Some bits of fud just NEVER DIE -- NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY ARE REFUTED.
For the 10,000,000 time:
1. The US did indeed supply Iraq with Anthrax bacillum, among other things. At the time, the stuff was available to *any* government from the CDC. The intent was to help governments develop immunization programs, not infect their own people.
2. Iraq didn't need America's help to develop chemical weapons like nerve gas or mustard gas. That stuff is easily synthesized by any government with even a moderate level of resources.
3. Iraq did purchase U.S. helicopters that apparently were used to gas Kurds. However, now you're really getting into the minutiae of what can and can't be considered "military" assistance.
Thank you, I will, although I don't think pointing out the obvious really makes it "my way."
"Dubya isn't lying. In that case, he simply has no idea of what is going on and he's totally incompetent. Lots of evidence for that, too. "
You're perfectly welcome to believe this. I don't think the evidence supports it, but you can make a much better case for it than you can for the BUSH LIED!!! scenario.
"So which do you prefer? Dubya knows and lies, or he doesn't know and he's fucking up? Or would you prefer to mix and match depending on the issue and the particular counterfactual statements and results?"
Obviously I would prefer neither of these, so I assume the question is rhetorical. You also seem to be expecting me to mount some big defense of President Bush. I'm not inclined to do so. I simply pointed out that the BUSH IS A LYING! LIAR! WHO LIED!! meme doesn't make much sense to me. If you can accept that and still think he's a terrible president, well hey, knock yourself out.
First, please identify these "lies" to which you refer. This isn't a rhetorical question -- I really want to know. What do you consider a lie? Since you don't name a *single* example (surely easy to do, when confronted by a whole "parade" of them), one is left with the impression that you consider a "lie" something that just doesn't jibe with the way you want to see things.
Second, no, it wasn't on my desk. It was saved to directory on my computer. But I did keep it "ready to cut and paste into any discussion," particularly ones like this: That try to revise history by saying Bush is the only one that believed Iraq had WMDs, and all the democrats and foreign intelligence services believed otherwise. It just warn't so.
Third -- have I fact checked any of it? Well, if you mean have I tracked down Madeline Albright and asked if she indeed said such-and-such statement while hooked up to a lie detector, then no. On the other hand, her quote comes from a CNN article, (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/29/iraq.albright/), so what can I tell you? Here's another one (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/iraq.html) and another one (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.c gi?entry_id=3487) and... well, you get the idea. Why not just try googling specific phrases you're suspicious about?
OK, look, I don't know how much enthusiasm I have for re-hashing this whole deal. But I'll respond to your question asking "What was your point?" The point is that whether WMDs are found or not is only of marginal relevance. The UN resolutions required Saddam's regime to cooperate fully and totally with inspectors. No one argues that it ever came close to doing this. (You really ought to read that Ken Pollack book -- it is quite eye-opening.)
Saddam's many obstructions and obfuscations clearly gave the impression that he was hiding something. In this, the grandparent post is engaged in revisionist history. At the time, remember, the question wasn't whether or not Hussein had programs regarding the development of WMDs; it was what to *do* about it. The fact that the UN declined to enforce its own resolutions is tragic (for the UN, I mean, and the extent to which it can be taken seriously as an international institution), but it doesn't abrogate the US's responsibility to act (particularly post-9/11, when it became painfully obvious that the US [along with perhaps Israel] had the most to lose, should Saddam provide WMDs to terrorist organizations).
OK, I really need to get off this subject now. One can legitimately argue that we should have focused on Al Qaeda, or that the Iraqi operation has been bungled horribly, or any number of things. But the whole BUSH LIED!!! meme is stupid and doesn't pass the sniff test. In all the billions of rants I have heard about this, I just have heard no compelling evidence that Bush & Co. weren't quite sincere about what *they* believed. You don't have to *agree* with them to see that.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, incl
As you may already know, Radius used to make a line of monitors for the Mac that did this ("pivot", I think the line was called). The truth is, it's a great idea, and I'm surprised it's not more commonly done.
In fact, that was what I was betting on for the next iMac revision -- I thought Apple might add the ability to pivot to the swing-arm model.
Hmm. I understand your argument, but I'm not sure it's correct. I mean, I simply don't remember any outrage at all about this. The protagonist of Starship Troopers was Puerto Rican, but I don't remember anyone getting bent out of shape about that, either.
