Too afraid to see who they are
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I second that. They are cowards - afraid to look in the mirror. Now some chinese person's going to reply to this and tell me about all the western hypocrisy, but unlike most westerners, they'll never turn their gaze upon themselves.
This behaviour reminds me of the type of person who is so self-absorbed that they don't know what a complete joke people think they are. All the while, they try to sell you on their big opinion of themselves.
The chinese actions would be hilarious, except that so much human suffering is involved. China is completely out of touch with itself.
Tibet has been part of China since 1792. Yes, for over two freaking centuries! You might not like it, but tough shit
Tibetans don't think they've been part of China since 1792. They thought they were running Tibet. And they did, until they were invaded in 1959. You might not like it, but tough shit
And guess what, if a bunch of Chinese students came to the US and flung banners around Stanford demanding we give California back to Mexico, we'd probably tell them to get their butts back to China and mind their own business.
NONSENSE! We'd laugh. That's it. We'd laugh and laugh and laugh.
Olympic rules have been bent many times, and a culture of cheating (drugs) has developed. When it's so wide-spread, it's no longer really cheating, and contempt for the rules is being exercised. So if people are going to take drugs we should legalize it. Otherwise we should ban it and crack down.
Same goes for cheating by age. China is just trying to stretch the rules just a little bit more. They'd prefer to win than be genuine.
People find it scandalous because they are appalled when someone stoops to a new low. It ruins everything, because if it's allowed to continue, then one of a two things will happen:
The culture of "cheating" is extended to include lying about age, and further contempt for the rules is generated
The rules are changed so that younger athletes can perform, however, the rules were put in place for a reason: to protect the athletes. Too-young/doping, it's the same.
The cheating child doesn't realize that everyone can see it, and they just smile politely at the ignorance. Such a child has no courage to just be themselves.
The scandal isn't wicked because it's by the Chinese governmemt and IOC. The scandal is wicked because the behaviour is degraded and childish.
Sorry dude but I stopped taking you seriously after that first sentence
Sorry dude, but as imperfect as society is, it works pretty damn well with all the checks and balances compared to anything else out there. It's less wretched, to think about how society can learn about itself and improve - and has done, particularly since the invention of writing.
There's a deeper issue on whether simulated child pornography is indirectly dangerous to children. I believe this is where science should step in and accrue some evidence one way or another.
A big problem with democracy is that the system polarises debate, and then rational discussion becomes impossible. We don't see leaders come together in public to genuinely discuss and resolve issues.
Consensus is an interesting idea, because everybody has to listen, and take each other seriously. Consensus has it's own problems of course. Just food for thought.
You are free to choose which part of the mind you wish to cultivate. So when walking past Burger King when you're hungry, you're free to cultivate the compulsive part, or the intelligent part - that type of thing.
it's a business transaction in which either party is free to go and find a better deal if they can.
Such a utilitarian view of human interaction invites the type of callous lawyering that everyone loves to bitch about. If life is really a game, then without a good heart all you got to show for it is nicely dressed up misery at best.
The only way law enforcement can truly hold any power over mind is if the command equal parts fear and admiration.
That seems a little base. What about ethical considerations... I'm talking about whether you think society is better without them. If you believe that society does benefit from having a police force, then appreciate that somebody has to do the job, and we're all human.
The police have power out of our respect for traditions that hold society together.
The idea that all cattle farming is necessarily destructive to the environment is ignorant nonsense
Whatever makes you feel better. The cold hard reality is that *modern* cattle farming is hideously inhumane, unhygienic, and big business couldn't give a fsck about the environmental impact - which includes: residues of drugs, antibiotics, zinc and copper (used as growth promoters), concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and manure which sometimes just gets dumped in the local river, and ariel pollutants - including 20% of global methane production.
None of this would be a problem particularly, except for the corporate drive to get 7% year-on-year growth out of their "units" (the industry can't even refer to them as animals).
You can argue that people should be less trusting -- and I'd have to agree -- but for the hard-core troll, all trust is viewed as weakness, and the position they are taking is essentially that no one should trust anyone, ever. Obviously, society couldn't function in such a scenario.
So the more trust the better. I think that it's fair to punish untrustworthy people - until they work out that being a jerk isn't getting them anywhere. Sadly, some people never get it, or when they do, they've got to change personally.
The kind of technically skilled people who used to run Enlightenment probably enjoy having semitransparent widgets flip into shape in 3d on the background, but I don't see what usability advantages that brings. Would it not be simpler to make the background be a background - just blank? There is no difficulty in putting one application window _underneath_ another, so you will see it when the top window is moved or minimized out of the way.
Aesthetics has an important place in design.
The aesthetic quality of an environment affects the mind, which affects everything you do - effectively colouring your presence. Here's a crude example: you might be more prone to a negative state of mind standing in a dump, then around some beautiful statue in a park.
