What if I want to run as fast as Carl Lewis? Or lift as much as Magnus ver Magnusson? Or swim as well as Matt Biandi? What if I want to be able to do all three? Who are you to tell me I can't?
What if I want to be able to easily beat the crap out of anyone I choose to, with little risk of defeat or significant harm to myself? And what if I want to be able to beat the crap out of any police officer who attempts to apprehend me for it also?
You mean the selective breeding over the course of a few generations for the purpose of slavery has more of an impact than hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and natural selection in the African environment?
I live in Australia and it's well known in athletic circles that there was/is tons of "Richard" available on the street. (Richard - short for Richard Gere). Get it?
What? Hamsters? Inserting a few of them up there will cause you to run faster?;)
Isn't it already like that with drugs? Why do they go after Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey Jr. for coke or heroin, but completely turn a blind eye to Ahnold and the entire NFL and WWF? Because in the latter case, they're backed by big, money-making industries that depend on the user's performances, maybe?
Define "human rights". Does it include access to the Internet? Or what about welfare? Yeah, I'm denied my human right to own a Ferrari.
No, you're not denied the right to own a Ferrari. You can buy it anytime you want with your own money. What does this have to do with right to free speech, religion, etc.?
You probably think we need another Asian country like Japan, mimicking Western culture in a bastardized way, while slowly destroying their own (Japan actually does have problems getting younger generations to keep certain traditions alive (tea ceremony, etc.)).
And your problem with leaving things to individual free will is...? Are you saying young people have to remain confined to the cultural practices of the older generations? If Starbucks coffee tastes or works better than traditional Japanese green tea, then may their tea ceremonies go the way of the dinosaur.
If you feel so threatened by the cultural encroachment of Western society and the alternatives and choices that it brings to your narrow little world, then why don't you join Al-Qaeda, or a Chinese equivalent of it?
Let them decide what lives up to their local standards of decency, and save us all a whole lot of time, trouble and money.
Yes, let them--the *entire* citizenry--and not just the power elite decide.
Don't you feel just a tad hypocritical publicly spouting your opinion on such matters, while denying a billion and a half other fellow citizens of your country, mostly with dissenting views, the right to do the same?
I say let the Chinese government govern their people however they want.
I thought governments are supposed to serve the people that they represent, and not vice-versa. Are the citizens of the country supposed to be the personal slaves to be rounded up and herded like farm animals by those in power or something?
that's the only thing a multinational corp will listen to. And its far more effective than a violent protest at a WTO convention.
Organize boycotts, and create consumer awareness programs if you want the sweatshops to stop. They'll listen to the bucks, but probably won't listen to a bunch of angry tree huggers.
And since when did your average Joe Buck-Spending Yuppie have such an overwhelming social conscience? He's more concerned about his own well being and that of his own kids, than of some dark-skinned kid half a world away. If it means children elsewhere suffer for the prosperity and well being of his own family, that's good enough for him.
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it.
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Most people I know are against globalization. Even Americans who stand to gain the most. In the last 20 years, we have seen Europe replace its cafes and coffee shops with McDonalds and Starbucks.
Local forms of clothing have been replaced with baseball hats and blue jeans.
And religion has been replaced with shallow consumerism.
So let them pick and choose, whether it comes to fast food, brands of coffee, clothing, or spiritual fulfillment. Opening up the borders only opens us up to more choices.
We'd rather make our own choices, rather than leave it to you, the Taliban, the Christian Coalition, or any other oppressive forces to limit our choices or make them for us.
It won't happen. As long as humans are emotional beings, there will always be many who will look to some sort of a spiritual escape from the rational, material, factual world.
Hopefully, with globalization, like with other consumer goods, one day, one will be able to comparison shop and pick and choose the spiritual fulfillment of their liking from a wide range of available choices, regardless of geographic location, instead having one forced upon by the powers that be that run the state.
