My answer to the question is no. Wikipedia's biggest flaw is that the admins simply can not stop a large biased mob of editors trying to keep the article biased. Just look at all the articles related to Ayn Rand. All of them are in some way slanted in favor of Rand and/or her fans because a mob of her fans keep it in perpetual bias. So far, I haven't found one admin who's willing to deal with the problem; all of them have told me that it's too big of a mess for them to handle, or flat out refused to do anything. Knowing that Jimbo is one of Rand's cult followers, I've gotten suspicious of whether or not he's got a hand in this.
Instead of making America take more drugs and waste more money, how about they just ban high fructose corn syrup? We might not have the big diabetes epidemic we have right now if we stopped filling all our food with such a dangerous sweetener. But of course, our government is more concerned with the "rights" of big business than the well-being of the people that it supposedly serves. And those pharmacutical companies that "donate" to our politicians stand to make a larger killing off of this than they would with an actual good plan.
Maybe the best on American TV, but the independent news is still better than what you see on TV, and is thus better as far as news goes. (And no, that's not an insult to The Daily Show.)
I don't see how a party that wants to end public education and other needed social services counts as decent. Not to mention the fact that they believe in absolute free trade in the face of the sweatshop crisis. Sure, you'll get uncensored games if they run the country, but unless you're rich your kids won't have an education.
If you think the Gores, Clintons, or Liberman are on the left, you haven't learned what the real left is like. Kucinich, Feingold, Nader and others like them are on the left. Tipper and her ilk are just centrists posing as leftists.
This is not some monolithic "the left" as you assume it to be; this is one small group that does not represent the whole. Nice job on stereotyping everyone on the left with that one.
And right wing terrorism is actually a bigger threat. There is a much greater number of religious fundimentalists (both Islamic and Christian) in this country than there are animal rights extremists. You are just sensationalizing this article for your own political ends.
And yes, I do worry about Christians killing people, especially when you claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill someone yourself. And as a reminder, Christianity doesn't teach you to kill; it teaches you to turn the other cheek. Maybe you could try to arrest them instead?
And the more you kill, the more will rise up against you. You assume that everyone in our society who isn't an animal rights extremist is going to stand by and let you kill people when the death penalty is already a very contoversial topic. You are risking the ire of various fronts, not just the one you oppose.
Might I add, your method of killing people is quite similar to how it is done in fascist states. This would not go unnoticed by the general public, and would likely lead to some form of civil unrest.
Oddly enough, the US government also teaches us this same might-means-right attitude. When we invade other countries and perform terroris... excuse me, "liberation" - on them, we only serve to teach our people that terrorism can be justified so long as you believe it is right. Thus, we get terrorists who are not just Islamic fundimentalists, but also Christian fundimentalists, animal rights extremists, neo-nazis, and a whole host of other wierdos who hadn't been as big of a threat as they are now.
And please note that I know these threats existed before the Iraq invasion; America has invaded other countries before Iraq on similar grounds, though. Those other invasions were just (mostly) forgotten by our short-term collective memories.
You do understand that there is a fair trade market, right? That not everything you can buy is made thorugh terrible working conditions? Don't get me wrong, I know there are companies out there like American Apperel that claim "Sweatshop Free" yet still don't respect worker's rights (AA is notoriously anti-union, to the point of staging anti-union protests by forcing workers to pose for the media as being anti-union), but the fair trade industry does exist, and many of us relatively rich people do buy from them. Granted, America is slow to adopt ethical purchasing into our currently poor ethical boundaries, but we are making some progress.
And yes, it is hard to introduce worker's rights into an anti-worker environment. However, you don't have to have your shop in China. You could set up shop somewhere else, where the laws allow you to respect the workers. Don't blame the consumer when you haven't even tried everything you can to solve the problem.
When Libertarians want to take away our public education, welfare (which protects us from a proletariat revolt ala the Russian Revolution), and other public services, there's an obvious reason why nobody who knows politics votes for them.
Actually, while Scientology doesn't have commercials, there are commercials for Dianetics, which is a part of Scientology. They don't come on TV as much as they did in the early-mid 1990s, but you still see them now and then.
One black man represents the experiences of all blakc people for you? Your example is worthless because it is nothing more than your own experience versus the much wider experience of black Americans as a whole.
First of all, don't push the old myth that affirmative action involves quotas. Quotas are illegal in the US, and are never used for affirmative action. Take the time to look up how it actually works.
Second of all, you are forgetting that the US still has a huge racism problem. We need affirmative action because minorities are still unfairly excluded from jobs. Maybe you haven't experienced it yourself, but if you're white then you likely never will.
