Well, I agree that Steam may be doing things better. It still does not negate the fact that the majority of Desktops are already Windows. Moving to Linux for most people will mean that either: 1) They keep a Windows system or 2) They lose all their Windows Stuff.
Dual boot is not something most people will do, so a viable alternative but not realistic.
Again, I think it's great. I supported Loki when I could because I wanted to see more people in Linux in addition to using Linux much more than Windows (work forces me there). I'm just not confident it will take off. Loki was only a few months behind most Video games at the time, and some came out with Windows games (RailRoad Tycoon II). It didn't happen mostly because people see it as a much higher cost alternative to a game console.
I don't have much hope. Not that long ago there was a company called Loki that ported tons of games to Linux. I bought at least 4 of them. They were well do e ports, east to install and run, same price as windows games though not what we would call "new" releases. Not enough interest from the Linux community I reckon, because after about a year they went under.
most game houses make money by volume and Linux simply does not have much desktop volume. Better than 5 years ago? Sure, but enough to support development of games? I am not so sure.
Bullshit. I've been standing around telling people what a bad idea some of this technology is. Now who's getting personal?
Wait, you have a TV Show during prime time? Radio show? Yes, I am being a smart ass because you either completely miss the concept of advertising and how we are forced to listen to it, or choose to ignore a presented reality. I don't care how many people "you" sit and talk to about the dangers of technology unless you can hit the volume that every TV News caster does when they state "Follow us on Twitter" or "Follow us on Facebook".
They do NOT play a massive role in my life. They really don't. If they play a massive role in yours (this time meant personally), then that's a choice you have made. I have made a different choice. My favorite piece of music is 300 years old, and I only pay attention to the advertising that I choose.
Again with the me and you thing? Really, I opened showing the perspective I was looking at. Your Well, I also thought it was pretty clear that I meant "you" in a generic, non-personal sense seems a bit wishy washy, or is it only you that is allowed to make generalizations?
We are? Does your child have a class in "how to consume fast food"? I don't know what you're trying to say here. In our local schools, kids take woodshop as they always have, or "Home Ec" (the name varies from place to place) just like they always have. I have no idea what "modern alternatives" you are referring to.
What the hell are you talking about in your first sentence? I tried to be civil and you turn everything back in personal attack instead of holding a dialogue.
Most schools don't have Home Ec requirements any more. Most schools don't have Shops any more, at least not in the two States where my kid went to school. Home Ec was optional in California, but didn't exist in Michigan. He did have some nifty electronics classes and learned quite a bit about circuitry. I was not outright dismissing the alternatives or claiming they are bad, I asked a question. You take it as a personal affront for some reason.
Methinks you are a little bit paranoid. Repeat: I was using YOU in a generic sense. As in "IF you are complaining about X, then stop because it's a choice you made." Aimed at the general readership. I have only made one personal comment, I labeled it as such, and it was pretty mild.
Using "you" in the form of attack like "It's your own damn fault" is still an attack on "me". Claiming it's a generalization like "they" or "those people" after the fact is not a correction.
It seems that there is some very confusing dialogue on your end. When I use a generalization you take it as a personal attack. When I mentioned advertising, you claimed "you" are not impacted. When you use a generalization, even in the form of "your" it's supposed to not be personal? Pick a method if you really want dialogue. I can easily switch to longer terminology if generalizations become confusing, but be consistent.
As mentioned previously, I'm not claiming it's all bad. I'm claiming that we do have massive corporations at least appearing to try and make people dependents. We have a Government mandated education system that is facilitating that dependency on technology, and an advertising system reinforcing those teachings.
I agree that in the long run "we" are responsible for ourselves and our kids. But we live in a society, and that means that there is at least some shared responsibility among members of this society. I never claimed you were wrong, I claimed I agreed with you, but I offered a line of thinking that backs the authors point in the book for contemplation primarily because I recently contemplated a very similar line of thinking.
Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears.
No it doesn't. Case law allows the presentation of a similar case to make ruling without addressing the merits of the current case. The wording of a law is what defines that Law, or at lest what is supposed to define the law. Case Law allows the courts to not make decisions, it allows them to use similar enough previously decided cases to determine every aspect of a current case (without accountability for previous rulings right or wrong, hearing the current case and evidence, etc..).
On the surface, this saves time in court. What it did however is allows shitty rulings to be passed down the chain.
No, it's not useless. We use case law currently to make it difficult to repeal laws (in addition to other things) because cases have been ruled previously that claim "you can't repeal this law". When those cases are sited, judges can drop making a ruling and rule exactly how the previous case was ruled.
