And the culprits are including both user reviews and reviews by professionals, where you would expect the quality of grades being better.
One scandinavian photo magazine, using 1 - 10 grades is actually so bad that you actually have to recalculate the grades. The grades almost always land in the 5 - 10 range, where 5 would mean utter crap. One pretty effective way of dealing with this is to subtract 5 from the original grade and use the result as a grade in the range 1 to 5. So far this "tactic" has worked pretty well.
One obvious reason for magazines and such not giving too low grades are the dependancy of manufacturers actually sending them stuff to review.
You make it sound like you have no choice but to watch these TV shows. I can just picture you: strapped to your chair, eyelids taped open, attendant applying synthetic tears as hour after hour of cagney+lacy and CSI are shoved down your eyeballs. Is that about how it happens?
Correct!:)
No, not really, but I do tend to get a little tired when six of my eight available channels at the same time show american series of, should we say "less than desirable quality".
PS. the accepted term for inhabitants of the US is "Americans", not "USA:ian". Your repetitive use of that term makes you look like a buffoon. Welcome to the wonderful world of human language where everything doesn't work exactly like you want it to. Will you be staying with us long?
PS. I would hate to think people living in other american countries would think that I refer to them in my sweeping generalizations. DS.
And, why do you instantly take USA:ian as being a derogative term? That is (honestly) not my intention.
Wow. You imply that hunting is noble because it is our heritage from way back in history. I just want to know what period in human history you are refering to, where hunting was such an important means of getting nutrition that it is still hard wired into us all?
That's why hunting is the most noble sport -- it's what we're designed to do at the most basic level.
You could as easily say orienteering with a bucket for berries being the most noble sport.
First, you (and no one else) have statistics to back that up.
No, not any more statistics than you have shown for hunting being what "we're designed to do at the most basic level". Ridiculous is the word.
Second, our bodies are designed for hunting...
You started with the statistics/sources game. Can you please point me in the right direction here?
...(note our forward-facing eyes of the predator, versus other animals with wider eyes to give a wider field of view in order to flee FROM predators).
Interresting. Many would say that primates have forward facing eyes for being good at measuring distances (vital when climbing and jumping through trees). But you are welcome to elaborate on why vegetarian gorillas have forward facing eyes. Is it because of their fearsome, predator ancestors?
Almost every society has used a combination of hunting and gathering for food. Duh! Of course a society is going to take advantage of whatever the natural resources are around them. Do you think some primitive culture is not going to hunt out of some modern notion of nobility when there are plentiful sources of meat around?
I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you trying to argue that humans are NOT designed to hunt, and that it's only in modern times that we've suddenly decided we like meat, and that we like hunting? The absurdity of your argument is self-evident.
Disregarding your patronizing tone.
I would say humans have hunted, given the opportunity in many societies, probably way back in Africa, millions of years ago. Some societies (and sub species, ie Neanderthalis) have been very hunting oriented. What I object to s the notion that you keep coming back to, that hunting is what "we're designed to do at the most basic level". I would argue it is not. Human ancestors were oppertunistic.
If we were designed to hunt we would have looked a lot more like lions, wolves or other species that really were designed for hunting.
Very nice. Except... Most paleoanthropologists would say that Homo Neanderthalis isn't an ancestor of Homo Sapiens. What did the studies say about Homo Habilis or Homo Heidelbergensis?
I am suprised that you would bring out the most hunt oriented sub species of Homo as an argument for this debate.:-P
Pre civilization / not pre human evolution. I figure you do know that line can be hard to draw? Not even paleoanthropologists are very sure when homo sapiens was a complete species. How many homos back would you call "human"?
I happen to be very aware of the period where we were "hunters and gatherers" as it is called. The problem with everyone using that period for justifying hunting is that they tend to leave out the fact that "gathering" counted for the overwhelming majority of food consumed. I am also aware of specialized societies where hunting for meat was one of the primary source of nutrition. Inuit, Mamut(sp?) hunters, some tribes of native americans, etc. Problem is, they are not all that represntative for human evolution. Odds are that many hunters reffering to these "hunting genes" never had a memeber of a hunting community in his background.