Good aesthetics is conducive to a healthy state of mind, and thus a more creative and precise reaction to the world.
Statistics is maths also - yet conventionally deals with different topics. So you could in theory attempt to patent statistics, which would be those relevant sub-topics. This would not literally patent maths itself - and I'm not using literal in the figurative sense =)
Same applies to computer software. All you're saying is that if you patented maths then software would fall somewhere under that. Even if it was possible to patent maths equations - exceptions could be made for maths equations which have the properties of software.
So it seems that, while software might be maths, since their meaning is different it is possible to patent one and not the other, by identifying common and distinctive characteristics of the two ideas.
Without stored procedures, to allow a program (or the programmer who wrote it) access to a given data set, you'd have to grant it SELECT privileges on the table(s) containing that data. With a stored procedure, you just grant it permission to run that procedure, which might only return a subset of the data in the table(s).
Views solve that problem, and are easier to work with as things change over time.
Look deeply into the arguments for and against anthropogenic warming. The most interesting thing isn't global warming, but the sociological issues surrounding the head-in-sand propaganda campaign. Truly an eye-opener into how far we can trust corporate america, and mainstream media - which is to say not at all.
Take everything you read with a grain of salt. When you read a website - look at the references. Read the references. Examine the arguments for yourself, instead of trusting someone else's analysis.
Freedom yes - but selling ID ideas as if they are science - no. Call it whatever you want, teach it to whoever listens, but if you insist on calling is science, and that catches on, then scientists will simply need a new word for what they currently call science. That's because ID is *not* science, no matter how you dress it up.
How about certainty in science? IMHO, it's not hypocritical. It is our nature to be belied by magical thinking - perhaps that has something to do with the evolution of intelligence. So science gives a method of accruing knowledge, that does a good job at cutting through cognitive bias.
Instant runoff voting. Then you can buy your ice-cream from your favourite stand - and if that one fails, you get to buy again from one of the remainders and so-on.
Sure there are a minor problems with it, and perhaps there are better voting methods, however IRV is really simple and works for the most part.
It's impossible to solve all the engineering challenges of tomorrow all at once. I think VW wants to learn the engineering lessons from creating the car as much as introduce consumers to something that at least some will think is really cool.
I doubt anybody at VW thinks that they are saving the world with this new model.
Slashdot Mirror
I second that. They are cowards - afraid to look in the mirror. Now some chinese person's going to reply to this and tell me about all the western hypocrisy, but unlike most westerners, they'll never turn their gaze upon themselves.
This behaviour reminds me of the type of person who is so self-absorbed that they don't know what a complete joke people think they are. All the while, they try to sell you on their big opinion of themselves.
The chinese actions would be hilarious, except that so much human suffering is involved. China is completely out of touch with itself.
lol! You think I don't know what a theocracy is! At least the tibetans used to trust the people in charge. These days they are just bitter and afraid.
Tibet has been part of China since 1792. Yes, for over two freaking centuries! You might not like it, but tough shit
Tibetans don't think they've been part of China since 1792. They thought they were running Tibet. And they did, until they were invaded in 1959. You might not like it, but tough shit
And guess what, if a bunch of Chinese students came to the US and flung banners around Stanford demanding we give California back to Mexico, we'd probably tell them to get their butts back to China and mind their own business.
NONSENSE! We'd laugh. That's it. We'd laugh and laugh and laugh.
Same goes for cheating by age. China is just trying to stretch the rules just a little bit more. They'd prefer to win than be genuine.
People find it scandalous because they are appalled when someone stoops to a new low. It ruins everything, because if it's allowed to continue, then one of a two things will happen:
The cheating child doesn't realize that everyone can see it, and they just smile politely at the ignorance. Such a child has no courage to just be themselves.
The scandal isn't wicked because it's by the Chinese governmemt and IOC. The scandal is wicked because the behaviour is degraded and childish.
I'm sure there's more ways to test someone's age then from reading a document.
Sorry dude but I stopped taking you seriously after that first sentence
Sorry dude, but as imperfect as society is, it works pretty damn well with all the checks and balances compared to anything else out there. It's less wretched, to think about how society can learn about itself and improve - and has done, particularly since the invention of writing.
There's a deeper issue on whether simulated child pornography is indirectly dangerous to children. I believe this is where science should step in and accrue some evidence one way or another.
Coal.
If we burn the coal, we are fscked.
A big problem with democracy is that the system polarises debate, and then rational discussion becomes impossible. We don't see leaders come together in public to genuinely discuss and resolve issues.
Consensus is an interesting idea, because everybody has to listen, and take each other seriously. Consensus has it's own problems of course. Just food for thought.
I doubt that private industry would that much better.
You are free to choose which part of the mind you wish to cultivate. So when walking past Burger King when you're hungry, you're free to cultivate the compulsive part, or the intelligent part - that type of thing.
it's a business transaction in which either party is free to go and find a better deal if they can.
