My favorite current theory is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please note how it also explains global warming with the decline of the world's pirate population.
Finally! A theory that explains both the origins of mankind AND global warming. This can obviously mean only one thing: it's TWICE as good as the so-called "theory" of evolution.
I, for one, suggest we begin reprinting the textbooks immediately.
Given that we haven't seen any evidence, how do you know he is. Oh, right, you blindly believe any lie the government tells you... or maybe just the lies Republican governments tell you, regardless.
Given the fact that we haven't seen any evidence, what makes you think he isn't? Why is it that you criticize him for blindly believing in Padilla's guilt while you blindly proclaim the government to be lying?
Ah, so you are a coward.
Potential devastation of a major American city and the resulting economic and political results is something to legitimately fear. We might differ on how to prevent such an event from occurring and could discuss concerns about how the media and our politicians respond to the threat. Nevertheless, to not fear at all it wouldn't be courageous but rather foolhardy.
Moreover, I assume you oppose the war in Iraq. This doesn't make you a coward. You might oppose the war because of innocent people in the Middle East or the long-term future of the United States. This is entirely reasonable. Now if a nuclear attack were to take place on American soil, what do you think would happen? All subsequent events that I can imagine are terrible from both the perspective of the United States and innocent people in the Middle East. Seeing as how this is the case, why do you so quickly resort to name-calling? Surely you would object to being called a coward for opposing the war in Iraq. Why then are his positions "cowardly" when they can be rationalized using the same basis you might use to oppose the war in Iraq?
We have. It involved them giving up everything they have to foreign investors, having their leaders chosen by foreign powers, and having their efforts for self- determination undermined whenever it would have a negative effect on certain Western Powers' bottom lines.
The response to this line in the sand is the terrorism you see.
So it's all the West's (and, more specifically, the US's) fault then? At what point are middle easterners responsible for their own actions and destiny? How can a society ever achieve self-determination when it wallows in self-depreciation?
I'm not going to sit here and try and say that the United States is blameless. Obviously over the years, we have been quite ambivalent (and occasionally hostile) with regard to the people of the Middle East. This is a bad thing.
But to sit here and place blame solely on the United States is ridiculous. Why don't you expect even a fraction of the kind of altruism you request of the US from any Muslim nation? Why is it that the United States--of all nations--is the largest financial supporter of Palestine? For that matter, instead of supplying weapons and fighters to Palestinians, why is it that their muslim neighbors do not provide them amnesty? Why doesn't anyone question the financial donations (or lack thereof) during humanitarian crises from wealthy Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia?
Your complete inability to see anything outside of your tiny ignorant little world view where we are the good guys regardless of our actions is part of the problem.
The reason is because political issues are becoming more important every day, and payola sites like Slashdot are trying to stay on the fence and keep everyone happy for as long as possible... So hot-button issues like Iraq, Terrorism, and Civil Rights are marginalized from discussion because it's not good business to 'get involved'.
Slashdot--fence sitting? Are you kidding? I hope you don't honestly think Slashdot has a politically balanced readership (which, via moderation, ultimately translates to material).
Slashdot is, in general, quite liberal (in the U.S. sense of the word). When George W. Bush won in November, I think I saw CmdrTaco shed a tear. Seriously, leading up to the election when I (or any other moderate) would even say things like, "I don't like Bush but he might be right on on X...", it would get modded down to oblivion--nobody wanted to hear that kind of talk.
I think in general the reason why/. as of late has avoided such topics is to prevent itself from becoming just another political debate (rant?) forum. Instead, it focuses on technology, open source software developments, gaming, and so on--you know... News for nerds...
yup, using cryptic model names is bad for business as far as I'm concerned. Do people go into a store and ask for an iPod or a Sony NW-HD5? An iMac or a Sony VGC-RB42G? Keep it simple, folks.
One might think that, but it's not necessarily the case. I recently had the joy of upgrading my videocard after two years of not keeping up with the trends. For anyone who doesn't know, the videocard market is the most convoluted, overlapping, granulated market known to man.
First there two separate branches of architecture (ATi and Nvidia). Then each branch has its own miriad of model numbers that offer no real bearing on the performance or value. Then each model number has an assortment of different flavors ("ultra", "OC", "FX", etc.) of cards, which--again are often misleading. To finally complicate matters, each of the various flavors of models of branches of videocards are then manufactured by countless different companies which often deviate from the specifications or use better or worse parts.
The net result is that it's nearly impossible to intelligently analyze the market. Even enthusiest sites such as Tom's hardware have trouble keeping up with it. The best they can do is ignore the variations between the different manufacturers and only compare different models and flavors. Even when they are able to come up with an accurate comparison, it only is valid for a few months before the companies begin releasing new models--forcing down the prices of all the other models, which changes everything from a consumer's standpoint.
So what ends up happening? The average consumer either ends up trusting the generic and/or misleading descriptions of many of the video cards or simply cutting though all the riff-raff and buying the most expensive models.
In the vast majority of cases, I believe that the companies stand to profit from this strategy (if you can call it that)--at least for now. (One could argue that such confusion will lead to more console sales in the long-term)
Cisco does not engage in censorship. They simply make equipment which can be used to engage in censorship. Similarly to a company that makes matches that can be used for arson, or Proctor and Gamble whose Clorox bleach can be used as poison.
But Cisco is knowingly and unapologetically aiding in in censorship. It's no mystery how China is using Cisco's products. Were this not the case, you might have a point.
In light of this, your analogy becomes akin to a storeowner knowingly selling matches to an arsonist who is openly saying that he will use the matches he buys to commit arson. Sure, the owner can turn a blind eye to the consequences of his actions, but is that ethical? To take your other example, would it be ethical to sell chlorox to a customer in all seriousness telling you he's going to use it to poison another person?