And strawmen also have a habit of calling others "strawmen".
I do realize you weren't adressing me directly, but since you are talking about me, I feel the need to still your fears that I could care more or less for whatever is "natural" or "unnatural".
You are perfectly welcome by me to sit on your fat ass and eating potatoe chips all day long. However unnatural that might be. You could even have a coke with it. I don't mind.
Actually, I am pro hunting when it comes to wildlife preservation. I am neither particular bothered about people hunting for fun.
What I have a slight problem with is the vast majority (in my experience) of five-weekends-per-year hunters that need to make up excuses for their need to kill animals. Call it bloodthirst or whatever - the adrenaline rush when killing. The same thing a cat or dog experience when chasing a mouse (or a cat).
Hunting for wildlife preservation could easily be handled by some state employed professional hunters. Which would probably lessen the suffering from bad shots.
All three are hunting tools, just different kinds. We're humans -- we design and use tools. The exact tool doesn't matter.
Then why go for the easiest one? Sneaking after a grizzly through the bushes with a bowie in your hands must surely give much more of nature communication and heritage experiencing.
We're not apes. We're not even chimpanzees. We are humans, who happen to share a common ancestor a long, long time ago with the latter animals.
Ah, but you were talking about heritage and what we were made for. Then please specify what step of the human evolution we should look at for finding out what "nature intended".
For someone speaking of "nature intended", "as we're designed","commune with nature", "heritage", "surviving meant catching our food" and "designed to do at the most basic level"... you sure do a good job of narrowing down that period in our evolution of our species, for which hunting large animals can be justified as a heritage.
But you'll note that worms, ants and beetles aren't very appetizing. Yet delicious meat is EXTREMELY appetizing to the vast majority of people.
Basically, a chunk of meat is a great source of protein/fat, which is why most people like it. We are hard wired to, just like the apes. Chimps also eat meat when given the opportunity, but it is not the base of their regular diet. Beetles, for example, contains less of the stuff which makes things tasty, therefore we tend to select better sources where available.
Not that it isn't also fun, but the point of hunting is to commune with nature and experience a tiny part of our heritage when surviving meant catching our food. That's why hunting is the most noble sport -- it's what we're designed to do at the most basic level.
Why all the guns, then? If it all about experiencing a timy part of our heritage, why not attacking deer with a knife, or a home made bow and arrows?
And no, we are not designed at the most basic level to kill large mammals. For the most basic level, go and read a book about apes feeding habits.
Wonder why we don't see many hunters out in the woods, eating worms, ants or beetles and such? That is after all what they are designed to do at the most basic level.
There are few things in life that are always successful. Taking your stance that it is impossible isn't going to make much things much better, anyway.
Oh and as much as I love Sam Waterston and miss Jerry Orbach, getting your opinions about law enforcement from TV might not be the most insightful way to go.
As an European, my ways (and/or willingness) to recieve information about the USA:ian legal system are rather limited. But spoon fed as we are with USA:ian crap series, it is hard to avoid forming a rough opinion on how the legal system works in general. Internal affairs are usually portrayed as bad guys, but taking into account how the real cops are portrayed, they seem to have a vital role to play.
Actually, I wasn't talking of how internal affairs works atm. My idea was that something along that line is what is necessary in these cases. If the current solution is adequate, I can not say.
The main difference, as someone already pointed out, is that we (in scandinavian countries) don't see the government as a bully that must be kept on a leash. Maybe we should look at it that way more often, but that is a completely different discussion.