In any case, my feelings about LeGuin's Slate piece remain. One would have expected her to be outraged by the way they butchered the books' plot and meaning -- instead, she focuses on the races of the actors in a rant made baffling by the fact that the books have nothing to do with race, even as an allegory.
Also, she loses a lot of sympathy I would otherwise have, due to the fact that she sold the rights of her own free will, without insisting on some sort of creative control. It reminds of Krusty the Clown's anguished line: "What was I supposed to do? They rolled up a giant dump truck full of money! I'm not made of stone, you know!!"
1. Loved the books. In fact, I just went back and re-read them, and realized I had forgotten how good they are.
2. LeGuin's loony, left-wing rant on Slate surprised me. Someone who hadn't read the books, but read the essay, would come away thinking the Earthsea books are tedious, race-obsessed stories of white imperialist subjugation. This is emphatically not the case. As a few others here have noted, there is simply no scene in the books where race comes significantly into play. Sure, she mentions at some point that the protagonist has "red-brown" skin, and the barbarians, the Karg, are pointed out to have "fair" skin, but honestly, that's it.
"As an anthropologist's daughter," LeGuin writes, "I am intensely conscious of the risk of cultural or ethnic imperialism [you don't say! -ed.] --- a white writer speaking for nonwhite people, co-opting their voice, an act of extreme arrogance. In a totally invented fantasy world, or in a far-future science fiction setting, in the rainbow world we can imagine, this risk is mitigated. That's the beauty of science fiction and fantasy--freedom of invention."
So outside of the fantasy setting, a white writer cannot use characters (or at least main characters) who are not white? Writers who are not sci-fi or fantasy writers do not have this "freedom of invention"? That's too bad: Huckleberry Finn isn't going to make much sense if we have to go in and make Jim white.
Yes, I agree there would definately be a tradeoff. And I'm not critiquing Apple's choice in this -- obviously they have a huge winner on their hands. I'm simple noting that I personally would be fine with a slightly bigger iPod (within limits, of course) if it meant I could use standard and/or rechargeable AAs. Be better for long trips and things like that.
Are you taking any medication? If not, you might want to consider it; if yes, you might consider breaking the pills in half.
I simply
1. noted that the iPod would have more appeal to me *personally* if it used regular, replaceable batteries, and
2. out of curiousity, asked if there was any TECHNICAL reason it couldn't, or if it was just a design decision on Apple's part.
As far as the "wastes of money" thing, if I had such an iPod I'm sure I would generally use rechargeable AAs -- in other words, instead of having a single, smaller but proprietary, non-removable rechargeable battery, I would use larger but standard, removable rechargeable batteries.
I never said Apple had a problem, I neither said nor implied the iPod was a flop, etc. etc.
The funniest part of your post is where you say "I wish I had more time to ask rhetorical questions to nothingness." Funny because you obviously *DO* have the time, seeing as how your reply was just as longer or longer than my comment.
I'm replying to my own comment here -- is that bad form? -- but I want to clarify two things in response to some of the other replys.
1. If an iPod could just take AA batteries, that doesn't mean I couldn't use *rechargeable* AA batteries.
2. I actually know about the Belkin battery pack and all that. But I just want to know: would it technically be possible to make an iPod that ran on regular batteries, or is there some technical reason it can't be done?
I mean, is there a technical reason (beyond the space-saving shape) that an iPod needs the kind of battery it has? Would an iPod work with regular ol' AA batteries? Or do they not supply enough juice?
Being able to use just regular, store-bought batteries would really make an iPod a lot more appealing to me, even if they brought with them a small increase in size & weight.
If I understand correctly, Apple's iTunes' architecture (at least, on a Mac) allows MP3 player manufacturers to write "plug ins" for it, so it works with their players much the same as it works with the iPod. A list of iTunes compatible players can be found here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=935 48.
My question is - why is this list so short? Isn't writing a plug-in a fairly simple thing? Why have so few of the MP3 player manufacturers bothered to make their players compatible with this program?
iTunes for Windows won't work with any player but the iPod. If Apple makes that decision, to encourage people to buy iPods, that I at least understand. But as long as the architecture is there on the Mac, why don't more player manufacturers take advantage of it?
"There are several OTHER CONFIRMED [my emphasis] examples as well."
But the "example" you provided doesn't back up either of these points (that there were other examples, and they are confirmed). In the one single example Cecil Adams provides, he himself takes pains to point out that there is no proof Amherst actually DID it -- only that he CONSIDERED it.