I come from a family of heavy drinkers and fighters. Interestingly, and maybe because we are more southerly than northerly, we don't fight each other. I have seen guns pulled on uninvited guests, and once on someone walking down the street. Never saw anyone in my family fight with another member of the family. And no, there is no incestuous activities either.. we are not from that far south.
This is the mess we have put ourselves in in the last 30 years. Bad laws are not repealed, and due to case law limitations they are nearly impossible to repeal. By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.
If you think this is crazy you are not alone. A Lawyer would probably spit nails at this, but the corruption we see in Government has also been happening in Law. Except that in Law it has been happing for much longer. The corrupted Government could never have become so entrenched in a clean legal system.
We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits. We also need to get rid of numerous corrupt judges and justices, and start doing what you suggest in repealing laws. One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.
Yes, you are correct that there must be breeding with other small tribes. No, this does not take away their ability to survive without outside intervention. While I agree with the technicality of your point, it does not in any way change mine.
First and foremost, I'm using "we" and "our" in very loose terms to discuss the implications to society as a whole, not my own personal experience. I do actually have military trained survival skills, but the _majority_ of US citizens do not. I'm sure that other people have equivalent skills to mine, and probably better from various teachings. That is not the majority of society though, those numbers are rather small. That said, the skills I have are not enough to smith a pot. I could survive, I could not prosper.
If you decide to be dependent on that technology, that's your problem. Don't blame it on the technology. Technology isn't "putting us on a pivot", people are. And they have a choice.
Your claim is like setting a bunch of booze around a bunch of teenagers, telling them over and over again how great it will make them, then claiming it's their own stupid fault after they get drunk and sick.
Media and advertising, like it or not, play a massive role in our lives. TV and Radio push people toward video games, movies, celebrity news, and social media.
I'm sure that you will claim "It's a parents fault for putting their kid in front of a TV to begin with". Which ignores the other more recent changes in society where many people have to work 2 jobs, most 2 parent families must have both parents working, and morality changes resulting in record single parent homes (The last having nothing to do with LGBT issues either, just in case someone decided to toss out a herring).
How many kids have a home economics class today and learn to sew? Cook? Wood work? Yes, we are teaching what we call "modern" alternatives in schools, but at what real cost?
The world is not about me but society as a whole. I'm not claiming everyone should learn an old school trade, I'm claiming we should consider the implications of not having people trained, and coercing people away from even looking.
As much as people hate to admit it science can be just as bad as anyone else with sensationalizing what they think will sell, even if that means factual inaccuracies.
Given that a small community of 20-30 people was not that uncommon 150 years ago in the US, you are wrong to claim that we never could. There are numerous small tribes in Africa today which are self sufficient and require no magic technology to aide them in "living". Where they have problems in Africa today, many of these are caused by corporate intervention and ownership.
I make no claim that their lifestyle is better or worse than ours, but rather pointing out that they can and could survive in low populations without Googling "Is this plant toxic?". We can not, and would have great difficulty in doing so.
Another thought is that you seem to completely miss the point in the mental exercise. It's not about surviving if a 5000 foot wave swamps your home or that you are already living without technology and a plague ship comes to harbor. It's a question of surviving without the technology we have all grown dependent on in a very short time. If you have no ability to generate electricity you soon have no gas for vehicles, no phones, no food, no medical treatments, etc...
I agree with your point, but not completely. I read something the other day which I thought was a good perspective. The question is posed by many people in many ways, and I honestly never stopped to think about the question in depth. The question without further babbling preamble is: Why have we recently thrown away thousands of years of evolution?
How many of us today could survive for any length of time in the event of a catastrophe? Most people will probably "claim" to be able to, but lets look at everything required if a solar flare wiped out the worlds electricity. Gather and sanitize water is an obvious first thing, and while most of us could find some water how many could build a pot or still to sanitize water? Gather, hunt, and plant food. Again, many people claim they can hunt, but meat alone will make you sickly in a short time. Know what mushrooms and tree bark you can eat? Medicine is another biggie. Know what plants can help you heal or take away pain, make you vomit or prevent you from vomiting? How about building shelter, or establishing a community so that you don't have to hold all the knowledge yourself?
The concern from the person that posed the question was not simply that we don't know how to do these things. The concern is that we have big giant corporations telling you that you don't need to know how to do them. Governments have become as dependent on the same technology as you and I have. That technology is frivolous and detaches people from what is required for life. Even worse is that its being pushed so that people forget thousands of years of learning, to not just how to survive but to prosper.
