Most Americans I have ever seen have tried to eat with just their fork in their right hand after cutting the food up with a knife and fork first. It's one of the things that makes them easy to spot as tourists if you're in anything other than McFuckingDonalds.
Thanks for the review. Everything you've written makes MIT sound like an excellent school. One where you go to do some serious learnings, instead of just fuck around.
In the same way unlikeable people can make likeable art, likeable art can be made in reference to unlikeable subjects.
But the more unlikeable the subject the greater the art has to be. If you did a badly written sci fi version of King Lear, the basically horrible characters would make it too much like hard work without the benefit of great writing and insight into human character.
What I found odd about Ender's Game was that you had this psychologically tortured kid who was supposed to be the saviour of humanity, but it turned out he was just carrying out the doomsday xenocide that the military knew they could do anyway. Ender didn't do anything except deploy the device at the right time. It was like they had to have a scapegoat do it at second hand (he thought it was just another simulation). The only message I got out of it was that the military were both cowardly and morally bankrupt. Which, as with Robert Heinlein's similar effort in Starship Trooopers, I doubt was the intention, but was a convincing portrayal of fascism in action.
This kind of thing happens whenever you have an opinionated celebrity with controversial views that are at odds with a lot of their fan base. What's more interesting is watching to see how people's support of free speech is tied to how well the speech lines up with their own political views. Of course there is also something to be said for artists sticking to being known for their creative works and not for their extreme political stances.
No, no, no and a million times no. Why do rightwingers always assume that because people criticise extreme rightwing/religious/fasicist speech they want to ban it completely?
Short of actual direct physical incitement to violence, you should be able to say what you like. You just need to be prepared for people to take it seriously.
As narrow minded as I feel his thoughts may be, I support the U.S. Constitution, and thus his right to speak his mind
Why do people even bother saying things like this? No one's saying that OSC (or anyone else) shouldn't be allowed to puke out religious right wing drivel. It's just that he has to be prepared to face the consequences since a lot of people disagree with those opinions.
For those religious right wingers who find this hard to understand, imagine if an author suddenly started making communist, atheist speeches. Would you really then just go on buying his books regardless?
Michael Moorcock is a Marxist, an ideology I find utterly vile.
Maybe the fact that someone like Michael Moorcock is a Marxist (although personally I'd have said more of an Anarchist) should make you reconsider your views on what Marxism (or Anarchism) are?
This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
There is a logical fallacy known as "false equivalence". You have just committed it.
I doubt that Mr Card has ever been chased by a pack of thugs and beaten senseless because he came out of the wrong bar at the wrong time. People I know have.
"I object to that, and aren't you being rather harsh toward someone who has bought copies of everything you've ever written?"
That is always one of the arguments that people use here to defend piracy. ("I downloaded the song via BitTorrent then sent a cheque directly to the band").
The point is that, even if it's true, it says nothing about the vast majority of people who download and then don't pay for something.
Seriously, do you think the movie studios, record companies and book publishers would care about people downloading stuff for free if most people ended up buying it anyway? I know here you're not allowed to talk about lost sales revenue, but I personally find it against common sense and human nature to believe that most people who download twenty books by an author for free are then going to pay for all twenty of them as well.
Blah blah blah, I know all piracy is good, all copyright is bad and we are entitled to free fucking ice cream for life.
For example, Kessel rejects the simple motive of self-defense for any of Ender Wiggins' actions, when in fact, in the novel, he has ample reason to act in simple self-defense
The point of the article is to explain why Ender's Game is a bad example to adolescents. Killing fellow teenagers in playground fist fights is not self defence, it is murder. If Ender had been a normal child, he would have been locked away as a psychopathic killer.
However necessary this might have been for the military/political purposes of his handlers in the book, it is NOT a good or even realistic template for young men to follow.
Funny that... since it's a Superman story... he can't publish it himself.
That's a copyright issue, not anything to do with censorship or even gay marriage.
And no one has the right to tell Card he CAN'T publish his work.
And no one has. Copyright aside, he can ask anyone he likes to publish this, or publish it himself. There is no "right" to have your work published by someone, or else all wannabe novelists would have to have their stuff published, however bad it was.
A commercial publisher is entitled to take into account questions of bad publicity, alienating their existing fans and so on.