From our (my) point of view, the responsibility doesn't lie with government as a whole, but with the officer(s) conducting the investigation. If they choose to disobey proper procedures, for whatever reasons, they will also personally take the fall. IIRC, there was a case like this in Sweden recently, where a highly ranked police officer got busted for methods involving crime provocation, which seems to be illegal in that country. I am not sure if he got hold of any information that could be used against other criminals.
What I am trying to say is that maybe we look at evidence in a different way. Evidence is evidence, no matter how it is produced. If it is genuine and it proves that someone is guilty, they are going down. The evidence kind of stands on its own merits.
I realize there are grey areas where some kind of prevention might be needed, but it looks like our system works pretty well as a whole, if you disregard the slap-on-the-wrist kind of punishments they are given for very serious crimes.
But the question is not whether she is/was a bad person, the question is if (that made) Reiser killed her. (and of course the question of how this will affect the future of Reiser4)
Yes, from reading Hans' postings and some articles on the web it his "lovely" wife and her friends seem a lot more suspect all along.
Questions are, will the juridical system ever take these suspect indicies into account? Also, everything that makes them look suspect comes from Hans Reiser, which, unless it can be proven, might not make his position better in a court of law.
Hans Reiser, in turn, denied that movies were to blame for their son's nightmares and accused his wife of having an extramarital affair with Sean Sturgeon, a former friend of his, and that Sturgeon was a danger to the children.... Sturgeon said he became romantically involved with Nina Reiser only when her husband made it clear that the couple were through.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone using either of these phrases often enough to make it into an acronym... GAFL.
you can't get fooled again.
And the culprits are including both user reviews and reviews by professionals, where you would expect the quality of grades being better.
One scandinavian photo magazine, using 1 - 10 grades is actually so bad that you actually have to recalculate the grades. The grades almost always land in the 5 - 10 range, where 5 would mean utter crap. One pretty effective way of dealing with this is to subtract 5 from the original grade and use the result as a grade in the range 1 to 5. So far this "tactic" has worked pretty well.
One obvious reason for magazines and such not giving too low grades are the dependancy of manufacturers actually sending them stuff to review.
Mmm... Modbombing. Almost as fun as hunting. :)
I have a life, not same as yours, good for me.
Cheers mate!
You make it sound like you have no choice but to watch these TV shows. I can just picture you: strapped to your chair, eyelids taped open, attendant applying synthetic tears as hour after hour of cagney+lacy and CSI are shoved down your eyeballs. Is that about how it happens?
:)
Correct!
No, not really, but I do tend to get a little tired when six of my eight available channels at the same time show american series of, should we say "less than desirable quality".
PS. the accepted term for inhabitants of the US is "Americans", not "USA:ian". Your repetitive use of that term makes you look like a buffoon. Welcome to the wonderful world of human language where everything doesn't work exactly like you want it to. Will you be staying with us long?
PS. I would hate to think people living in other american countries would think that I refer to them in my sweeping generalizations. DS.
And, why do you instantly take USA:ian as being a derogative term? That is (honestly) not my intention.
Wow. You imply that hunting is noble because it is our heritage from way back in history. I just want to know what period in human history you are refering to, where hunting was such an important means of getting nutrition that it is still hard wired into us all?
...(note our forward-facing eyes of the predator, versus other animals with wider eyes to give a wider field of view in order to flee FROM predators).
That's why hunting is the most noble sport -- it's what we're designed to do at the most basic level.
You could as easily say orienteering with a bucket for berries being the most noble sport.
First, you (and no one else) have statistics to back that up.
No, not any more statistics than you have shown for hunting being what "we're designed to do at the most basic level". Ridiculous is the word.
Second, our bodies are designed for hunting...
You started with the statistics/sources game. Can you please point me in the right direction here?
Interresting. Many would say that primates have forward facing eyes for being good at measuring distances (vital when climbing and jumping through trees). But you are welcome to elaborate on why vegetarian gorillas have forward facing eyes. Is it because of their fearsome, predator ancestors?