While I agree with your premise, I happen to also agree with the author. If the technology puts us on a pivot where we either massively die or have easy access to entertainment, it will swing to the one that make a couple people the most money.
I believe that your "reverse" comment prior to the ordering was what became confused. Apologies for confusing the statement, in my head I reversed then looked at the order instead of taking them as two separate and similar statements.
You're only backtracking because you made an assumption and were proven wrong. Where do you think I get my information from?
No backtracking at all, stop the fallacy. I showed that you were incorrect. Do you think that the same poor logic is only on 1 outlet? You think there is no AP reporting in the New York Post, MSNBC, or that the US Government has no control of journalists other than Fox? You are wrong, absolutely wrong.
This is not what Bob said or Jim said. You keep dodging the fact that Boehner admitted to a journalist that he made a deal with Reid. Despite all his assertions about how it was about funding and how the Democrats aren't willing to budge, he admitted he made a deal to pass Obamacare months ago. He should own up that he reneged because he felt removing Obamacare was worth shutting down the government. Since he reneged that explains why the Democrats are unwilling to negotiate further. That's the consequence when you go back on your word.
Whether or not that happened, and since Boehner stated it happened I have no reason to doubt it, it has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Obamacare (ACA). Nothing! You claimed it was constitutional because of the Supreme Court ruling. I claimed and demonstrated that the Supreme Court is corrupt, and you ignore it repeating the above statement or claiming "no, they can't be corrupt". You offer no counter to the statements I made, you simply claim "nuh uh".
To the Constitutionality of the plan, I gave alternative sources of Constitutional Law. You claim you don't need one, which means you don't care about anything but your opinion.
You also called SCOTUS anti-American (which said Obamacare was constitutional). But SCOTUS has to be anti-American and corrupt in your world. Their law degrees and years of experience are nothing compare to your legal opinion, right? It would destroy your world that you have to admit people who have expertise in something disagree with you, then you might be wrong.
Actions like Citizens United, the passing of the NDA, and hundreds of other examples exist to demonstrate that as true. Not just Obamacare. Again, I gave two external sources for review. One of them is a Doctor and an expert on constitutional law. You ignore them, and simply repeat the same lie.
More simply, it's not my opinion alone that people in power are destroying the USA. Quixley, Allen, Paul, Freedmon, Dice, Jones are all names that will show you different views based on facts and actions. Quixley and Allen are perhaps the most interesting, Jones take about half of his work with a grain of salt.
If you don't care to see a different point of view, why debate? Just be happy in your belief and move on! Arguing "but Boehner said" over and over won't change my beliefs. I heard it, read it, and see where it fits in the big picture. That big picture is based on decades of study and fact checking people like Allen and Quixley, Jones and Dice, etc..
For that particular dissection, I was in a school in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That said, it was an American school [graded.br], so I figured the curriculum wouldn't deviate that much from the norm here. And I wasn't wrong, read on.
Reading the guidelines is not the same as attending the schools and knowing what is done. At least I was correct in one of my assumptions. Public schools in the US will not use live frogs, it does not happen. Another thing you are incorrect on is the age, because Middle school in the US is grades 5-6, not 3rd grade. Children below the age of 10, as previously stated, will _not_ perform any dissection in public schools. 6th grade is usually starfish and worms, Frogs may come in grades 7-12. In all cases, these dissections are optional and students can opt out or the parents can opt out for their children.
As previously mentioned, this is because performing a dissection is a traumatic experience. It has nothing to do with PETA as you incorrectly claim. PETA may also disagree with dissection, but the omissions for dissection came about long before PETA existed (1960s).
Hey, look! [smugmug.com] Pictures of a frog dissection in a US elementary school in third grade! So they still do that, at least. Did you even bother doing a search before deciding to call me a liar? Or did you, once again, decide that whatever education experience you had when growing up was the exact same everyone else had?
Did you not notice that the school you linked pictures from claiming "everyone does it" is a private school? My kid went to private school, and that school did very different things from public school. Since most of his friends were in Public school, I'm very familiar with the curriculum and aging for tasks. I have nieces and nephews that attended only public school, so again I have first hand knowledge.
I did not call you a liar, I stated that you were incorrect. There is enough difference between those two things to be concerned about, which is why I mention it. You incorrectly assume that your experience matches everyone else, and that is not the case (interesting that this is the same thing you are accusing me of, yet your experience is in Brazil and Google). You were not in a US school, and seem to have no first hand knowledge of the US public school system.