Obligatory disclaimer: I have no idea whether it was actually done or not, and can easily believe there were plenty of whites who thought Indians should be exterminated. Like the guy who wrote Cecil, I'm just a natural skeptic. If you provide an actual "confirmed example," I'd be happy to revise my stance accordingly.
I respect your attempt to be calm and reasonable about this, but I'm afraid i can't buy it.
I guess the crux of the matter is that Taco didn't just note the anomaly, and ask "why?" Instead, he reflexively leaped to a conclusion that, as it turned out, had a lot more to do with his own preconceptions than it did with reality.
I mean, the instant I read his teaser, the very first thought that occured to me was "I bet he's wrong -- I bet it's just some technical reason." And that's exactly how it turned out -- that's ALWAYS how it turns out whenever some/. kiddie yells "vast right-wing conspiracy!"
"civil-unions with the same amount of rights as a marriage (just not using the M-word so religious people don't get pissed off)"
This is fascinating for a number of different reasons, mostly relating to the way you seem to believe "religious people" think. I'm curious - in your own opinion, what percentage of "religious people" would fall for this?
"To me there is no appreciable difference between that and saying that the uterus belongs to the state and that she must not carry the baby and give birth to it."
By that line of logic, because the state won't allow someone to kill you, YOU belong to the state.
There is actually a specific term for what you are talking about: "Rowback." And it's interesting that you picked the NYT for your example, because they are particularly known for doing it. In fact, the term Rowback was coined by their own ombudsman (Dan Okrent) specifically to describe the Times in particular.
Here's the problem with your comment: The Times is indeed notorious for pulling "Rowbacks," but in the journalism community they are also widely derided for it. In other words, you are correct that they do it, but incorrect in assuming that means it's acceptable.
And BTW, they do indeed often "print something on the first page, and [later] they print the opposite." However, the Rowback doesn't usually occur the next day, and it's not usually on their front page.
Try this Google search for more info: New York Times OR nyt rowback
This is pretty funny on several levels. First, thousands and thousands of books have been written about "power relations in societies." It is an enormously complex subject. And yet you claim to be able to tell that I "poorly understand" these relationships on the basis of a single Slashdot post? One in which I simply pointed out a practical and quite real difference in the respective authorities of the French and American goverments?
Second, lord knows I wouldn't want everyone to agree with my "poor understanding." I would much rather, of course, have them agree with a sophisticated and nuanced formulation like this:
US government DOES order yous americans what to do and not to do. By using proxy such as churches and media as mouthpieces for the directives
Now 'scuse me: The sun's comin' up here, meanin' it's time fer me ta go turn on FOX News an' git my marchin' orders.
Clearly, I was simply using the teaching of calculus to fourth graders as an imaginary example of a governmental directive.
Also, I never said *I* was protecting anyone from anything, much less from an imaginary governmental directive. Where did you get such an idea?
Finally, the obvious: your overheated hyperbole is absurd. As a libertarian I do indeed have some concerns, but the idea that the current government is "systematically removing social liberties" in the name of safety is preposterous.
The only "systematic" change that's taking place is one that has been in effect for the last 60 years: A gradual but inexorable expansion of the governmental sphere that has correspondingly shrunk the private sphere, in which we exercise our personal liberties. But very little of that has been in the name of "safety." To the contrary, nearly all of has been done in the name of what you call "social responsibility."
Want to choose what school your kids go to? Nope. Want to choose what politicians your union dues represent? Uh-uh. Want to choose how to invest the fruits of your own labor? Can't do that. Want to choose who you can and can't rent to? Ain't gonna happen.
Some of the above may indeed be "socially responsible," but there is no doubt that they all curtail your liberties in one way or another.
So buck up. In the long run, things are going your way.
Slashdot Mirror
As a "military action," are we including the slaughter of 65 million of your own citizens?
- Alaska Jack
GYAAAAAAA NOT THIS AGAIN!!!
Some bits of fud just NEVER DIE -- NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY ARE REFUTED.
For the 10,000,000 time:
1. The US did indeed supply Iraq with Anthrax bacillum, among other things. At the time, the stuff was available to *any* government from the CDC. The intent was to help governments develop immunization programs, not infect their own people.
2. Iraq didn't need America's help to develop chemical weapons like nerve gas or mustard gas. That stuff is easily synthesized by any government with even a moderate level of resources.