Almost every society has used a combination of hunting and gathering for food. Duh! Of course a society is going to take advantage of whatever the natural resources are around them. Do you think some primitive culture is not going to hunt out of some modern notion of nobility when there are plentiful sources of meat around?
I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you trying to argue that humans are NOT designed to hunt, and that it's only in modern times that we've suddenly decided we like meat, and that we like hunting? The absurdity of your argument is self-evident.
Disregarding your patronizing tone.
I would say humans have hunted, given the opportunity in many societies, probably way back in Africa, millions of years ago. Some societies (and sub species, ie Neanderthalis) have been very hunting oriented. What I object to s the notion that you keep coming back to, that hunting is what "we're designed to do at the most basic level". I would argue it is not. Human ancestors were oppertunistic.
If we were designed to hunt we would have looked a lot more like lions, wolves or other species that really were designed for hunting.
Very nice. Except... Most paleoanthropologists would say that Homo Neanderthalis isn't an ancestor of Homo Sapiens. What did the studies say about Homo Habilis or Homo Heidelbergensis?
:-P
I am suprised that you would bring out the most hunt oriented sub species of Homo as an argument for this debate.
The latest theory I read stated upright walk was a advancement in the name of "seeing far, in order to avoid predators".
Do you have a source for your theory? I am not saying I don't trust you, it just sounds like an interresting read.
Ok, now you narrowed it down a bit. Very nice.
Pre civilization / not pre human evolution. I figure you do know that line can be hard to draw? Not even paleoanthropologists are very sure when homo sapiens was a complete species. How many homos back would you call "human"?
I happen to be very aware of the period where we were "hunters and gatherers" as it is called. The problem with everyone using that period for justifying hunting is that they tend to leave out the fact that "gathering" counted for the overwhelming majority of food consumed. I am also aware of specialized societies where hunting for meat was one of the primary source of nutrition. Inuit, Mamut(sp?) hunters, some tribes of native americans, etc. Problem is, they are not all that represntative for human evolution. Odds are that many hunters reffering to these "hunting genes" never had a memeber of a hunting community in his background.
And strawmen also have a habit of calling others "strawmen".
I do realize you weren't adressing me directly, but since you are talking about me, I feel the need to still your fears that I could care more or less for whatever is "natural" or "unnatural".
You are perfectly welcome by me to sit on your fat ass and eating potatoe chips all day long. However unnatural that might be. You could even have a coke with it. I don't mind.
Actually, I am pro hunting when it comes to wildlife preservation. I am neither particular bothered about people hunting for fun.
What I have a slight problem with is the vast majority (in my experience) of five-weekends-per-year hunters that need to make up excuses for their need to kill animals. Call it bloodthirst or whatever - the adrenaline rush when killing. The same thing a cat or dog experience when chasing a mouse (or a cat).
Hunting for wildlife preservation could easily be handled by some state employed professional hunters. Which would probably lessen the suffering from bad shots.
All three are hunting tools, just different kinds. We're humans -- we design and use tools. The exact tool doesn't matter.
... you sure do a good job of narrowing down that period in our evolution of our species, for which hunting large animals can be justified as a heritage.
Then why go for the easiest one? Sneaking after a grizzly through the bushes with a bowie in your hands must surely give much more of nature communication and heritage experiencing.
We're not apes. We're not even chimpanzees. We are humans, who happen to share a common ancestor a long, long time ago with the latter animals.
Ah, but you were talking about heritage and what we were made for. Then please specify what step of the human evolution we should look at for finding out what "nature intended".
For someone speaking of "nature intended", "as we're designed","commune with nature", "heritage", "surviving meant catching our food" and "designed to do at the most basic level"
But you'll note that worms, ants and beetles aren't very appetizing. Yet delicious meat is EXTREMELY appetizing to the vast majority of people.
Basically, a chunk of meat is a great source of protein/fat, which is why most people like it. We are hard wired to, just like the apes. Chimps also eat meat when given the opportunity, but it is not the base of their regular diet. Beetles, for example, contains less of the stuff which makes things tasty, therefore we tend to select better sources where available.
