demonstrates CLEARLY that neither are being managed sustainably. Probably the single most shocking fact was a comparison of Queensland to the Amazon:
the Queensland rainforest is being destroyed at the same rate as the Amazon rainforest.
Does that sound like sustainable natural resource management to you?
Jeez, you people need to get a handle on what your own government and industries are doing. For fuck's sake, just go stream this program from pbs.org if you don't believe my recollection.
No, the Nature episode was current, but I pulled the number out of my obsolete mental atlas. The episode clearly shows that you're NOT taking care of the koalas, chopping up the continuity of their remaining Queensland forests for the sake of freeways and suburban subdivisions. It was all about the social, sexual, genetic, and behavioral consequences of all the destruction and segmentation.
See, my reply to the other guy who asked me what I was "banging on about" wasn't really Trollish at all, because apparently a lot of you actually don't know just how much destruction you're still causing to both the rainforest and the koalas. One comment from the program that especially shocked me was the comparison that the Queensland rainforest is being destroyed at the same rate as the Amazon rainforest. Does that sound like sustainable natural resource management to you?
Jeez, you people need to get a handle on what your own government and industries are doing.
Speaking of offal, it was an unpleasant discovery that koala young for a period eat their mother's poop to acquire the digestive flora to handle those awful gum leaves. What a nice visual that was....
It does. Actually, the pigs get it better: they get the release of death, while the human livestock are kept alive and bled dry slowly. Where do ya think they got the idea for Guantanamo?
Sorry you have to hear about what your own government and land developers are doing from somebody outside your borders. Happens to us, too (i.e. reporting on Iraq Wars I & II)
OTOH, if it treats its citizens like it treats the koalas (q.v. recent PBS Nature episode) and aborigines and rainforest, maybe it's not that great. Only 15 million people and all that real estate, and still they manage to screw up the best parts.
You know I modded your comment up, but then got stupid and commented elsewhere and negated my own modding. Hopefully someone else can make up for my goof.
You'd think the field of Medicine, with its alleged strong emphasis on ethics, would understand the rational behind an opt-in system of DNA collection for research purposes.
The inevitable progression of the TSA will be that pre-flight pat-downs and strip searches won't be necessary: people will simply be required to travel in the buff. Oh, the poor stewardesses!
I'm too picky/particular to be satisfied by any off the shelf system*, closed or open; I must always hack it to some degree. That's why I personally prefer systems as open as possible, because they present the least barrier to what I need to do to make it work for me. Others' MMV.
* By "system" here I mean literally anything I might buy, though I confess I don't usually do much hacking of, say, aerosol cans. I've been known to do that at least once, though....
Case in point, then: the App Store. Is that a closed and tightly controlled and limiting enough system for you? How about the original iTunes? Going much further back the timeline, how about the Macintosh hardware design? Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you really this unobservant that you need citations? Apple's been peddling closed systems since the end of the Apple ][... or perhaps since the departure of Wozniak.
I think it's hysterical that you so completely misinterpreted my last sentence and then ran off on a long-winded rant about your distortion. You're quite correct that Apple doesn't force anyone to BUY its products. The force is applied before and after the sale, beforehand in deliberately limiting design and implementation, and afterward in lawsuits and other threats to enforce those limitations. My comments suggested psychology behind "open" versus "closed" and how the attitudes of Wozniak and Jobs reflect that. Open systems are about cooperation, synergy, and incremental evolution; closed systems are about dominance, control, and PREVENTING that incremental evolution and synergy. It's hysterical that you've been reading Slashdot all these years and apparently still don't recognize the difference.
Indeed. Job's contribution to Apple was a corporate mindset, marketing, and ultimately the selfish controlling "closed" nature of every product it brought to market. The difference between the two men can be distilled down to one crucial personality trait: respect. Wozniak has respect for Apple's customers that Jobs never did. Jobs treated Apple customers like cattle, to be guided through narrow constricting chutes and confined in little cages, all while milking them of every last ounce.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch it and then shut up.
I don't have to drink to forget... I come by the ability naturally. Maybe drinking will instead help me remember and I've been missing out?
Just like the other Aussies who started smacking me around here and mindlessly modding me down, you don't really seem to know what your government and industries are actually doing (or not doing). The program however was demonstrating a different story, and keep in mind that the people in the program were also Aussies. The most shocking fact, mentioned out of hand and not the point of the program:
the Queensland rainforest is being destroyed at the same rate as the Amazon rainforest.
Does that sound like sustainable natural resource management to you?
Here's the portal for the episode, if they stream the full thing eventually..