Fox is more factual than the BBC? I'm not claiming that the BBC is "good" mind you, but Fox has as much credibility to me as "The Star". This is the company that fought up through the US Supreme Court that "News is Entertainment" and that they had no journalistic responsibility to show people factual information on the "News." Sadly they won...
The other aspect of Avatar to study is the message regarding trans-humanism. Avatar is not the only example of this, more recently there is a Vogue series with Google Glass holding similar messages. These are just two examples, but the overall theme is that is trans-humanism is good and godly, while remaining human is bad.
No, I'm accepting reality over *your* belief. There's a difference. Not all movies about war have been put out to "sell war" or spread FUD.
This is not a very good straw man. You use that straw man to categorically deny something that is factual and documented. Hell, even Hollywood admits that they made movies and generated propaganda to sell the wars up to Vietnam. If they did so from WW I through Vietnam, what makes you think that they magically stopped in the last 10 years? No, don't answer that because I really don't want to know what you believe.
Don't bother posting more fallacies to support your delusion. Read facts put out by the FOA and Hollywood, then come back and talk.
Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.
In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
You are going to try and deny reality that is proven over your belief? Really? It is no secret that Hollywood worked for the MIC during WW II, The Korean War, and Vietnam War. This fact is most definitely not a conspiracy, it is reality. This is a reality you may not wish to hear or see, but the reality does exist.
If you knew of a book that showed how advertising uses subliminal messaging would you change your mind and consider that it could also happen in movies, or hide from that reality too? Here, Here, Here, and Here for starters. Those are just the tip of the iceberg mind you, and found in a 5 second Google search.
Denying reality to maintain a delusion is fine because we all do this. When you post in a public forum you are trying to persuade others to live in your delusion, and that is not fine.
For posterity, we all have delusions. It's how we make sense of the world and rationalize what we don't understand. Please don't take that comment as labeling you or insulting you, as that was not the intent.
Well, you touch on something pretty obvious which is close to what I was going to state. This movie, like the other mentioned Zuckerberg film, is a propaganda tool.
The MIC, as you mentioned, does have ties to Hollywood. Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US. Those ties have grown in the last couple decades, and its honestly rare not to find propaganda in movies (if you look). The themes, items shown, etc... are all done intentionally. People argue that it's "all for money" and all the connections to propaganda are accidental, but would a studio full of professional's making multiple millions of dollars really be doing things "accidentally"? By the way, many books are the same way. They must be vetted and rewritten to suite someone's taste and not just the story the Author is trying to present.
So Assange is shown as a person to hate in this movie. Zuckerberg, even though there is much controversy about his beginnings and what he stole to get a company going, was presented as a good guy. Those are the messages they want people to get out of the movie. Whistle blowers are evil bad people, while those that hand all your data to the Government are the good guys.
There is much to study in subliminal messages in movies. Numerous books are out there showing how they do things, in addition to videos showing you what you may have missed seeing in movies but your subconscious picks up.
I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
Uh...the frog is alive when you dissect it, not dead. And you're cutting it up. You get to see its heart beating, the lungs moving. I don't see how it's different at all.
I'm not sure what country you went to school in, but in the US we use frogs that are already dead and soaked in preservatives. Kids don't kill their own frogs, and surely don't cut them open alive to watch their living hearts beat.
Your claim about being 9 does not match any school in the US either, so you are either from somewhere else making false claims regarding US Education, or simply not telling the truth. Prior to Junior High school, kids see pictures in Biology books and maybe (and it's a big maybe depending on the school) see a computer program that allows virtual dissection.
My point is that it's not the action that is bad or good, but the motivation. If you cut the limb of the cockroach just to watch it suffer and hop around without a limb, that's very bad. That's the action to which there's all that correlation with later violent crimes that you're talking about. If you perform surgery on an anesthetized cockroach in order to learn about it, that's not bad. Because you're trying to minimize the suffering, and you're doing something to learn about it. And it absolutely is necessary to perform the action in order to learn it, the same way the a kid will learn a lot more doing the dissection of the frog himself than watching a video of it.
In this case you are talking about something other than mutilation for effect. Dissecting to educate is not the same thing as ripping something open to attach wires and make it work.
I think we could agree that we simply lack the information currently to make an educated statement on if or how this would impact a person's development. I'm sure a teacher's perspective when teaching could make all the difference in the world. The problem of course is that teachers are not supposed to be teaching morality and often get in trouble if they do.