Yeah, good point. Now, please explain why their natural predators are mostly wiped out. Does it have anything to do with guys with guns?
Not that it isn't also fun, but the point of hunting is to commune with nature and experience a tiny part of our heritage when surviving meant catching our food. That's why hunting is the most noble sport -- it's what we're designed to do at the most basic level.
Why all the guns, then? If it all about experiencing a timy part of our heritage, why not attacking deer with a knife, or a home made bow and arrows?
And no, we are not designed at the most basic level to kill large mammals. For the most basic level, go and read a book about apes feeding habits.
Wonder why we don't see many hunters out in the woods, eating worms, ants or beetles and such? That is after all what they are designed to do at the most basic level.
They are working on a bugfix release?
If only we could make stupidity more painful...
Why would I listen to a masochist?
People pretending to be bad mofos online makes me sick.
If I only had a penny for each time anyone explained to an internet community how badass they are...
Yeah, because that always works.
There are few things in life that are always successful. Taking your stance that it is impossible isn't going to make much things much better, anyway.
Oh and as much as I love Sam Waterston and miss Jerry Orbach, getting your opinions about law enforcement from TV might not be the most insightful way to go.
As an European, my ways (and/or willingness) to recieve information about the USA:ian legal system are rather limited. But spoon fed as we are with USA:ian crap series, it is hard to avoid forming a rough opinion on how the legal system works in general. Internal affairs are usually portrayed as bad guys, but taking into account how the real cops are portrayed, they seem to have a vital role to play.
Actually, I wasn't talking of how internal affairs works atm. My idea was that something along that line is what is necessary in these cases. If the current solution is adequate, I can not say.
In every american cop series on TV they are afraid/annoyed with the "internal affairs" police unit. Looks like a job for them...
Isn't that the obvious solution? A state wide or nation wide unit that handles crimes among cops/DAs?
The main difference, as someone already pointed out, is that we (in scandinavian countries) don't see the government as a bully that must be kept on a leash. Maybe we should look at it that way more often, but that is a completely different discussion.
From our (my) point of view, the responsibility doesn't lie with government as a whole, but with the officer(s) conducting the investigation. If they choose to disobey proper procedures, for whatever reasons, they will also personally take the fall. IIRC, there was a case like this in Sweden recently, where a highly ranked police officer got busted for methods involving crime provocation, which seems to be illegal in that country. I am not sure if he got hold of any information that could be used against other criminals.
What I am trying to say is that maybe we look at evidence in a different way. Evidence is evidence, no matter how it is produced. If it is genuine and it proves that someone is guilty, they are going down. The evidence kind of stands on its own merits.
I realize there are grey areas where some kind of prevention might be needed, but it looks like our system works pretty well as a whole, if you disregard the slap-on-the-wrist kind of punishments they are given for very serious crimes.
Yeah, that thought struck me too.
But the question is not whether she is/was a bad person, the question is if (that made) Reiser killed her. (and of course the question of how this will affect the future of Reiser4)
Yes, from reading Hans' postings and some articles on the web it his "lovely" wife and her friends seem a lot more suspect all along.
Questions are, will the juridical system ever take these suspect indicies into account? Also, everything that makes them look suspect comes from Hans Reiser, which, unless it can be proven, might not make his position better in a court of law.
Thanks, you just saved me the time of writing a similar comment.
abc7:
... Sturgeon said he became romantically involved with Nina Reiser only when her husband made it clear that the couple were through.
Hans Reiser, in turn, denied that movies were to blame for their son's nightmares and accused his wife of having an extramarital affair with Sean Sturgeon, a former friend of his, and that Sturgeon was a danger to the children.
SFGate.com:
Nina Reiser's boyfriend, Anthony Zografos...
How many boyfriends did she have within two years of divorcing Reiser?