3. Iraq did purchase U.S. helicopters that apparently were used to gas Kurds. However, now you're really getting into the minutiae of what can and can't be considered "military" assistance.
Can't we please give this stuff a merciful death?
- Alaska Jack
"Okay, have it your way."
Thank you, I will, although I don't think pointing out the obvious really makes it "my way."
"Dubya isn't lying. In that case, he simply has no idea of what is going on and he's totally incompetent. Lots of evidence for that, too. "
You're perfectly welcome to believe this. I don't think the evidence supports it, but you can make a much better case for it than you can for the BUSH LIED!!! scenario.
"So which do you prefer? Dubya knows and lies, or he doesn't know and he's fucking up? Or would you prefer to mix and match depending on the issue and the particular counterfactual statements and results?"
Obviously I would prefer neither of these, so I assume the question is rhetorical. You also seem to be expecting me to mount some big defense of President Bush. I'm not inclined to do so. I simply pointed out that the BUSH IS A LYING! LIAR! WHO LIED!! meme doesn't make much sense to me. If you can accept that and still think he's a terrible president, well hey, knock yourself out.
- Alaska Jack
Well, that's an interesting reply.
, so what can I tell you? Here's another one (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/iraq .html) and another one (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.c gi?entry_id=3487) and ... well, you get the idea. Why not just try googling specific phrases you're suspicious about?
First, please identify these "lies" to which you refer. This isn't a rhetorical question -- I really want to know. What do you consider a lie? Since you don't name a *single* example (surely easy to do, when confronted by a whole "parade" of them), one is left with the impression that you consider a "lie" something that just doesn't jibe with the way you want to see things.
Second, no, it wasn't on my desk. It was saved to directory on my computer. But I did keep it "ready to cut and paste into any discussion," particularly ones like this: That try to revise history by saying Bush is the only one that believed Iraq had WMDs, and all the democrats and foreign intelligence services believed otherwise. It just warn't so.
Third -- have I fact checked any of it? Well, if you mean have I tracked down Madeline Albright and asked if she indeed said such-and-such statement while hooked up to a lie detector, then no. On the other hand, her quote comes from a CNN article, (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/29/iraq.albright/)
- Alaska Jack
OK, look, I don't know how much enthusiasm I have for re-hashing this whole deal. But I'll respond to your question asking "What was your point?" The point is that whether WMDs are found or not is only of marginal relevance. The UN resolutions required Saddam's regime to cooperate fully and totally with inspectors. No one argues that it ever came close to doing this. (You really ought to read that Ken Pollack book -- it is quite eye-opening.)
Saddam's many obstructions and obfuscations clearly gave the impression that he was hiding something. In this, the grandparent post is engaged in revisionist history. At the time, remember, the question wasn't whether or not Hussein had programs regarding the development of WMDs; it was what to *do* about it. The fact that the UN declined to enforce its own resolutions is tragic (for the UN, I mean, and the extent to which it can be taken seriously as an international institution), but it doesn't abrogate the US's responsibility to act (particularly post-9/11, when it became painfully obvious that the US [along with perhaps Israel] had the most to lose, should Saddam provide WMDs to terrorist organizations).
OK, I really need to get off this subject now. One can legitimately argue that we should have focused on Al Qaeda, or that the Iraqi operation has been bungled horribly, or any number of things. But the whole BUSH LIED!!! meme is stupid and doesn't pass the sniff test. In all the billions of rants I have heard about this, I just have heard no compelling evidence that Bush & Co. weren't quite sincere about what *they* believed. You don't have to *agree* with them to see that.
- Alaska Jack
Remember these?
... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, incl
As you may already know, Radius used to make a line of monitors for the Mac that did this ("pivot", I think the line was called). The truth is, it's a great idea, and I'm surprised it's not more commonly done.
In fact, that was what I was betting on for the next iMac revision -- I thought Apple might add the ability to pivot to the swing-arm model.
Alaska Jack
Hmm. I understand your argument, but I'm not sure it's correct. I mean, I simply don't remember any outrage at all about this. The protagonist of Starship Troopers was Puerto Rican, but I don't remember anyone getting bent out of shape about that, either.
In any case, my feelings about LeGuin's Slate piece remain. One would have expected her to be outraged by the way they butchered the books' plot and meaning -- instead, she focuses on the races of the actors in a rant made baffling by the fact that the books have nothing to do with race, even as an allegory.