This, I imagine, is one of Osama bin Laden's biggest fears.
Bin Laden has stated that driving the American forces out of the 'holyland' of Saudi Arabia (with the two 'holiest' sites Mecca and Median) was his primary mission.
Like with the Palestinian situation, OBL also uses the plight of fellow Muslims starving in Iraq as another rallying point to drum up support for his movement.
What's more, he has been known to mention western "cultural imperialism" (ie. the spread of democratic, secular cultural influences) into the Muslim world as one of his grievances.
The aim of the Al-Qaeda movement is to bring every Islamic country around the world under strict Islamic (nb. not democratic) rule. If they were such "freedom fighters", would they ban television and other media of mass communication through the government that they propped up in what has become of Afghanistan?
Nerds as future soldiers
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Does this mean nerds adept at playing video games and computer flight simulators will be operating the fighter jets from remote controls in the future, instead of the kinds of brave, tough men who fought conventional wars in the past?
The problem with this "million monkey" approach is, only a few amount to anything, and the rest just end up wasting their lives and a great deal of resources away for nothing.
Those million monkeys could just as well be put into golf courses to practise their swings, in hopes to find one that can play better than Tiger Woods.
And just why do we have to keep building up this scientific/technological monster and keep bowing to it at the altar forever? I think the fact that the IT industry has taken a tumble in recent times is testament to the fact that the public has grown sick and tired of the neverending advances in sci and tech, and don't want to spend their entire lives just trying to keep up. Market forces have spoken and leveled it off, without the need for torches and pitchforks.
Wouldn't they at the very least provide some measure of protection, such as contacting school staff to look out for you, or consider homeschooling as an option?
Let's also not forget that we're dealing with 60's technology here. How much stronger would the radiation have to be to work with the transmission/reception mechanisms available at the time? Weren't microwave ovens also first developed in the 50's or 60's, but didn't become widespread until much later due to safety concerns? Weren't TV's developed before the 1970's also notorious for emitting high levels of radiation? With these considerations, perhaps it was a good thing cell phones and other microwave technology didn't become common until recently.
You don't strike the strongest, most visible targets in this case organizations like
Philips Electronics for making stuff like mp3 cd players, you attack the small targets that everyone assumes are more or less
outside the conflict.... the students in this case. Why do terrorists of all stripes do this? Simple: the more visibile targets usually
have more than sufficient resources to retaliate in full force. Who here honestly thinks that if IBM were to make a lot of really
good mp3 players and the like that the RIAA would dare take them on in court?
MP3 files, are not necessarily that of pirated music, and therefore are not all necessarily illegal, and therefore such a case would not hold up in court anyways. Like having or making a bong in itself is not enough to incriminate you, regardless of its most common use. It's the substance you put into it that they'll have to bust you for, and not the medium of consumption itself.
Let's face it, porn has been THE consistent seller on the internet.
Why? There are so many freebies out there on the Internet. Why can't they just look around more (namely the alt.binaries.{pictures,multimedia}.erotic* newsgroups) so they won't have to pay and risk exposing important credit card and other identifying information to unscrupulous merchants and hackers for spank fuel?
<i>
"There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else there's Blastercard"
</i>
<p>
Actually, make that MasterCRUD. The words should start with the same letters as much as possible, and by using words such as as 'crud' to describe their product, it would be a good way to hit back at the nitpickers.
I think they should be the ones showing these robotics competitions, not MTV and Comedy Central. Even ESPN2 would be more appropriate (since it is competition).
In one part of the article on "How To Be Sexy", it mentions:
[Comment from a geekgirl here? Maybe something about how if a push-up
bra or whatever keeps the man you want from being dazzled by a bimbo it's well worth it.]
and yet in another (as directed to men), it says:
But don't pretend you're rich if you aren't. There's nothing cheesier
than a poser.
So why is it okay for a woman to be a poser, but not a man?