He can publish whatever the fuck he likes. That does not mean that any particular publisher has the obligation to publish it if they don't like the work or the publicity surrounding it.
There is no censorship going on. If an author doesn't want his potential readers to know his views on something, he should just shut up and not talk about them.
If he'd written about how he's a neo-nazi or paedophile, I'd be fully entitled to take this into account wen deciding whether to buy one of his books, don't you think?
You probably agree with him about gay marriage, and so can't see the problem.
Look, I have no interest in the world of corporate strategy and high finance, but you make it sound as though companies downsize for the sake of it or for some obscure philosophical reason. In fact, they are just doing what you would expect, which is not incurring any more costs than they need to do do what they do.
If they're downsizing because their business is shrinking, fine, talk about why their business is shrinking.
Person sits at desk from 9-6. Person taps keys. Appears to be breathing. It tells you nothing about whether they're doing their work, so if you can't tell by other means, you're an incompetent employer. And if you can tell by other means, then there's no problem with telecommuting.
The problem with telecommuting is a simple psychological one: all the people who are forced to come into the office feel that the ones at home have it easy. That's human nature. Until everybody has the option, telecommuting is always going to seem like a perk to the mass of workers.
Quite simply, hire decent employees that have a solid work ethic.
Having a solid work ethic is like being a happy slave and volunteering to pick more cotton at noon when everyone else is having a lie down in the shade. Most normal people want to do as little as possible of something they don't enjoy.
It is the one psychological trait of Americans that I find hardest to understand. I do appreciate that on slashdot there are people doing jobs they actually enjoy, but you still need to remember who your work is benefitting.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans I have ever seen have tried to eat with just their fork in their right hand after cutting the food up with a knife and fork first. It's one of the things that makes them easy to spot as tourists if you're in anything other than McFuckingDonalds.
Thanks for the review. Everything you've written makes MIT sound like an excellent school. One where you go to do some serious learnings, instead of just fuck around.
What other universities are like this?
Wow, you must be a blast at parties.
In the same way unlikeable people can make likeable art, likeable art can be made in reference to unlikeable subjects.
But the more unlikeable the subject the greater the art has to be. If you did a badly written sci fi version of King Lear, the basically horrible characters would make it too much like hard work without the benefit of great writing and insight into human character.
What I found odd about Ender's Game was that you had this psychologically tortured kid who was supposed to be the saviour of humanity, but it turned out he was just carrying out the doomsday xenocide that the military knew they could do anyway. Ender didn't do anything except deploy the device at the right time. It was like they had to have a scapegoat do it at second hand (he thought it was just another simulation). The only message I got out of it was that the military were both cowardly and morally bankrupt. Which, as with Robert Heinlein's similar effort in Starship Trooopers, I doubt was the intention, but was a convincing portrayal of fascism in action.
This kind of thing happens whenever you have an opinionated celebrity with controversial views that are at odds with a lot of their fan base. What's more interesting is watching to see how people's support of free speech is tied to how well the speech lines up with their own political views. Of course there is also something to be said for artists sticking to being known for their creative works and not for their extreme political stances.
No, no, no and a million times no. Why do rightwingers always assume that because people criticise extreme rightwing/religious/fasicist speech they want to ban it completely?
Short of actual direct physical incitement to violence, you should be able to say what you like. You just need to be prepared for people to take it seriously.
As narrow minded as I feel his thoughts may be, I support the U.S. Constitution, and thus his right to speak his mind
Why do people even bother saying things like this? No one's saying that OSC (or anyone else) shouldn't be allowed to puke out religious right wing drivel. It's just that he has to be prepared to face the consequences since a lot of people disagree with those opinions.
For those religious right wingers who find this hard to understand, imagine if an author suddenly started making communist, atheist speeches. Would you really then just go on buying his books regardless?
Michael Moorcock is a Marxist, an ideology I find utterly vile.
Maybe the fact that someone like Michael Moorcock is a Marxist (although personally I'd have said more of an Anarchist) should make you reconsider your views on what Marxism (or Anarchism) are?
This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
There is a logical fallacy known as "false equivalence". You have just committed it.
I doubt that Mr Card has ever been chased by a pack of thugs and beaten senseless because he came out of the wrong bar at the wrong time. People I know have.
"I object to that, and aren't you being rather harsh toward someone who has bought copies of everything you've ever written?"