I still question why this was built this way, when there are viable alternatives that would never bring up the question. Most technology has a similar ability to be seen as good, yet used for very bad things. We have always crossed the line with technology. Computers have been used to spy on everyone, atomic energy has been used to kill and threaten, sound has been used for propaganda and weaponry in addition to education and entertainment, the same can be said with radar and microwaves.
I'm not anti-tech mind you, nor am I anti-education.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I agree that Steam may be doing things better. It still does not negate the fact that the majority of Desktops are already Windows. Moving to Linux for most people will mean that either: 1) They keep a Windows system or 2) They lose all their Windows Stuff.
Dual boot is not something most people will do, so a viable alternative but not realistic.
Again, I think it's great. I supported Loki when I could because I wanted to see more people in Linux in addition to using Linux much more than Windows (work forces me there). I'm just not confident it will take off. Loki was only a few months behind most Video games at the time, and some came out with Windows games (RailRoad Tycoon II). It didn't happen mostly because people see it as a much higher cost alternative to a game console.
Fair enough.
Holy lack of grammar batman! My eyes were dialated a bit ago and I was sure it looked ok...
I don't have much hope. Not that long ago there was a company called Loki that ported tons of games to Linux. I bought at least 4 of them. They were well do e ports, east to install and run, same price as windows games though not what we would call "new" releases. Not enough interest from the Linux community I reckon, because after about a year they went under.
most game houses make money by volume and Linux simply does not have much desktop volume. Better than 5 years ago? Sure, but enough to support development of games? I am not so sure.
Bullshit. I've been standing around telling people what a bad idea some of this technology is. Now who's getting personal?
Wait, you have a TV Show during prime time? Radio show? Yes, I am being a smart ass because you either completely miss the concept of advertising and how we are forced to listen to it, or choose to ignore a presented reality. I don't care how many people "you" sit and talk to about the dangers of technology unless you can hit the volume that every TV News caster does when they state "Follow us on Twitter" or "Follow us on Facebook".
They do NOT play a massive role in my life. They really don't. If they play a massive role in yours (this time meant personally), then that's a choice you have made. I have made a different choice. My favorite piece of music is 300 years old, and I only pay attention to the advertising that I choose.
Again with the me and you thing? Really, I opened showing the perspective I was looking at. Your Well, I also thought it was pretty clear that I meant "you" in a generic, non-personal sense seems a bit wishy washy, or is it only you that is allowed to make generalizations?
We are? Does your child have a class in "how to consume fast food"? I don't know what you're trying to say here. In our local schools, kids take woodshop as they always have, or "Home Ec" (the name varies from place to place) just like they always have. I have no idea what "modern alternatives" you are referring to.
What the hell are you talking about in your first sentence? I tried to be civil and you turn everything back in personal attack instead of holding a dialogue.
Most schools don't have Home Ec requirements any more. Most schools don't have Shops any more, at least not in the two States where my kid went to school. Home Ec was optional in California, but didn't exist in Michigan. He did have some nifty electronics classes and learned quite a bit about circuitry. I was not outright dismissing the alternatives or claiming they are bad, I asked a question. You take it as a personal affront for some reason.
Methinks you are a little bit paranoid. Repeat: I was using YOU in a generic sense. As in "IF you are complaining about X, then stop because it's a choice you made." Aimed at the general readership. I have only made one personal comment, I labeled it as such, and it was pretty mild.
Using "you" in the form of attack like "It's your own damn fault" is still an attack on "me". Claiming it's a generalization like "they" or "those people" after the fact is not a correction.
It seems that there is some very confusing dialogue on your end. When I use a generalization you take it as a personal attack. When I mentioned advertising, you claimed "you" are not impacted. When you use a generalization, even in the form of "your" it's supposed to not be personal? Pick a method if you really want dialogue. I can easily switch to longer terminology if generalizations become confusing, but be consistent.
As mentioned previously, I'm not claiming it's all bad. I'm claiming that we do have massive corporations at least appearing to try and make people dependents. We have a Government mandated education system that is facilitating that dependency on technology, and an advertising system reinforcing those teachings.
I agree that in the long run "we" are responsible for ourselves and our kids. But we live in a society, and that means that there is at least some shared responsibility among members of this society. I never claimed you were wrong, I claimed I agreed with you, but I offered a line of thinking that backs the authors point in the book for contemplation primarily because I recently contemplated a very similar line of thinking.
Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears.