So in other words, most people of either gender are whores, but we men are expected to be too dignified to show it, whereas gold digging is the accepted norm for women.
I'm sorry if this sounds mysogynistic, but there is some realistic basis to this observation.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I want to run as fast as Carl Lewis? Or lift as much as Magnus ver Magnusson? Or swim as well as Matt Biandi? What if I want to be able to do all three? Who are you to tell me I can't?
What if I want to be able to easily beat the crap out of anyone I choose to, with little risk of defeat or significant harm to myself? And what if I want to be able to beat the crap out of any police officer who attempts to apprehend me for it also?
You mean the selective breeding over the course of a few generations for the purpose of slavery has more of an impact than hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and natural selection in the African environment?
I live in Australia and it's well known in athletic circles that there was/is tons of "Richard" available on the street. (Richard - short for Richard Gere). Get it?
;)
What? Hamsters? Inserting a few of them up there will cause you to run faster?
Isn't it already like that with drugs? Why do they go after Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey Jr. for coke or heroin, but completely turn a blind eye to Ahnold and the entire NFL and WWF? Because in the latter case, they're backed by big, money-making industries that depend on the user's performances, maybe?
Define "human rights". Does it include access to the Internet? Or what about welfare? Yeah, I'm denied my human right to own a Ferrari.
No, you're not denied the right to own a Ferrari. You can buy it anytime you want with your own money. What does this have to do with right to free speech, religion, etc.?
You probably think we need another Asian country like Japan, mimicking Western culture in a bastardized way, while slowly destroying their own (Japan actually does have problems getting younger generations to keep certain traditions alive (tea ceremony, etc.)).
And your problem with leaving things to individual free will is...? Are you saying young people have to remain confined to the cultural practices of the older generations? If Starbucks coffee tastes or works better than traditional Japanese green tea, then may their tea ceremonies go the way of the dinosaur.
If you feel so threatened by the cultural encroachment of Western society and the alternatives and choices that it brings to your narrow little world, then why don't you join Al-Qaeda, or a Chinese equivalent of it?
Let them decide what lives up to their local standards of decency, and save us all a whole lot of time, trouble and money.
Yes, let them--the *entire* citizenry--and not just the power elite decide.
Don't you feel just a tad hypocritical publicly spouting your opinion on such matters, while denying a billion and a half other fellow citizens of your country, mostly with dissenting views, the right to do the same?
I say let the Chinese government govern their people however they want.
I thought governments are supposed to serve the people that they represent, and not vice-versa. Are the citizens of the country supposed to be the personal slaves to be rounded up and herded like farm animals by those in power or something?
that's the only thing a multinational corp will listen to. And its far more effective than a violent protest at a WTO convention.
Organize boycotts, and create consumer awareness programs if you want the sweatshops to stop. They'll listen to the bucks, but probably won't listen to a bunch of angry tree huggers.
And since when did your average Joe Buck-Spending Yuppie have such an overwhelming social conscience? He's more concerned about his own well being and that of his own kids, than of some dark-skinned kid half a world away. If it means children elsewhere suffer for the prosperity and well being of his own family, that's good enough for him.
Most people I know are against globalization. Even Americans who stand to gain the most. In the last 20 years, we have seen Europe replace its cafes and coffee shops with McDonalds and Starbucks.
Local forms of clothing have been replaced with baseball hats and blue jeans.
And religion has been replaced with shallow consumerism.
So let them pick and choose, whether it comes to fast food, brands of coffee, clothing, or spiritual fulfillment. Opening up the borders only opens us up to more choices.
We'd rather make our own choices, rather than leave it to you, the Taliban, the Christian Coalition, or any other oppressive forces to limit our choices or make them for us.
It won't happen. As long as humans are emotional beings, there will always be many who will look to some sort of a spiritual escape from the rational, material, factual world.