If your answer to either of the above questions is yes, you really need to re-evaluate your moral standards.
Ultimately, Cisco is a collection of individuals who, like the rest of us, have obligations to to behave in a moral fashion. Even if a powerful entity such as China acting unjustly and cannot be deterred, how would that justify helping them?
In all honesty, this is how the system is supposed to work. In public corporations, stockholders, as a collective, are intended to direct the actions of the company as they see fit. To ignore the stockholders opinions because of possibly reduced profits is a backwards (and dangerous) mindset.
Can't this be rewritten as 'Scientists finally witnessed (micro)evolution at work'? And doesn't it imply that all those scientists who zealously treat evolution as a 'fact' or 'law' - before the observations described in this article were even observed - are actually being unscientific?
No, because saying so fails to account for all the other kinds evidence which indicates that speciation is a common event. All the study in the article does is add another type of evidence (direct observation) to the theory. While this is exciting from a scientific perspective (this rarely--relative to a human lifespan--happens macroscopically), the theory of evolution does not require it to remain scientifically sound.
...but even today and after thousands of years of [geographic isolation] (maybe more), someone from any continent can produce children from anyone of the opposite sex from another continent. Okay, so maybe we reproduce too slow...
Humans do reproduce slowly, which does affect the amount of genetic drift. But more than that, you're failing to account for something: we're the most prolific mammal on the planet; there isn't a type of geography that man hasn't overcome. For humans, no group is completely geographically isolated--especially on the timescales we're dicussing. It's reasonable to believe that explorers/wanderers from any particular region would homogenize the genepools of the various groups. Furthermore, genetic drift is random. There's nothing that gaurentees speciation. It could just perhaps be due to chance that none of the racial differences involves sexual function. I'm not seeing how the theory of evolution doesn't account for this supposed discrepancy.
[Microorganisms] reproduce extremely fast... have we observed a single cell become a multi-cell organism? Nope.
Again, there's more to science than simple direct observation. Given the plethora of other evidence which infers that this type of event took place, why should the lack of a single direct observation invalidate the entire theory? Besides, even if we haven't observed that, we have observed some of the necessary precursors such as: bacterial communication, cooperation (via biofilms), and organisms which exhibit single and multi-celled qualities (eg. slimemolds). Again, where is the problem here?
Anyway, the theory of evolution is inconclusive
No scientific theory is completely conclusive. I think evolution stands up quite well given the epic level of criticism placed upon it. I'd like to see another theory regarding the origins of life that could do so. Only then should it be put in textbooks.
I say DS is simply one of many prototypes on the table, and not some code gone awry.
You can say that, but at the end of the day you have to wrestle with the fact that the chromosomal mutation, which results in DS, makes the affected individual genetically less fit and subject to a range of health problems. This is why it is (correctly) classified as a defect, or genetic disorder.
Current thinking lacks not only proper bias in observation, but the inherent ability to free itself from a stilted POV. As a species, we demonstrate well-honed hindsight...we can't see the next leap because we don't have the inherent capabilities, not because we simply haven't asked the right questions just yet... butterfiles exist as a side project to alert m'duh nature when the proposed vehicle (cocoon) works out. Only after such information is gathered will she decide where and how to apply it next
I realize you're trying to make an insight as to the nature of mankind (or at least the scientific community) but it's just not working in this instance. The fact that you criticize the scientific community for lacking perspective while at the same time citing "mother nature" doesn't help either.
The real question is, can we trust the weapon operators to use this responsibly?
Probably not. Last year the police in the US managed to shoot one of their pepper-spray paintballs through an bystanding girl's eye, killing her. And that's a "non-lethal" weapon you can aim!
The thing in the article covers an entire area. Do you think the operator is going to check and make sure that nobody in the crowd is wearing glasses, jewelry, or contacts? That's impossible!
Even in theory, this isn't a non-lethal weapon at all... It's quite obvious that this is intended as a means of disarming (have we forgotten that guns/knives are metal?) and/or killing large groups of people immediately without collateral damage; just like a neutron bomb, only more controllable and cheaper.
One of my idiot friends did that before a game, and when he tried to fire the frozen and now expanded (WATER based, remember?) paintball jammed his gun. At which point, we gladly lit his ass up. =)
Get protector glasses, the kind chemists use. They're meant to deflect acids and shrapnell from exploding test tubes. Should be enough to stop BB gun projectiles.
So that will protect your eyes (and maybe your nose, depending upon the brand)... But what about your mouth, ears, neck, and genitals? BB guns are dangerous and can be fatal.
There's nothing tough about shooting people or getting shot by BB/pellet guns; it's stupid. If you're that hard-off for a good gunfighting experience, just get a paintball gun. You can get cheap Stingray (or whatever they're called now) ones at Wal-mart for like fifty bucks. If those aren't your thing, then look into Airsoft guns.
Your concern was that "bombers" implied "legitimacy". If you didn't mean legitimacy to imply a position on right vs. wrong then I've misunderstood you.
No, you're not misunderstanding me. I was thinking about this after I submitted, and I didn't quite express my point fully.
My issue with "bombers" is that it fails to describe some pretty important and obvious dimensions of the act. It says nothing of their motives, their tactics, and the fact that at least some people were wronged by the act. It's like me calling the Mona Lisa "oil" or an ornate sword simply "metal."
Terrorism is obviously the most appropriate word. Does terrorism, in and of itself, carry a negative connotation? Of course. But does that mean that every act of terrorism is wrong? No. Example: stealing similarly carries a negative connotation. But, for example, the story of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is generally considered a positive thing. Simply using the appropriate word ("terrorism") in no way makes an absolute value judgment than appropriately using the term stealing does.