No it doesn't. Case law allows the presentation of a similar case to make ruling without addressing the merits of the current case. The wording of a law is what defines that Law, or at lest what is supposed to define the law. Case Law allows the courts to not make decisions, it allows them to use similar enough previously decided cases to determine every aspect of a current case (without accountability for previous rulings right or wrong, hearing the current case and evidence, etc..).
On the surface, this saves time in court. What it did however is allows shitty rulings to be passed down the chain.
No, it's not useless. We use case law currently to make it difficult to repeal laws (in addition to other things) because cases have been ruled previously that claim "you can't repeal this law". When those cases are sited, judges can drop making a ruling and rule exactly how the previous case was ruled.
I come from a family of heavy drinkers and fighters. Interestingly, and maybe because we are more southerly than northerly, we don't fight each other. I have seen guns pulled on uninvited guests, and once on someone walking down the street. Never saw anyone in my family fight with another member of the family. And no, there is no incestuous activities either.. we are not from that far south.
This is the mess we have put ourselves in in the last 30 years. Bad laws are not repealed, and due to case law limitations they are nearly impossible to repeal. By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.
If you think this is crazy you are not alone. A Lawyer would probably spit nails at this, but the corruption we see in Government has also been happening in Law. Except that in Law it has been happing for much longer. The corrupted Government could never have become so entrenched in a clean legal system.
We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits. We also need to get rid of numerous corrupt judges and justices, and start doing what you suggest in repealing laws. One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.
Yes, you are correct that there must be breeding with other small tribes. No, this does not take away their ability to survive without outside intervention. While I agree with the technicality of your point, it does not in any way change mine.
First and foremost, I'm using "we" and "our" in very loose terms to discuss the implications to society as a whole, not my own personal experience. I do actually have military trained survival skills, but the _majority_ of US citizens do not. I'm sure that other people have equivalent skills to mine, and probably better from various teachings. That is not the majority of society though, those numbers are rather small. That said, the skills I have are not enough to smith a pot. I could survive, I could not prosper.
If you decide to be dependent on that technology, that's your problem. Don't blame it on the technology. Technology isn't "putting us on a pivot", people are. And they have a choice.
Your claim is like setting a bunch of booze around a bunch of teenagers, telling them over and over again how great it will make them, then claiming it's their own stupid fault after they get drunk and sick.
Media and advertising, like it or not, play a massive role in our lives. TV and Radio push people toward video games, movies, celebrity news, and social media.
I'm sure that you will claim "It's a parents fault for putting their kid in front of a TV to begin with". Which ignores the other more recent changes in society where many people have to work 2 jobs, most 2 parent families must have both parents working, and morality changes resulting in record single parent homes (The last having nothing to do with LGBT issues either, just in case someone decided to toss out a herring).
How many kids have a home economics class today and learn to sew? Cook? Wood work? Yes, we are teaching what we call "modern" alternatives in schools, but at what real cost?
The world is not about me but society as a whole. I'm not claiming everyone should learn an old school trade, I'm claiming we should consider the implications of not having people trained, and coercing people away from even looking.
As much as people hate to admit it science can be just as bad as anyone else with sensationalizing what they think will sell, even if that means factual inaccuracies.
Given that a small community of 20-30 people was not that uncommon 150 years ago in the US, you are wrong to claim that we never could. There are numerous small tribes in Africa today which are self sufficient and require no magic technology to aide them in "living". Where they have problems in Africa today, many of these are caused by corporate intervention and ownership.
I make no claim that their lifestyle is better or worse than ours, but rather pointing out that they can and could survive in low populations without Googling "Is this plant toxic?". We can not, and would have great difficulty in doing so.
Another thought is that you seem to completely miss the point in the mental exercise. It's not about surviving if a 5000 foot wave swamps your home or that you are already living without technology and a plague ship comes to harbor. It's a question of surviving without the technology we have all grown dependent on in a very short time. If you have no ability to generate electricity you soon have no gas for vehicles, no phones, no food, no medical treatments, etc...
I agree with your point, but not completely. I read something the other day which I thought was a good perspective. The question is posed by many people in many ways, and I honestly never stopped to think about the question in depth. The question without further babbling preamble is: Why have we recently thrown away thousands of years of evolution?
How many of us today could survive for any length of time in the event of a catastrophe? Most people will probably "claim" to be able to, but lets look at everything required if a solar flare wiped out the worlds electricity. Gather and sanitize water is an obvious first thing, and while most of us could find some water how many could build a pot or still to sanitize water? Gather, hunt, and plant food. Again, many people claim they can hunt, but meat alone will make you sickly in a short time. Know what mushrooms and tree bark you can eat? Medicine is another biggie. Know what plants can help you heal or take away pain, make you vomit or prevent you from vomiting? How about building shelter, or establishing a community so that you don't have to hold all the knowledge yourself?