Also, she loses a lot of sympathy I would otherwise have, due to the fact that she sold the rights of her own free will, without insisting on some sort of creative control. It reminds of Krusty the Clown's anguished line: "What was I supposed to do? They rolled up a giant dump truck full of money! I'm not made of stone, you know!!"
- AJ
1. Loved the books. In fact, I just went back and re-read them, and realized I had forgotten how good they are.
2. LeGuin's loony, left-wing rant on Slate surprised me. Someone who hadn't read the books, but read the essay, would come away thinking the Earthsea books are tedious, race-obsessed stories of white imperialist subjugation. This is emphatically not the case. As a few others here have noted, there is simply no scene in the books where race comes significantly into play. Sure, she mentions at some point that the protagonist has "red-brown" skin, and the barbarians, the Karg, are pointed out to have "fair" skin, but honestly, that's it.
"As an anthropologist's daughter," LeGuin writes, "I am intensely conscious of the risk of cultural or ethnic imperialism [you don't say! -ed.] --- a white writer speaking for nonwhite people, co-opting their voice, an act of extreme arrogance. In a totally invented fantasy world, or in a far-future science fiction setting, in the rainbow world we can imagine, this risk is mitigated. That's the beauty of science fiction and fantasy--freedom of invention."
So outside of the fantasy setting, a white writer cannot use characters (or at least main characters) who are not white? Writers who are not sci-fi or fantasy writers do not have this "freedom of invention"? That's too bad: Huckleberry Finn isn't going to make much sense if we have to go in and make Jim white.
Great books from a pretty screwy author.
- Alaska Jack
Yes, I agree there would definately be a tradeoff. And I'm not critiquing Apple's choice in this -- obviously they have a huge winner on their hands. I'm simple noting that I personally would be fine with a slightly bigger iPod (within limits, of course) if it meant I could use standard and/or rechargeable AAs. Be better for long trips and things like that.
Cheers
- Alaska Jack
Are you taking any medication? If not, you might want to consider it; if yes, you might consider breaking the pills in half.
I simply
1. noted that the iPod would have more appeal to me *personally* if it used regular, replaceable batteries, and
2. out of curiousity, asked if there was any TECHNICAL reason it couldn't, or if it was just a design decision on Apple's part.
As far as the "wastes of money" thing, if I had such an iPod I'm sure I would generally use rechargeable AAs -- in other words, instead of having a single, smaller but proprietary, non-removable rechargeable battery, I would use larger but standard, removable rechargeable batteries.
I never said Apple had a problem, I neither said nor implied the iPod was a flop, etc. etc.
The funniest part of your post is where you say "I wish I had more time to ask rhetorical questions to nothingness." Funny because you obviously *DO* have the time, seeing as how your reply was just as longer or longer than my comment.
- Alaska Jack
Been there (Kodiak) many times. In fact I used to fish out of Larsen Bay.
- jc
I'm replying to my own comment here -- is that bad form? -- but I want to clarify two things in response to some of the other replys.
1. If an iPod could just take AA batteries, that doesn't mean I couldn't use *rechargeable* AA batteries.
2. I actually know about the Belkin battery pack and all that. But I just want to know: would it technically be possible to make an iPod that ran on regular batteries, or is there some technical reason it can't be done?
- Alaska Jack
I mean, is there a technical reason (beyond the space-saving shape) that an iPod needs the kind of battery it has? Would an iPod work with regular ol' AA batteries? Or do they not supply enough juice?
Being able to use just regular, store-bought batteries would really make an iPod a lot more appealing to me, even if they brought with them a small increase in size & weight.
- Alaska Jack
If I understand correctly, Apple's iTunes' architecture (at least, on a Mac) allows MP3 player manufacturers to write "plug ins" for it, so it works with their players much the same as it works with the iPod. A list of iTunes compatible players can be found here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=935 48.
My question is - why is this list so short? Isn't writing a plug-in a fairly simple thing? Why have so few of the MP3 player manufacturers bothered to make their players compatible with this program?
iTunes for Windows won't work with any player but the iPod. If Apple makes that decision, to encourage people to buy iPods, that I at least understand. But as long as the architecture is there on the Mac, why don't more player manufacturers take advantage of it?
- Alaska Jack
Only in the sense that we reap all the benefits of everything that has happened in human history, ever. Not really very profound.
- Alaska Jack
I'm a little confused about this. You say
"There are several OTHER CONFIRMED [my emphasis] examples as well."