Such a utilitarian view of human interaction invites the type of callous lawyering that everyone loves to bitch about. If life is really a game, then without a good heart all you got to show for it is nicely dressed up misery at best.
The only way law enforcement can truly hold any power over mind is if the command equal parts fear and admiration.
That seems a little base. What about ethical considerations... I'm talking about whether you think society is better without them. If you believe that society does benefit from having a police force, then appreciate that somebody has to do the job, and we're all human.
The police have power out of our respect for traditions that hold society together.
Individual choice is part of the equation, but sane urban planning is also a big part of it.
And I bet my bottom dollar that town planners *today* aren't concerned in the least by suburban sprawl.
The idea that all cattle farming is necessarily destructive to the environment is ignorant nonsense
Whatever makes you feel better. The cold hard reality is that *modern* cattle farming is hideously inhumane, unhygienic, and big business couldn't give a fsck about the environmental impact - which includes: residues of drugs, antibiotics, zinc and copper (used as growth promoters), concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and manure which sometimes just gets dumped in the local river, and ariel pollutants - including 20% of global methane production.
None of this would be a problem particularly, except for the corporate drive to get 7% year-on-year growth out of their "units" (the industry can't even refer to them as animals).
You can argue that people should be less trusting -- and I'd have to agree -- but for the hard-core troll, all trust is viewed as weakness, and the position they are taking is essentially that no one should trust anyone, ever. Obviously, society couldn't function in such a scenario.
So the more trust the better. I think that it's fair to punish untrustworthy people - until they work out that being a jerk isn't getting them anywhere. Sadly, some people never get it, or when they do, they've got to change personally.
The kind of technically skilled people who used to run Enlightenment probably enjoy having semitransparent widgets flip into shape in 3d on the background, but I don't see what usability advantages that brings. Would it not be simpler to make the background be a background - just blank? There is no difficulty in putting one application window _underneath_ another, so you will see it when the top window is moved or minimized out of the way.
Aesthetics has an important place in design.
The aesthetic quality of an environment affects the mind, which affects everything you do - effectively colouring your presence. Here's a crude example: you might be more prone to a negative state of mind standing in a dump, then around some beautiful statue in a park.
Good aesthetics is conducive to a healthy state of mind, and thus a more creative and precise reaction to the world.
Someone might say that everything can be reduced to math,
How Pythagorean.
It's a beautiful idea of an ancient cult.
Statistics is maths also - yet conventionally deals with different topics. So you could in theory attempt to patent statistics, which would be those relevant sub-topics. This would not literally patent maths itself - and I'm not using literal in the figurative sense =)
Same applies to computer software. All you're saying is that if you patented maths then software would fall somewhere under that. Even if it was possible to patent maths equations - exceptions could be made for maths equations which have the properties of software.
So it seems that, while software might be maths, since their meaning is different it is possible to patent one and not the other, by identifying common and distinctive characteristics of the two ideas.
Without stored procedures, to allow a program (or the programmer who wrote it) access to a given data set, you'd have to grant it SELECT privileges on the table(s) containing that data. With a stored procedure, you just grant it permission to run that procedure, which might only return a subset of the data in the table(s).
Views solve that problem, and are easier to work with as things change over time.
Sanitation is ridiculously easy. You just gotta - like - read your code. Or better yet, let your database driver do the sanitation for you.
INSERT INTO foo (stuff, morestuff) VALUES ($1, $2)
Piece of cake.
Look deeply into the arguments for and against anthropogenic warming. The most interesting thing isn't global warming, but the sociological issues surrounding the head-in-sand propaganda campaign. Truly an eye-opener into how far we can trust corporate america, and mainstream media - which is to say not at all.
Take everything you read with a grain of salt. When you read a website - look at the references. Read the references. Examine the arguments for yourself, instead of trusting someone else's analysis.
Freedom yes - but selling ID ideas as if they are science - no. Call it whatever you want, teach it to whoever listens, but if you insist on calling is science, and that catches on, then scientists will simply need a new word for what they currently call science. That's because ID is *not* science, no matter how you dress it up.
How about certainty in science? IMHO, it's not hypocritical. It is our nature to be belied by magical thinking - perhaps that has something to do with the evolution of intelligence. So science gives a method of accruing knowledge, that does a good job at cutting through cognitive bias.
Instant runoff voting. Then you can buy your ice-cream from your favourite stand - and if that one fails, you get to buy again from one of the remainders and so-on.
Sure there are a minor problems with it, and perhaps there are better voting methods, however IRV is really simple and works for the most part.
It's impossible to solve all the engineering challenges of tomorrow all at once. I think VW wants to learn the engineering lessons from creating the car as much as introduce consumers to something that at least some will think is really cool.
I doubt anybody at VW thinks that they are saving the world with this new model.