The English are known for understatement, and in other contexts, this might be forgivable. However, the intention of this word usage is clearly being done for political reasons--and it has nothing to do with neutrality.
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
What kind of value judgment is being made here? The acts were unquestionably terrorism at its very definition. All I'm saying is that we call it that rather than use some politically-correct (oh, sorry, "neutral") placeholder. That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
If this extreme interpretation of journalistic integrity were such a concern to the BBC, then they should similarly replace other emotionally-charged words such as "murder" or "rape". But they don't do this. Why do you think that is?
Look, I like the BBC. I think they're one of the best (if not the best) major news outlets in the world. But on this issue they're both incorrect and inconsistent.
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
Sure I would. I may not like it, but, in this instance, my country would have declared war on them. Moreover, they would be flying according to the generally accepted rules of war--in uniform (marked aircraft), targeting militarily-valuable targets* and under a command structure which is accountable to another society. How isn't that legitimate?
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
As nice as that common platitude sounds, it's utter bullshit. It implies all terrorists are similarly freedom fighters. This isn't true at all! Some people are just terrorists. Moreover, there's a sense of moral relativity in that statement. That, any and everything is morally acceptable, because somewhere out there, somebody else agrees. Example: "One man's pedophiliac is another man's hopeless romantic." This may very well be true, but it still doesn't justify anything or make a moral judgment any less condemning.
-Grym
*Desdon excluded--an instance of allied terrorism, imho. But, then again, you said "Berlin."
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
So the misuse or misunderstanding of a word should negate its existence or appropriate use? If one did that, he might soon have a niggardly vocabulary full of politically-correct buzzwords, signifying nothing.
So I guess we shouldn't call one who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation a "pirate". After all, some politicians inappropriately apply that label to those who disrespect copyright law.
This line of reasoning is the problem, not the solution.
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
This time is one of the FEW instances, as of late, where the word "terrorist" (and/or "terrorism") is entirely appropriate. Driving an SUV doesn't make you a terrorist. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a terrorist. Disobeying copyright law doesn't make you a terrorist. But blowing innocent people up in subways and buses to intimidate is the definition of terrorism.
Let's call a spade a spade. If the perpetrators are terrorists, then call them that. And if they're muslim (or Irish), there's nothing wrong in mentioning that too.
I apologize. I realized after submitting that I needed to put "reboot" and "reinstall" after the uninstall part. As far as the headline--you don't really think Slashdot is above just a little sensationalism, do you?
Regardless, this is unprecedented, in my opinion. I've never seen a game company force every single user to reinstall a game. It's something that the/. community needed to hear about.
...Because it defines those people based on competence, and allegiance to the Constitution.
1) Competence. What is competence? Being able to shoot well? So, if my grandmother ( a wonderful lady but probably a terrible shot) cannot pass a firing test she is not entitled any personal protection--even in her own home? That's just ridiculous. How many gunfights with legal guns (because illegal guns would be unaffected by this change) do you think actually happen? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of gun violence (with legal guns) occurs at close range, indoors, with only one party firing a shot. Accuracy matters little in those instances. As an aside, Lee Harvey Oswald was an excellent shot. He could pass your tests with flying colors if he lied on the second requirement.
2) Allegiance. Allegiance to what? My only allegiance is to my maker and the people. The government, on the other hand, has to earn my allegiance. Whether you realize it or not, there's a right to revolution in this country. It's a part of our heritage. If the government ever becomes completely corrupt (which isn't the case yet), there is, like the founding fathers showed, an option--nay, an obligation--to oppose it.
Plus, If I'm a citizen of the United States, I shouldn't have to prove that I'm a flag-wavin', God-fearin', apple pie-eatin' good ol' boy just to secure the basic right to personal protection entitled to me under the constitution. Not only does that violate my implicit right to privacy, but it turns the "right" to bear arms into a privilege to be granted and taken away, like a driving license.
Obviously, there's a fine line that needs to be drawn between what weapons citizens should and shouldn't be able to have. I don't think any private citizen needs a machine gun or grenades. Those are too dangerous. Coming up with such a compromise won't be easy, but the ideas you suggest to arrive there seem far too shortsighted to ever achieve it.
Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country?
As a moderate, I can't help but worry about the long-term consequences if Bush nominates a staunch conservative.
That being said, I fully expect him to. And I see nothing wrong in the act of him doing so. How can you? Bush is quite obviously a conservative. He's going to pick conservative judges.
It's his job to choose the candidate as he sees fit--which, has usually turned out to be a judge with similar views. The senate can then accept or reject the candidate by a simple majority vote. Those are the rules.
Why would Bush be doing something wrong when operating by the pre-established rules in a manner consistent with the platform on which he was elected? If it were a liberal president, I'd expect him (her?) to do the same.
The UN was designed to do one thing: prevent World War III.
It did that exceptionally well. The USSR and the USA never had a huge tank/nuke war in Europe, and their proxy wars were fought with unusual restraint given that each side had nuclear arms.
I think the only restraint was in fact the nuclear arms. The UN had far less to do with a relatively peaceful resolution to the Cold War than did the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction and the power of economics.
The fact that the UN has been used to do some other things is a comparative footnote.
I wouldn't exactly call nearly a million people dead in Rowanda as a result of UN neglegence a "footnote." The UN isn't completely without value, but to dismiss its colossal failures as trivial would be unwise.
Microsoft and others are not to make ethical decisions about whether a particular gov't is good or bad, or whether to support a particular gov't edict.