The concern from the person that posed the question was not simply that we don't know how to do these things. The concern is that we have big giant corporations telling you that you don't need to know how to do them. Governments have become as dependent on the same technology as you and I have. That technology is frivolous and detaches people from what is required for life. Even worse is that its being pushed so that people forget thousands of years of learning, to not just how to survive but to prosper.
While I agree with your premise, I happen to also agree with the author. If the technology puts us on a pivot where we either massively die or have easy access to entertainment, it will swing to the one that make a couple people the most money.
I always enjoy that Canadian "aboot" instead of "about". Eh?
Oh wait, this is not about the business taxes in CA.
If I am wrong, I will usually apologize. Maybe not to an AC, but nearly always to a named account.
I believe that your "reverse" comment prior to the ordering was what became confused. Apologies for confusing the statement, in my head I reversed then looked at the order instead of taking them as two separate and similar statements.
You're only backtracking because you made an assumption and were proven wrong. Where do you think I get my information from?
No backtracking at all, stop the fallacy. I showed that you were incorrect. Do you think that the same poor logic is only on 1 outlet? You think there is no AP reporting in the New York Post, MSNBC, or that the US Government has no control of journalists other than Fox? You are wrong, absolutely wrong.
This is not what Bob said or Jim said. You keep dodging the fact that Boehner admitted to a journalist that he made a deal with Reid. Despite all his assertions about how it was about funding and how the Democrats aren't willing to budge, he admitted he made a deal to pass Obamacare months ago. He should own up that he reneged because he felt removing Obamacare was worth shutting down the government. Since he reneged that explains why the Democrats are unwilling to negotiate further. That's the consequence when you go back on your word.
Whether or not that happened, and since Boehner stated it happened I have no reason to doubt it, it has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of Obamacare (ACA). Nothing! You claimed it was constitutional because of the Supreme Court ruling. I claimed and demonstrated that the Supreme Court is corrupt, and you ignore it repeating the above statement or claiming "no, they can't be corrupt". You offer no counter to the statements I made, you simply claim "nuh uh".
To the Constitutionality of the plan, I gave alternative sources of Constitutional Law. You claim you don't need one, which means you don't care about anything but your opinion.
You also called SCOTUS anti-American (which said Obamacare was constitutional). But SCOTUS has to be anti-American and corrupt in your world. Their law degrees and years of experience are nothing compare to your legal opinion, right? It would destroy your world that you have to admit people who have expertise in something disagree with you, then you might be wrong.
Actions like Citizens United, the passing of the NDA, and hundreds of other examples exist to demonstrate that as true. Not just Obamacare. Again, I gave two external sources for review. One of them is a Doctor and an expert on constitutional law. You ignore them, and simply repeat the same lie.
More simply, it's not my opinion alone that people in power are destroying the USA. Quixley, Allen, Paul, Freedmon, Dice, Jones are all names that will show you different views based on facts and actions. Quixley and Allen are perhaps the most interesting, Jones take about half of his work with a grain of salt.
If you don't care to see a different point of view, why debate? Just be happy in your belief and move on! Arguing "but Boehner said" over and over won't change my beliefs. I heard it, read it, and see where it fits in the big picture. That big picture is based on decades of study and fact checking people like Allen and Quixley, Jones and Dice, etc..
For that particular dissection, I was in a school in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That said, it was an American school [graded.br], so I figured the curriculum wouldn't deviate that much from the norm here. And I wasn't wrong, read on.
Reading the guidelines is not the same as attending the schools and knowing what is done. At least I was correct in one of my assumptions. Public schools in the US will not use live frogs, it does not happen. Another thing you are incorrect on is the age, because Middle school in the US is grades 5-6, not 3rd grade. Children below the age of 10, as previously stated, will _not_ perform any dissection in public schools. 6th grade is usually starfish and worms, Frogs may come in grades 7-12. In all cases, these dissections are optional and students can opt out or the parents can opt out for their children.
As previously mentioned, this is because performing a dissection is a traumatic experience. It has nothing to do with PETA as you incorrectly claim. PETA may also disagree with dissection, but the omissions for dissection came about long before PETA existed (1960s).
Hey, look! [smugmug.com] Pictures of a frog dissection in a US elementary school in third grade! So they still do that, at least. Did you even bother doing a search before deciding to call me a liar? Or did you, once again, decide that whatever education experience you had when growing up was the exact same everyone else had?