Bush Sr. carried on Reagan's campaign into the 90s. The campaign was a notorious failure, with no significant reduction in drug use at all. Even celebrities in favor of it turned to drugs themselves. Was it the "Just Say No" campaign's fault that crack came into being? No, but it was its fault that America was not prepared to handle it.
The problem with the "Just Say NO" campaign is that it doesn't take into account addiction. Addicts aren't able to "just say no"; they need treatment. The "Just Say NO" campaign only existed as an excuse to decrease the amount of government spending on mental health. On that it worked, but at the price of increased drug use across the country (which explains the early 90s crack epidemic).
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need...
on
Explorer Destroyer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There's no guarantee that this will cause another monoculture. AS Firefox becomes more popular, people will likely see that they have more choices for browsers (rather than the old IE = internet mentality). Over time, other browsers will be embraced based on how well they compete with Firefox. And unlike with IE, Firefox is actually competing fairly.
This is nothing new to me. Recently, East Bay Ray (or someone representing him) has been "cleaning up" articles related to the Dead Kennedys (including the one about Jello Biafra, which I was the main contributor to). I exposed him for what he did, reverted all his changes, and now he's bitching about how I'm allowing bias and misinformation into the article just because I mentioned what his courtroom opponent (Biafra) thinks of his current business venture. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this in the future.
Democrats are mostly centrists, not liberals, and definitely not progressives (how many of those do they have, two?). Centrists aren't half as pro-environment as they'd like you to believe; in fact, they aren't far off from the Republicans.
If there is any product that proves the free market has flaws, it's weapons. Do you really want any psycho or terrorist to have a chance to own his very own tank, fighter jet, or nuke? It's bad enough that the stockpile of weapons made during the Cold War gets sold off to nutcases in countries we'll eventually be going to war with. It'll be even worse if every threat to the safety of our country is allowed to buy military-grade weapons on the so-called "free" market.
Citing references and demanding references helps to get rid of myths and half-truths. If Wikipedians did this more often, the articles would be more accurate.
Given that there has been a controversy over whether or not video games are art, especially on Slashdot, a game such as this (which seems to be trying to achieve the merits of art) would be worth mentioning here.
Slashdot Mirror
My answer to the question is no. Wikipedia's biggest flaw is that the admins simply can not stop a large biased mob of editors trying to keep the article biased. Just look at all the articles related to Ayn Rand. All of them are in some way slanted in favor of Rand and/or her fans because a mob of her fans keep it in perpetual bias. So far, I haven't found one admin who's willing to deal with the problem; all of them have told me that it's too big of a mess for them to handle, or flat out refused to do anything. Knowing that Jimbo is one of Rand's cult followers, I've gotten suspicious of whether or not he's got a hand in this.
Instead of making America take more drugs and waste more money, how about they just ban high fructose corn syrup? We might not have the big diabetes epidemic we have right now if we stopped filling all our food with such a dangerous sweetener. But of course, our government is more concerned with the "rights" of big business than the well-being of the people that it supposedly serves. And those pharmacutical companies that "donate" to our politicians stand to make a larger killing off of this than they would with an actual good plan.
Michael Crichton is to science fiction what intelligent design is to science.
Maybe the best on American TV, but the independent news is still better than what you see on TV, and is thus better as far as news goes. (And no, that's not an insult to The Daily Show.)
I don't see how a party that wants to end public education and other needed social services counts as decent. Not to mention the fact that they believe in absolute free trade in the face of the sweatshop crisis. Sure, you'll get uncensored games if they run the country, but unless you're rich your kids won't have an education.
If you think the Gores, Clintons, or Liberman are on the left, you haven't learned what the real left is like. Kucinich, Feingold, Nader and others like them are on the left. Tipper and her ilk are just centrists posing as leftists.
This is not some monolithic "the left" as you assume it to be; this is one small group that does not represent the whole. Nice job on stereotyping everyone on the left with that one.
And right wing terrorism is actually a bigger threat. There is a much greater number of religious fundimentalists (both Islamic and Christian) in this country than there are animal rights extremists. You are just sensationalizing this article for your own political ends.
And yes, I do worry about Christians killing people, especially when you claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill someone yourself. And as a reminder, Christianity doesn't teach you to kill; it teaches you to turn the other cheek. Maybe you could try to arrest them instead?
And the more you kill, the more will rise up against you. You assume that everyone in our society who isn't an animal rights extremist is going to stand by and let you kill people when the death penalty is already a very contoversial topic. You are risking the ire of various fronts, not just the one you oppose.
Might I add, your method of killing people is quite similar to how it is done in fascist states. This would not go unnoticed by the general public, and would likely lead to some form of civil unrest.