Why the hell not? Why is it that being an employee makes you unaccountable to any sort of morality? We're all citizens of the world. We all have certain duties to each other which we are obligated to follow--even if that means a smaller bottom-line.
I don't want my pharmacy to stop selling a birth control pills...
The issue of some pharmacies refusing to sell birth control pills is a complete red herring. That issue is less about business and more about pharmacists ignoring their duty as healthcare providers. It's akin to an ER doctor refusing to give blood transfusions to a patient because of personal beliefs.
... and condoms because the owner is Catholic.
So what? It's not like condoms aren't commonly available in every gas station anyway. Take your business elsewhere. Birth control is completely different because it is available by prescription only. Otherwise, it'd be a non-issue.
There are different cultures and different ideals. Just because someone feels differently than you doesn't make them unethical. Also if someone helps that person who thinks differently than you, the person helping isn't necessarily unethical.
The fact that different cultures exist shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that all practices in all societies are morally acceptable. For instance, slavery is wrong wherever it exists. Do I really need to make a Nazi analogy to emphasize this point?
Freedom of expression is a fundamental ability that all humans (by virtue of our common character) deserve. The "great firewall" of China is nothing more than a construct of a ruling class (guilty of many human rights violations) to remain in power by censoring speech contrary to the party line. Under what system of morality can that be acceptable?
The fact that major international corporations are so quick to help China in this endeavor is just further evidence that business is out of control. Governments are either unwilling or unable to protect their own citizens or those abroad in the face of uncaring multinational corporations--the inmates are running the sanitarium.
What's next? Selling them tank treads to run over protestors? How about government mandated RFID implants? Better buy some stock in Generocorp, analysts predict that the genocide market is poised to grow...
I think it says something that of all the professional soldiers I know, none of them share your view. None. Zero. Their attitude is simple: violence is wrong. It is never morally right to engage in war. The only question is whether not engaging in war is an even worse moral choice.
The GP said, "Choosing not to fight, and letting an evil group conqueror you, is wrong." It seems to me that, semantics aside (that you are referencing a "net"-morality), you're saying the same thing.
But I know tons of people like you. People who talk about how the instant someone breaks into their home, they'd better have an ambulance handy. People who have their explanations and justifications prerationalized. People like you scare the living shit out of me.
Most people don't take the time or intellect to judge every single action they make in an intelligent, morally-based perspective. Even attempting to do so would lead to a paralysis of action in everyday life (which, paradoxically, is immoral). All of us, whether we realize it or not, internalizes certain tenets which guide our actions. For most people, these tenets arise from their upbringing and religion. (Although, they can also come from keen introspection or philosophical study.) The use of tenets isn't perfect (conflicting tenets, fringe scenarios, etc.), but it's a good compromise between unattainable moral perfection and chaos.
Here's a commonly tenet (which also happens to be one of mine). If someone is about to intentionally endanger my life or those I love, they should be stopped--even if that means the ending of their life. Is that pre-rationalized? Absolutely. But I implore you, why that is immoral?
Yeah, I'm sure they were thrilled. It is nice you're wasting taxpayer's money like this. Utterly hilarioius.
Actually, I was told later by a couple of the techs that, in retrospect, they enjoyed the whole experience. It was really only the head IT administrator who was really peeved by it, and I suspect that much of that was due to the county board coming down on him. And no, he didn't lose his job.
Regardless, I never claimed that it was a responsible thing to do. I never claimed that it was the ethical thing to do (although I'm not conceding that it was unethical). It was really just an expression the natural rebellious phase that most teenagers go through. I can personally think of much worse ways that it can (and usually does) manifest itself, and do still maintain that a net good did result from the whole experience for all involved. The computers became more secure (I hear they're some of the most secure in the state school system now), (again) nobody got hurt, and those on both sides learned something. Even though I'm more mature now, if I had the chance to do it over again (knowing how it played out), I unquestionably would.
And if I were you, I wouldn't worry about the pittance lost from it either. If such a negligible amount upsets you so greatly, I suggest you take a trip to your local DMV--or any government institution, for that matter. Extra bandwidth costs and IT man-hours won't hold a candle to the level of waste that goes on with taxpayer money. I'm absolutely positive the amounts you speak of (assuming they exist--that techs weren't on salary and bandwidth wasn't a flat rate) weren't missed.
Still a piss poor excuse. You knew the right thing (not) to do, and you did it. I wouldn't let you work on ex-cons after (if) you graduate.
Then I suppose we should all be glad that a jaded malcontent such as yourself doesn't decide such things. Otherwise, I think we'd all be ex-cons. In which case, I guess I wouldn't have trouble finding work after all.
But I'd rather have that than the opposite: a world where nobody breaks any rule. What a terrible place, where nobody ever questions things (even if it turns out they're wrong) or explores their own bounds (even if it hurts the bottom-line); a place where nobody ever falters and everyone is born fully mature with a stick up their ass, for good measure.
You didn't happen to go to TJHSST in Alexandria, Virginia...now did you?
Maybe I'm seeing things cause it's early on a Saturday morning, but I'm Jefferson '03 and what you're describing sounds a hell of a lot like TJ (not to mention that VA SOL reference).
No. I went to Graham High School, a smaller highschool (~550 students) in Tazewell county in Southwestern Virginia.
But, interestingly enough, I do remember hearing about TJ's computer problems. The issue came up during a mock vote at the state-wide model general assembly. If I remember correctly the school gave out laptops to kids (elitest NOVA scum! =) and then was shocked that people disabled the security. Funny stuff--and very much like the article.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite current theory is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please note how it also explains global warming with the decline of the world's pirate population.