But the "example" you provided doesn't back up either of these points (that there were other examples, and they are confirmed). In the one single example Cecil Adams provides, he himself takes pains to point out that there is no proof Amherst actually DID it -- only that he CONSIDERED it.
Obligatory disclaimer: I have no idea whether it was actually done or not, and can easily believe there were plenty of whites who thought Indians should be exterminated. Like the guy who wrote Cecil, I'm just a natural skeptic. If you provide an actual "confirmed example," I'd be happy to revise my stance accordingly.
- Alaska Jack
"So other journalists think it's more acceptable to stick by you story even when it's wrong?"
Of course not.
"It's seems rowbacks are far more aceptable than the alternative"
Not if there is another alternative: actually admitting you were wrong.
- Alaska Jack
I respect your attempt to be calm and reasonable about this, but I'm afraid i can't buy it.
/. kiddie yells "vast right-wing conspiracy!"
I guess the crux of the matter is that Taco didn't just note the anomaly, and ask "why?" Instead, he reflexively leaped to a conclusion that, as it turned out, had a lot more to do with his own preconceptions than it did with reality.
I mean, the instant I read his teaser, the very first thought that occured to me was "I bet he's wrong -- I bet it's just some technical reason." And that's exactly how it turned out -- that's ALWAYS how it turns out whenever some
- Alaska Jack
"civil-unions with the same amount of rights as a marriage (just not using the M-word so religious people don't get pissed off)"
This is fascinating for a number of different reasons, mostly relating to the way you seem to believe "religious people" think. I'm curious - in your own opinion, what percentage of "religious people" would fall for this?
- Alaska Jack
"To me there is no appreciable difference between that and saying that the uterus belongs to the state and that she must not carry the baby and give birth to it."
By that line of logic, because the state won't allow someone to kill you, YOU belong to the state.
- Alaska Jack
There is actually a specific term for what you are talking about: "Rowback." And it's interesting that you picked the NYT for your example, because they are particularly known for doing it. In fact, the term Rowback was coined by their own ombudsman (Dan Okrent) specifically to describe the Times in particular.
Here's the problem with your comment: The Times is indeed notorious for pulling "Rowbacks," but in the journalism community they are also widely derided for it. In other words, you are correct that they do it, but incorrect in assuming that means it's acceptable.
And BTW, they do indeed often "print something on the first page, and [later] they print the opposite." However, the Rowback doesn't usually occur the next day, and it's not usually on their front page.
Try this Google search for more info: New York Times OR nyt rowback
- Alaska Jack
This is pretty funny on several levels. First, thousands and thousands of books have been written about "power relations in societies." It is an enormously complex subject. And yet you claim to be able to tell that I "poorly understand" these relationships on the basis of a single Slashdot post? One in which I simply pointed out a practical and quite real difference in the respective authorities of the French and American goverments?
Second, lord knows I wouldn't want everyone to agree with my "poor understanding." I would much rather, of course, have them agree with a sophisticated and nuanced formulation like this:
US government DOES order yous americans what to do and not to do. By using proxy such as churches and media as mouthpieces for the directives
Now 'scuse me: The sun's comin' up here, meanin' it's time fer me ta go turn on FOX News an' git my marchin' orders.
- Alaska JackClearly, I was simply using the teaching of calculus to fourth graders as an imaginary example of a governmental directive.
Also, I never said *I* was protecting anyone from anything, much less from an imaginary governmental directive. Where did you get such an idea?
Finally, the obvious: your overheated hyperbole is absurd. As a libertarian I do indeed have some concerns, but the idea that the current government is "systematically removing social liberties" in the name of safety is preposterous.
The only "systematic" change that's taking place is one that has been in effect for the last 60 years: A gradual but inexorable expansion of the governmental sphere that has correspondingly shrunk the private sphere, in which we exercise our personal liberties. But very little of that has been in the name of "safety." To the contrary, nearly all of has been done in the name of what you call "social responsibility."
Want to choose what school your kids go to? Nope. Want to choose what politicians your union dues represent? Uh-uh. Want to choose how to invest the fruits of your own labor? Can't do that. Want to choose who you can and can't rent to? Ain't gonna happen.
Some of the above may indeed be "socially responsible," but there is no doubt that they all curtail your liberties in one way or another.
So buck up. In the long run, things are going your way.
- Alaska Jack.
Friendly suggestion: grow up.
- Alaska Jack