Hopefully, with globalization, like with other consumer goods, one day, one will be able to comparison shop and pick and choose the spiritual fulfillment of their liking from a wide range of available choices, regardless of geographic location, instead having one forced upon by the powers that be that run the state.
This, I imagine, is one of Osama bin Laden's biggest fears.
Don't forget.
Bin Laden has stated that driving the American forces out of the 'holyland' of Saudi Arabia (with the two 'holiest' sites Mecca and Median) was his primary mission.
Like with the Palestinian situation, OBL also uses the plight of fellow Muslims starving in Iraq as another rallying point to drum up support for his movement.
What's more, he has been known to mention western "cultural imperialism" (ie. the spread of democratic, secular cultural influences) into the Muslim world as one of his grievances.
The aim of the Al-Qaeda movement is to bring every Islamic country around the world under strict Islamic (nb. not democratic) rule. If they were such "freedom fighters", would they ban television and other media of mass communication through the government that they propped up in what has become of Afghanistan?
Does this mean nerds adept at playing video games and computer flight simulators will be operating the fighter jets from remote controls in the future, instead of the kinds of brave, tough men who fought conventional wars in the past?
The problem with this "million monkey" approach is, only a few amount to anything, and the rest just end up wasting their lives and a great deal of resources away for nothing.
Those million monkeys could just as well be put into golf courses to practise their swings, in hopes to find one that can play better than Tiger Woods.
And just why do we have to keep building up this scientific/technological monster and keep bowing to it at the altar forever? I think the fact that the IT industry has taken a tumble in recent times is testament to the fact that the public has grown sick and tired of the neverending advances in sci and tech, and don't want to spend their entire lives just trying to keep up. Market forces have spoken and leveled it off, without the need for torches and pitchforks.
The parents should be expected to lead by example, or be exposed as hypocrites.
Wouldn't they at the very least provide some measure of protection, such as contacting school staff to look out for you, or consider homeschooling as an option?
No, we don't want to risk creating a human with the head of a fly.
Let's also not forget that we're dealing with 60's technology here. How much stronger would the radiation have to be to work with the transmission/reception mechanisms available at the time? Weren't microwave ovens also first developed in the 50's or 60's, but didn't become widespread until much later due to safety concerns? Weren't TV's developed before the 1970's also notorious for emitting high levels of radiation? With these considerations, perhaps it was a good thing cell phones and other microwave technology didn't become common until recently.
MP3 files, are not necessarily that of pirated music, and therefore are not all necessarily illegal, and therefore such a case would not hold up in court anyways. Like having or making a bong in itself is not enough to incriminate you, regardless of its most common use. It's the substance you put into it that they'll have to bust you for, and not the medium of consumption itself.
Why? There are so many freebies out there on the Internet. Why can't they just look around more (namely the alt.binaries.{pictures,multimedia}.erotic* newsgroups) so they won't have to pay and risk exposing important credit card and other identifying information to unscrupulous merchants and hackers for spank fuel?
<i>
"There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else there's Blastercard"
</i>
<p>
Actually, make that MasterCRUD. The words should start with the same letters as much as possible, and by using words such as as 'crud' to describe their product, it would be a good way to hit back at the nitpickers.
Since when does the British government meddle in the operations of the football league in the UK?
Is Discovery Channel not good enough?
I think they should be the ones showing these robotics competitions, not MTV and Comedy Central. Even ESPN2 would be more appropriate (since it is competition).
[Comment from a geekgirl here? Maybe something about how if a push-up bra or whatever keeps the man you want from being dazzled by a
bimbo it's well worth it.]
and yet in another (as directed to men), it says:
But don't pretend you're rich if you aren't. There's nothing cheesier than a poser.
So why is it okay for a woman to be a poser, but not a man?
So in other words, most people of either gender are whores, but we men are expected to be too dignified to show it, whereas gold digging is the accepted norm for women.
I'm sorry if this sounds mysogynistic, but there is some realistic basis to this observation.