Finally! A theory that explains both the origins of mankind AND global warming. This can obviously mean only one thing: it's TWICE as good as the so-called "theory" of evolution.
I, for one, suggest we begin reprinting the textbooks immediately.
-Grym
Given that we haven't seen any evidence, how do you know he is. Oh, right, you blindly believe any lie the government tells you... or maybe just the lies Republican governments tell you, regardless.
Given the fact that we haven't seen any evidence, what makes you think he isn't? Why is it that you criticize him for blindly believing in Padilla's guilt while you blindly proclaim the government to be lying?
Ah, so you are a coward.
Potential devastation of a major American city and the resulting economic and political results is something to legitimately fear. We might differ on how to prevent such an event from occurring and could discuss concerns about how the media and our politicians respond to the threat. Nevertheless, to not fear at all it wouldn't be courageous but rather foolhardy.
Moreover, I assume you oppose the war in Iraq. This doesn't make you a coward. You might oppose the war because of innocent people in the Middle East or the long-term future of the United States. This is entirely reasonable. Now if a nuclear attack were to take place on American soil, what do you think would happen? All subsequent events that I can imagine are terrible from both the perspective of the United States and innocent people in the Middle East. Seeing as how this is the case, why do you so quickly resort to name-calling? Surely you would object to being called a coward for opposing the war in Iraq. Why then are his positions "cowardly" when they can be rationalized using the same basis you might use to oppose the war in Iraq?
We have. It involved them giving up everything they have to foreign investors, having their leaders chosen by foreign powers, and having their efforts for self- determination undermined whenever it would have a negative effect on certain Western Powers' bottom lines. The response to this line in the sand is the terrorism you see.
So it's all the West's (and, more specifically, the US's) fault then? At what point are middle easterners responsible for their own actions and destiny? How can a society ever achieve self-determination when it wallows in self-depreciation?
I'm not going to sit here and try and say that the United States is blameless. Obviously over the years, we have been quite ambivalent (and occasionally hostile) with regard to the people of the Middle East. This is a bad thing.
But to sit here and place blame solely on the United States is ridiculous. Why don't you expect even a fraction of the kind of altruism you request of the US from any Muslim nation? Why is it that the United States--of all nations--is the largest financial supporter of Palestine? For that matter, instead of supplying weapons and fighters to Palestinians, why is it that their muslim neighbors do not provide them amnesty? Why doesn't anyone question the financial donations (or lack thereof) during humanitarian crises from wealthy Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia?
Your complete inability to see anything outside of your tiny ignorant little world view where we are the good guys regardless of our actions is part of the problem.
And one-sided critcisms are the solution?
-Grym
The reason is because political issues are becoming more important every day, and payola sites like Slashdot are trying to stay on the fence and keep everyone happy for as long as possible... So hot-button issues like Iraq, Terrorism, and Civil Rights are marginalized from discussion because it's not good business to 'get involved'.
Slashdot--fence sitting? Are you kidding? I hope you don't honestly think Slashdot has a politically balanced readership (which, via moderation, ultimately translates to material).
Slashdot is, in general, quite liberal (in the U.S. sense of the word). When George W. Bush won in November, I think I saw CmdrTaco shed a tear. Seriously, leading up to the election when I (or any other moderate) would even say things like, "I don't like Bush but he might be right on on X...", it would get modded down to oblivion--nobody wanted to hear that kind of talk.
I think in general the reason why /. as of late has avoided such topics is to prevent itself from becoming just another political debate (rant?) forum. Instead, it focuses on technology, open source software developments, gaming, and so on--you know... News for nerds...
-Grym
yup, using cryptic model names is bad for business as far as I'm concerned. Do people go into a store and ask for an iPod or a Sony NW-HD5? An iMac or a Sony VGC-RB42G? Keep it simple, folks.
One might think that, but it's not necessarily the case. I recently had the joy of upgrading my videocard after two years of not keeping up with the trends. For anyone who doesn't know, the videocard market is the most convoluted, overlapping, granulated market known to man.
First there two separate branches of architecture (ATi and Nvidia). Then each branch has its own miriad of model numbers that offer no real bearing on the performance or value. Then each model number has an assortment of different flavors ("ultra", "OC", "FX", etc.) of cards, which--again are often misleading. To finally complicate matters, each of the various flavors of models of branches of videocards are then manufactured by countless different companies which often deviate from the specifications or use better or worse parts.
The net result is that it's nearly impossible to intelligently analyze the market. Even enthusiest sites such as Tom's hardware have trouble keeping up with it. The best they can do is ignore the variations between the different manufacturers and only compare different models and flavors. Even when they are able to come up with an accurate comparison, it only is valid for a few months before the companies begin releasing new models--forcing down the prices of all the other models, which changes everything from a consumer's standpoint.
So what ends up happening? The average consumer either ends up trusting the generic and/or misleading descriptions of many of the video cards or simply cutting though all the riff-raff and buying the most expensive models.
In the vast majority of cases, I believe that the companies stand to profit from this strategy (if you can call it that)--at least for now. (One could argue that such confusion will lead to more console sales in the long-term)
-Grym
Cisco does not engage in censorship. They simply make equipment which can be used to engage in censorship. Similarly to a company that makes matches that can be used for arson, or Proctor and Gamble whose Clorox bleach can be used as poison.
But Cisco is knowingly and unapologetically aiding in in censorship. It's no mystery how China is using Cisco's products. Were this not the case, you might have a point.
In light of this, your analogy becomes akin to a storeowner knowingly selling matches to an arsonist who is openly saying that he will use the matches he buys to commit arson. Sure, the owner can turn a blind eye to the consequences of his actions, but is that ethical? To take your other example, would it be ethical to sell chlorox to a customer in all seriousness telling you he's going to use it to poison another person?