Oddly enough, the US government also teaches us this same might-means-right attitude. When we invade other countries and perform terroris... excuse me, "liberation" - on them, we only serve to teach our people that terrorism can be justified so long as you believe it is right. Thus, we get terrorists who are not just Islamic fundimentalists, but also Christian fundimentalists, animal rights extremists, neo-nazis, and a whole host of other wierdos who hadn't been as big of a threat as they are now.
And please note that I know these threats existed before the Iraq invasion; America has invaded other countries before Iraq on similar grounds, though. Those other invasions were just (mostly) forgotten by our short-term collective memories.
You demand violence to stop violence that was meant to stop violence. You do realize your idea only helps the problem spiral, right?
You do understand that there is a fair trade market, right? That not everything you can buy is made thorugh terrible working conditions? Don't get me wrong, I know there are companies out there like American Apperel that claim "Sweatshop Free" yet still don't respect worker's rights (AA is notoriously anti-union, to the point of staging anti-union protests by forcing workers to pose for the media as being anti-union), but the fair trade industry does exist, and many of us relatively rich people do buy from them. Granted, America is slow to adopt ethical purchasing into our currently poor ethical boundaries, but we are making some progress.
And yes, it is hard to introduce worker's rights into an anti-worker environment. However, you don't have to have your shop in China. You could set up shop somewhere else, where the laws allow you to respect the workers. Don't blame the consumer when you haven't even tried everything you can to solve the problem.
When Libertarians want to take away our public education, welfare (which protects us from a proletariat revolt ala the Russian Revolution), and other public services, there's an obvious reason why nobody who knows politics votes for them.
Actually, while Scientology doesn't have commercials, there are commercials for Dianetics, which is a part of Scientology. They don't come on TV as much as they did in the early-mid 1990s, but you still see them now and then.
That's because it still exists. In truth, we aren't sensitive enough to it.
One black man represents the experiences of all blakc people for you? Your example is worthless because it is nothing more than your own experience versus the much wider experience of black Americans as a whole.
Spy vs Spy, draughts, chess, and a Pint of Guinness never use race; they just use color. The PSP ad used race specifically.
First of all, don't push the old myth that affirmative action involves quotas. Quotas are illegal in the US, and are never used for affirmative action. Take the time to look up how it actually works. Second of all, you are forgetting that the US still has a huge racism problem. We need affirmative action because minorities are still unfairly excluded from jobs. Maybe you haven't experienced it yourself, but if you're white then you likely never will.
Bush Sr. carried on Reagan's campaign into the 90s. The campaign was a notorious failure, with no significant reduction in drug use at all. Even celebrities in favor of it turned to drugs themselves. Was it the "Just Say No" campaign's fault that crack came into being? No, but it was its fault that America was not prepared to handle it.
The problem with the "Just Say NO" campaign is that it doesn't take into account addiction. Addicts aren't able to "just say no"; they need treatment. The "Just Say NO" campaign only existed as an excuse to decrease the amount of government spending on mental health. On that it worked, but at the price of increased drug use across the country (which explains the early 90s crack epidemic).
There's no guarantee that this will cause another monoculture. AS Firefox becomes more popular, people will likely see that they have more choices for browsers (rather than the old IE = internet mentality). Over time, other browsers will be embraced based on how well they compete with Firefox. And unlike with IE, Firefox is actually competing fairly.
This is nothing new to me. Recently, East Bay Ray (or someone representing him) has been "cleaning up" articles related to the Dead Kennedys (including the one about Jello Biafra, which I was the main contributor to). I exposed him for what he did, reverted all his changes, and now he's bitching about how I'm allowing bias and misinformation into the article just because I mentioned what his courtroom opponent (Biafra) thinks of his current business venture. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this in the future.
Democrats are mostly centrists, not liberals, and definitely not progressives (how many of those do they have, two?). Centrists aren't half as pro-environment as they'd like you to believe; in fact, they aren't far off from the Republicans.
If there is any product that proves the free market has flaws, it's weapons. Do you really want any psycho or terrorist to have a chance to own his very own tank, fighter jet, or nuke? It's bad enough that the stockpile of weapons made during the Cold War gets sold off to nutcases in countries we'll eventually be going to war with. It'll be even worse if every threat to the safety of our country is allowed to buy military-grade weapons on the so-called "free" market.
Citing references and demanding references helps to get rid of myths and half-truths. If Wikipedians did this more often, the articles would be more accurate.
Given that there has been a controversy over whether or not video games are art, especially on Slashdot, a game such as this (which seems to be trying to achieve the merits of art) would be worth mentioning here.