That is always one of the arguments that people use here to defend piracy. ("I downloaded the song via BitTorrent then sent a cheque directly to the band").
The point is that, even if it's true, it says nothing about the vast majority of people who download and then don't pay for something.
Seriously, do you think the movie studios, record companies and book publishers would care about people downloading stuff for free if most people ended up buying it anyway? I know here you're not allowed to talk about lost sales revenue, but I personally find it against common sense and human nature to believe that most people who download twenty books by an author for free are then going to pay for all twenty of them as well.
Blah blah blah, I know all piracy is good, all copyright is bad and we are entitled to free fucking ice cream for life.
I still enjoy Isaac Asimov even though by all accounts the guy was a notorious woman groper at SF conventions
I have to say that, in terms both of quantity and quality, SF conventions do not seem like an obvious hangout for a pussy-hound.
For example, Kessel rejects the simple motive of self-defense for any of Ender Wiggins' actions, when in fact, in the novel, he has ample reason to act in simple self-defense
The point of the article is to explain why Ender's Game is a bad example to adolescents. Killing fellow teenagers in playground fist fights is not self defence, it is murder. If Ender had been a normal child, he would have been locked away as a psychopathic killer.
However necessary this might have been for the military/political purposes of his handlers in the book, it is NOT a good or even realistic template for young men to follow.
Life must be hard if you don't buy anything from religious nuts. They are a significant majority of the population after all.
I think even in the US and Iran they're only a vocal minority. Most normal people don't give a flying one.
Whilst amusing, I can't believe that this troll got modded as interesting.
Funny that... since it's a Superman story... he can't publish it himself.
That's a copyright issue, not anything to do with censorship or even gay marriage.
And no one has the right to tell Card he CAN'T publish his work.
And no one has. Copyright aside, he can ask anyone he likes to publish this, or publish it himself. There is no "right" to have your work published by someone, or else all wannabe novelists would have to have their stuff published, however bad it was.
A commercial publisher is entitled to take into account questions of bad publicity, alienating their existing fans and so on.
There is no censorship going on. If an author doesn't want his potential readers to know his views on something, he should just shut up and not talk about them.
If he'd written about how he's a neo-nazi or paedophile, I'd be fully entitled to take this into account wen deciding whether to buy one of his books, don't you think?
You probably agree with him about gay marriage, and so can't see the problem.
The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected.
So what? He is discovering that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If they're downsizing because their business is shrinking, fine, talk about why their business is shrinking.
I didn't know you could peddle $80 HDMI cables from the comfort of your living room - how does that work?
Try spamming slashdot. Last week, I earned $3,682 for just a few hours work!
Mayers had a point, Yahoo needs the creativity inspired by water-cooler talks.
Worker A: Hi, did you see Jersey Shore last night?
Worker B: Hi, yeah, I love Jersey Shore.
Worker A: Me too.
Worker B: Bye then!
Worker A: Bye!
What the hell is a "traditional 40 hour work week"?
It's what you have when work is not the most important thing in your life.
That would imply management is capable of judging the quality of their deliverables ....
That is simply asinine. "Management" don't employ people for the sake of it, of course they know if they're not getting the delivery they need.
Person sits at desk from 9-6. Person taps keys. Appears to be breathing. It tells you nothing about whether they're doing their work, so if you can't tell by other means, you're an incompetent employer. And if you can tell by other means, then there's no problem with telecommuting.
The problem with telecommuting is a simple psychological one: all the people who are forced to come into the office feel that the ones at home have it easy. That's human nature. Until everybody has the option, telecommuting is always going to seem like a perk to the mass of workers.
I don't get up again for 8-12 hours. By that time, I'm usually starving to the point that I almost feel sick
You misread the memo. Presenteeism is only necessary when you're travelling to an office.
This is called being salaried. How much of your life it sucks up is irrelevant. :)
The word "salaried" does not mean "available to work 24/7".
Quite simply, hire decent employees that have a solid work ethic.
Having a solid work ethic is like being a happy slave and volunteering to pick more cotton at noon when everyone else is having a lie down in the shade. Most normal people want to do as little as possible of something they don't enjoy.
It is the one psychological trait of Americans that I find hardest to understand. I do appreciate that on slashdot there are people doing jobs they actually enjoy, but you still need to remember who your work is benefitting.