If your answer to either of the above questions is yes, you really need to re-evaluate your moral standards.
Ultimately, Cisco is a collection of individuals who, like the rest of us, have obligations to to behave in a moral fashion. Even if a powerful entity such as China acting unjustly and cannot be deterred, how would that justify helping them?
In all honesty, this is how the system is supposed to work. In public corporations, stockholders, as a collective, are intended to direct the actions of the company as they see fit. To ignore the stockholders opinions because of possibly reduced profits is a backwards (and dangerous) mindset.
-Grym
Can't this be rewritten as 'Scientists finally witnessed (micro)evolution at work'? And doesn't it imply that all those scientists who zealously treat evolution as a 'fact' or 'law' - before the observations described in this article were even observed - are actually being unscientific?
No, because saying so fails to account for all the other kinds evidence which indicates that speciation is a common event. All the study in the article does is add another type of evidence (direct observation) to the theory. While this is exciting from a scientific perspective (this rarely--relative to a human lifespan--happens macroscopically), the theory of evolution does not require it to remain scientifically sound.
Humans do reproduce slowly, which does affect the amount of genetic drift. But more than that, you're failing to account for something: we're the most prolific mammal on the planet; there isn't a type of geography that man hasn't overcome. For humans, no group is completely geographically isolated--especially on the timescales we're dicussing. It's reasonable to believe that explorers/wanderers from any particular region would homogenize the genepools of the various groups. Furthermore, genetic drift is random. There's nothing that gaurentees speciation. It could just perhaps be due to chance that none of the racial differences involves sexual function. I'm not seeing how the theory of evolution doesn't account for this supposed discrepancy.
[Microorganisms] reproduce extremely fast... have we observed a single cell become a multi-cell organism? Nope.
Again, there's more to science than simple direct observation. Given the plethora of other evidence which infers that this type of event took place, why should the lack of a single direct observation invalidate the entire theory? Besides, even if we haven't observed that, we have observed some of the necessary precursors such as: bacterial communication, cooperation (via biofilms), and organisms which exhibit single and multi-celled qualities (eg. slimemolds). Again, where is the problem here?
Anyway, the theory of evolution is inconclusive
No scientific theory is completely conclusive. I think evolution stands up quite well given the epic level of criticism placed upon it. I'd like to see another theory regarding the origins of life that could do so. Only then should it be put in textbooks.
-Grym
I say DS is simply one of many prototypes on the table, and not some code gone awry.
You can say that, but at the end of the day you have to wrestle with the fact that the chromosomal mutation, which results in DS, makes the affected individual genetically less fit and subject to a range of health problems. This is why it is (correctly) classified as a defect, or genetic disorder.
Current thinking lacks not only proper bias in observation, but the inherent ability to free itself from a stilted POV. As a species, we demonstrate well-honed hindsight...we can't see the next leap because we don't have the inherent capabilities, not because we simply haven't asked the right questions just yet... butterfiles exist as a side project to alert m'duh nature when the proposed vehicle (cocoon) works out. Only after such information is gathered will she decide where and how to apply it next
I realize you're trying to make an insight as to the nature of mankind (or at least the scientific community) but it's just not working in this instance. The fact that you criticize the scientific community for lacking perspective while at the same time citing "mother nature" doesn't help either.
-Grym
The real question is, can we trust the weapon operators to use this responsibly?
Probably not. Last year the police in the US managed to shoot one of their pepper-spray paintballs through an bystanding girl's eye, killing her. And that's a "non-lethal" weapon you can aim!
The thing in the article covers an entire area. Do you think the operator is going to check and make sure that nobody in the crowd is wearing glasses, jewelry, or contacts? That's impossible!
Even in theory, this isn't a non-lethal weapon at all... It's quite obvious that this is intended as a means of disarming (have we forgotten that guns/knives are metal?) and/or killing large groups of people immediately without collateral damage; just like a neutron bomb, only more controllable and cheaper.
-Grym
-Grym
Get protector glasses, the kind chemists use. They're meant to deflect acids and shrapnell from exploding test tubes. Should be enough to stop BB gun projectiles.
So that will protect your eyes (and maybe your nose, depending upon the brand)... But what about your mouth, ears, neck, and genitals? BB guns are dangerous and can be fatal.
There's nothing tough about shooting people or getting shot by BB/pellet guns; it's stupid. If you're that hard-off for a good gunfighting experience, just get a paintball gun. You can get cheap Stingray (or whatever they're called now) ones at Wal-mart for like fifty bucks. If those aren't your thing, then look into Airsoft guns.
-Grym
No, you're not misunderstanding me. I was thinking about this after I submitted, and I didn't quite express my point fully.
My issue with "bombers" is that it fails to describe some pretty important and obvious dimensions of the act. It says nothing of their motives, their tactics, and the fact that at least some people were wronged by the act. It's like me calling the Mona Lisa "oil" or an ornate sword simply "metal."
Terrorism is obviously the most appropriate word. Does terrorism, in and of itself, carry a negative connotation? Of course. But does that mean that every act of terrorism is wrong? No. Example: stealing similarly carries a negative connotation. But, for example, the story of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is generally considered a positive thing. Simply using the appropriate word ("terrorism") in no way makes an absolute value judgment than appropriately using the term stealing does.
The English are known for understatement, and in other contexts, this might be forgivable. However, the intention of this word usage is clearly being done for political reasons--and it has nothing to do with neutrality.