I was hinting at the legendary Vodka addiction, BTW, in case that didn't come through in translation to Cyrillic. :-)
Assholes who haven't learned how to be impartial have once again modded unfairly. Another Aussie expressed the same skepticism, claiming that they are being good shepherds of the remaining koalas and rainforest, but watching the program demonstrates CLEARLY that neither are being managed sustainably. Probably the single most shocking fact was a comparison of Queensland to the Amazon:
the Queensland rainforest is being destroyed at the same rate as the Amazon rainforest.
Does that sound like sustainable natural resource management to you?
Jeez, you people need to get a handle on what your own government and industries are doing. For fuck's sake, just go stream this program from pbs.org if you don't believe my recollection.
No, the Nature episode was current, but I pulled the number out of my obsolete mental atlas. The episode clearly shows that you're NOT taking care of the koalas, chopping up the continuity of their remaining Queensland forests for the sake of freeways and suburban subdivisions. It was all about the social, sexual, genetic, and behavioral consequences of all the destruction and segmentation.
See, my reply to the other guy who asked me what I was "banging on about" wasn't really Trollish at all, because apparently a lot of you actually don't know just how much destruction you're still causing to both the rainforest and the koalas. One comment from the program that especially shocked me was the comparison that the Queensland rainforest is being destroyed at the same rate as the Amazon rainforest. Does that sound like sustainable natural resource management to you?
Jeez, you people need to get a handle on what your own government and industries are doing.
Speaking of offal, it was an unpleasant discovery that koala young for a period eat their mother's poop to acquire the digestive flora to handle those awful gum leaves. What a nice visual that was....
It does. Actually, the pigs get it better: they get the release of death, while the human livestock are kept alive and bled dry slowly. Where do ya think they got the idea for Guantanamo?
And why hope for forgiveness when we can forget?
Now you sound like a Russian expatriate.
The population figure I pulled out of my own out-of-date mental atlas. The Nature program probably made no mention of it.
Indeed. They've unfortunately aped quite a few of our mistakes instead of learning from them. We had Bush, they had John Howard....
Sorry you have to hear about what your own government and land developers are doing from somebody outside your borders. Happens to us, too (i.e. reporting on Iraq Wars I & II)
OTOH, if it treats its citizens like it treats the koalas (q.v. recent PBS Nature episode) and aborigines and rainforest, maybe it's not that great. Only 15 million people and all that real estate, and still they manage to screw up the best parts.
I hear Bill Clinton wants to move there and run for office.
It also has a much hotter head honcho than the U.S., so if you're nursing fantasies about being a national leader's plaything you could do worse.
You know I modded your comment up, but then got stupid and commented elsewhere and negated my own modding. Hopefully someone else can make up for my goof.
You'd think the field of Medicine, with its alleged strong emphasis on ethics, would understand the rational behind an opt-in system of DNA collection for research purposes.
FTFY.
The inevitable progression of the TSA will be that pre-flight pat-downs and strip searches won't be necessary: people will simply be required to travel in the buff. Oh, the poor stewardesses!
It's part usability and part marketing.
No, it's more sinister than that.
This qualifies as Apple treating you like a cow, whether you have the impartiality to admit it or not.
I'm too picky/particular to be satisfied by any off the shelf system*, closed or open; I must always hack it to some degree. That's why I personally prefer systems as open as possible, because they present the least barrier to what I need to do to make it work for me. Others' MMV.
* By "system" here I mean literally anything I might buy, though I confess I don't usually do much hacking of, say, aerosol cans. I've been known to do that at least once, though....
Case in point, then: the App Store. Is that a closed and tightly controlled and limiting enough system for you? How about the original iTunes? Going much further back the timeline, how about the Macintosh hardware design? Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you really this unobservant that you need citations? Apple's been peddling closed systems since the end of the Apple ][... or perhaps since the departure of Wozniak.
I think it's hysterical that you so completely misinterpreted my last sentence and then ran off on a long-winded rant about your distortion. You're quite correct that Apple doesn't force anyone to BUY its products. The force is applied before and after the sale, beforehand in deliberately limiting design and implementation, and afterward in lawsuits and other threats to enforce those limitations. My comments suggested psychology behind "open" versus "closed" and how the attitudes of Wozniak and Jobs reflect that. Open systems are about cooperation, synergy, and incremental evolution; closed systems are about dominance, control, and PREVENTING that incremental evolution and synergy. It's hysterical that you've been reading Slashdot all these years and apparently still don't recognize the difference.
Indeed. Job's contribution to Apple was a corporate mindset, marketing, and ultimately the selfish controlling "closed" nature of every product it brought to market. The difference between the two men can be distilled down to one crucial personality trait: respect. Wozniak has respect for Apple's customers that Jobs never did. Jobs treated Apple customers like cattle, to be guided through narrow constricting chutes and confined in little cages, all while milking them of every last ounce.
Nope, that's digest mode!