-Grym
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
What kind of value judgment is being made here? The acts were unquestionably terrorism at its very definition. All I'm saying is that we call it that rather than use some politically-correct (oh, sorry, "neutral") placeholder. That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
If this extreme interpretation of journalistic integrity were such a concern to the BBC, then they should similarly replace other emotionally-charged words such as "murder" or "rape". But they don't do this. Why do you think that is?
Look, I like the BBC. I think they're one of the best (if not the best) major news outlets in the world. But on this issue they're both incorrect and inconsistent.
-Grym
I'm sure if you were sitting at home in Berlin between 1939 and 1945 you wouldn't have regarded the bombs raining down on your house as legitimate.
Sure I would. I may not like it, but, in this instance, my country would have declared war on them. Moreover, they would be flying according to the generally accepted rules of war--in uniform (marked aircraft), targeting militarily-valuable targets* and under a command structure which is accountable to another society. How isn't that legitimate?
It's all about perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
As nice as that common platitude sounds, it's utter bullshit. It implies all terrorists are similarly freedom fighters. This isn't true at all! Some people are just terrorists. Moreover, there's a sense of moral relativity in that statement. That, any and everything is morally acceptable, because somewhere out there, somebody else agrees. Example: "One man's pedophiliac is another man's hopeless romantic." This may very well be true, but it still doesn't justify anything or make a moral judgment any less condemning.
-Grym
*Desdon excluded--an instance of allied terrorism, imho. But, then again, you said "Berlin."
I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.
So the misuse or misunderstanding of a word should negate its existence or appropriate use? If one did that, he might soon have a niggardly vocabulary full of politically-correct buzzwords, signifying nothing.
So I guess we shouldn't call one who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation a "pirate". After all, some politicians inappropriately apply that label to those who disrespect copyright law.
This line of reasoning is the problem, not the solution.
-Grym
I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
This time is one of the FEW instances, as of late, where the word "terrorist" (and/or "terrorism") is entirely appropriate. Driving an SUV doesn't make you a terrorist. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a terrorist. Disobeying copyright law doesn't make you a terrorist. But blowing innocent people up in subways and buses to intimidate is the definition of terrorism.
Let's call a spade a spade. If the perpetrators are terrorists, then call them that. And if they're muslim (or Irish), there's nothing wrong in mentioning that too.
-Grym
I apologize. I realized after submitting that I needed to put "reboot" and "reinstall" after the uninstall part. As far as the headline--you don't really think Slashdot is above just a little sensationalism, do you?
Regardless, this is unprecedented, in my opinion. I've never seen a game company force every single user to reinstall a game. It's something that the /. community needed to hear about.
-Grym
US headline: 'Smashing success'... So CNN has an official policy of only providing cheesy headlines to Americans?
That's not that bad. During the recent Tsunami they had a headline of "Killer Wave". As in, "Killer wave dude!"
I guess appealing to the lowest common demononator makes money.
-Grym
1) Competence. What is competence? Being able to shoot well? So, if my grandmother ( a wonderful lady but probably a terrible shot) cannot pass a firing test she is not entitled any personal protection--even in her own home? That's just ridiculous. How many gunfights with legal guns (because illegal guns would be unaffected by this change) do you think actually happen? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of gun violence (with legal guns) occurs at close range, indoors, with only one party firing a shot. Accuracy matters little in those instances. As an aside, Lee Harvey Oswald was an excellent shot. He could pass your tests with flying colors if he lied on the second requirement.
2) Allegiance. Allegiance to what? My only allegiance is to my maker and the people. The government, on the other hand, has to earn my allegiance. Whether you realize it or not, there's a right to revolution in this country. It's a part of our heritage. If the government ever becomes completely corrupt (which isn't the case yet), there is, like the founding fathers showed, an option--nay, an obligation--to oppose it. Plus, If I'm a citizen of the United States, I shouldn't have to prove that I'm a flag-wavin', God-fearin', apple pie-eatin' good ol' boy just to secure the basic right to personal protection entitled to me under the constitution. Not only does that violate my implicit right to privacy, but it turns the "right" to bear arms into a privilege to be granted and taken away, like a driving license.
Obviously, there's a fine line that needs to be drawn between what weapons citizens should and shouldn't be able to have. I don't think any private citizen needs a machine gun or grenades. Those are too dangerous. Coming up with such a compromise won't be easy, but the ideas you suggest to arrive there seem far too shortsighted to ever achieve it.
-Grym
Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country?
As a moderate, I can't help but worry about the long-term consequences if Bush nominates a staunch conservative.
That being said, I fully expect him to. And I see nothing wrong in the act of him doing so. How can you? Bush is quite obviously a conservative. He's going to pick conservative judges.
It's his job to choose the candidate as he sees fit--which, has usually turned out to be a judge with similar views. The senate can then accept or reject the candidate by a simple majority vote. Those are the rules.
Why would Bush be doing something wrong when operating by the pre-established rules in a manner consistent with the platform on which he was elected? If it were a liberal president, I'd expect him (her?) to do the same.
-Grym
The UN was designed to do one thing: prevent World War III.
It did that exceptionally well. The USSR and the USA never had a huge tank/nuke war in Europe, and their proxy wars were fought with unusual restraint given that each side had nuclear arms.
I think the only restraint was in fact the nuclear arms. The UN had far less to do with a relatively peaceful resolution to the Cold War than did the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction and the power of economics.
The fact that the UN has been used to do some other things is a comparative footnote.
I wouldn't exactly call nearly a million people dead in Rowanda as a result of UN neglegence a "footnote." The UN isn't completely without value, but to dismiss its colossal failures as trivial would be unwise.
-Grym
Microsoft and others are not to make ethical decisions about whether a particular gov't is good or bad, or whether to support a particular gov't edict.
Why the hell not? Why is it that being an employee makes you unaccountable to any sort of morality? We're all citizens of the world. We all have certain duties to each other which we are obligated to follow--even if that means a smaller bottom-line.
I don't want my pharmacy to stop selling a birth control pills...
The issue of some pharmacies refusing to sell birth control pills is a complete red herring. That issue is less about business and more about pharmacists ignoring their duty as healthcare providers. It's akin to an ER doctor refusing to give blood transfusions to a patient because of personal beliefs.
So what? It's not like condoms aren't commonly available in every gas station anyway. Take your business elsewhere. Birth control is completely different because it is available by prescription only. Otherwise, it'd be a non-issue.
-Grym
There are different cultures and different ideals. Just because someone feels differently than you doesn't make them unethical. Also if someone helps that person who thinks differently than you, the person helping isn't necessarily unethical.
The fact that different cultures exist shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that all practices in all societies are morally acceptable. For instance, slavery is wrong wherever it exists. Do I really need to make a Nazi analogy to emphasize this point?
Freedom of expression is a fundamental ability that all humans (by virtue of our common character) deserve. The "great firewall" of China is nothing more than a construct of a ruling class (guilty of many human rights violations) to remain in power by censoring speech contrary to the party line. Under what system of morality can that be acceptable?
The fact that major international corporations are so quick to help China in this endeavor is just further evidence that business is out of control. Governments are either unwilling or unable to protect their own citizens or those abroad in the face of uncaring multinational corporations--the inmates are running the sanitarium.
What's next? Selling them tank treads to run over protestors? How about government mandated RFID implants? Better buy some stock in Generocorp, analysts predict that the genocide market is poised to grow...
-Grym
I think it says something that of all the professional soldiers I know, none of them share your view. None. Zero. Their attitude is simple: violence is wrong. It is never morally right to engage in war. The only question is whether not engaging in war is an even worse moral choice.
The GP said, "Choosing not to fight, and letting an evil group conqueror you, is wrong." It seems to me that, semantics aside (that you are referencing a "net"-morality), you're saying the same thing.
But I know tons of people like you. People who talk about how the instant someone breaks into their home, they'd better have an ambulance handy. People who have their explanations and justifications prerationalized. People like you scare the living shit out of me.
Most people don't take the time or intellect to judge every single action they make in an intelligent, morally-based perspective. Even attempting to do so would lead to a paralysis of action in everyday life (which, paradoxically, is immoral). All of us, whether we realize it or not, internalizes certain tenets which guide our actions. For most people, these tenets arise from their upbringing and religion. (Although, they can also come from keen introspection or philosophical study.) The use of tenets isn't perfect (conflicting tenets, fringe scenarios, etc.), but it's a good compromise between unattainable moral perfection and chaos.
Here's a commonly tenet (which also happens to be one of mine). If someone is about to intentionally endanger my life or those I love, they should be stopped--even if that means the ending of their life. Is that pre-rationalized? Absolutely. But I implore you, why that is immoral?
-Grym
Yeah, I'm sure they were thrilled. It is nice you're wasting taxpayer's money like this. Utterly hilarioius.
Actually, I was told later by a couple of the techs that, in retrospect, they enjoyed the whole experience. It was really only the head IT administrator who was really peeved by it, and I suspect that much of that was due to the county board coming down on him. And no, he didn't lose his job.
Regardless, I never claimed that it was a responsible thing to do. I never claimed that it was the ethical thing to do (although I'm not conceding that it was unethical). It was really just an expression the natural rebellious phase that most teenagers go through. I can personally think of much worse ways that it can (and usually does) manifest itself, and do still maintain that a net good did result from the whole experience for all involved. The computers became more secure (I hear they're some of the most secure in the state school system now), (again) nobody got hurt, and those on both sides learned something. Even though I'm more mature now, if I had the chance to do it over again (knowing how it played out), I unquestionably would.
And if I were you, I wouldn't worry about the pittance lost from it either. If such a negligible amount upsets you so greatly, I suggest you take a trip to your local DMV--or any government institution, for that matter. Extra bandwidth costs and IT man-hours won't hold a candle to the level of waste that goes on with taxpayer money. I'm absolutely positive the amounts you speak of (assuming they exist--that techs weren't on salary and bandwidth wasn't a flat rate) weren't missed.
Still a piss poor excuse. You knew the right thing (not) to do, and you did it. I wouldn't let you work on ex-cons after (if) you graduate.
Then I suppose we should all be glad that a jaded malcontent such as yourself doesn't decide such things. Otherwise, I think we'd all be ex-cons. In which case, I guess I wouldn't have trouble finding work after all.
But I'd rather have that than the opposite: a world where nobody breaks any rule. What a terrible place, where nobody ever questions things (even if it turns out they're wrong) or explores their own bounds (even if it hurts the bottom-line); a place where nobody ever falters and everyone is born fully mature with a stick up their ass, for good measure.
-Grym
You didn't happen to go to TJHSST in Alexandria, Virginia...now did you? Maybe I'm seeing things cause it's early on a Saturday morning, but I'm Jefferson '03 and what you're describing sounds a hell of a lot like TJ (not to mention that VA SOL reference).
No. I went to Graham High School, a smaller highschool (~550 students) in Tazewell county in Southwestern Virginia.
But, interestingly enough, I do remember hearing about TJ's computer problems. The issue came up during a mock vote at the state-wide model general assembly. If I remember correctly the school gave out laptops to kids (elitest NOVA scum! =) and then was shocked that people disabled the security. Funny stuff--and very much like the article.
-Grym