Did you not notice that the school you linked pictures from claiming "everyone does it" is a private school? My kid went to private school, and that school did very different things from public school. Since most of his friends were in Public school, I'm very familiar with the curriculum and aging for tasks. I have nieces and nephews that attended only public school, so again I have first hand knowledge.
I did not call you a liar, I stated that you were incorrect. There is enough difference between those two things to be concerned about, which is why I mention it. You incorrectly assume that your experience matches everyone else, and that is not the case (interesting that this is the same thing you are accusing me of, yet your experience is in Brazil and Google). You were not in a US school, and seem to have no first hand knowledge of the US public school system.
Fox is more factual than the BBC? I'm not claiming that the BBC is "good" mind you, but Fox has as much credibility to me as "The Star". This is the company that fought up through the US Supreme Court that "News is Entertainment" and that they had no journalistic responsibility to show people factual information on the "News." Sadly they won...
The other aspect of Avatar to study is the message regarding trans-humanism. Avatar is not the only example of this, more recently there is a Vogue series with Google Glass holding similar messages. These are just two examples, but the overall theme is that is trans-humanism is good and godly, while remaining human is bad.
No, I'm accepting reality over *your* belief. There's a difference. Not all movies about war have been put out to "sell war" or spread FUD.
This is not a very good straw man. You use that straw man to categorically deny something that is factual and documented. Hell, even Hollywood admits that they made movies and generated propaganda to sell the wars up to Vietnam. If they did so from WW I through Vietnam, what makes you think that they magically stopped in the last 10 years? No, don't answer that because I really don't want to know what you believe.
Don't bother posting more fallacies to support your delusion. Read facts put out by the FOA and Hollywood, then come back and talk.
Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.
In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
You are going to try and deny reality that is proven over your belief? Really? It is no secret that Hollywood worked for the MIC during WW II, The Korean War, and Vietnam War. This fact is most definitely not a conspiracy, it is reality. This is a reality you may not wish to hear or see, but the reality does exist.
If you knew of a book that showed how advertising uses subliminal messaging would you change your mind and consider that it could also happen in movies, or hide from that reality too? Here, Here, Here, and Here for starters. Those are just the tip of the iceberg mind you, and found in a 5 second Google search.
Denying reality to maintain a delusion is fine because we all do this. When you post in a public forum you are trying to persuade others to live in your delusion, and that is not fine.
For posterity, we all have delusions. It's how we make sense of the world and rationalize what we don't understand. Please don't take that comment as labeling you or insulting you, as that was not the intent.
Well, you touch on something pretty obvious which is close to what I was going to state. This movie, like the other mentioned Zuckerberg film, is a propaganda tool.
The MIC, as you mentioned, does have ties to Hollywood. Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US. Those ties have grown in the last couple decades, and its honestly rare not to find propaganda in movies (if you look). The themes, items shown, etc... are all done intentionally. People argue that it's "all for money" and all the connections to propaganda are accidental, but would a studio full of professional's making multiple millions of dollars really be doing things "accidentally"? By the way, many books are the same way. They must be vetted and rewritten to suite someone's taste and not just the story the Author is trying to present.
So Assange is shown as a person to hate in this movie. Zuckerberg, even though there is much controversy about his beginnings and what he stole to get a company going, was presented as a good guy. Those are the messages they want people to get out of the movie. Whistle blowers are evil bad people, while those that hand all your data to the Government are the good guys.
There is much to study in subliminal messages in movies. Numerous books are out there showing how they do things, in addition to videos showing you what you may have missed seeing in movies but your subconscious picks up.
I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
Uh...the frog is alive when you dissect it, not dead. And you're cutting it up. You get to see its heart beating, the lungs moving. I don't see how it's different at all.
I'm not sure what country you went to school in, but in the US we use frogs that are already dead and soaked in preservatives. Kids don't kill their own frogs, and surely don't cut them open alive to watch their living hearts beat.
Your claim about being 9 does not match any school in the US either, so you are either from somewhere else making false claims regarding US Education, or simply not telling the truth. Prior to Junior High school, kids see pictures in Biology books and maybe (and it's a big maybe depending on the school) see a computer program that allows virtual dissection.
My point is that it's not the action that is bad or good, but the motivation. If you cut the limb of the cockroach just to watch it suffer and hop around without a limb, that's very bad. That's the action to which there's all that correlation with later violent crimes that you're talking about. If you perform surgery on an anesthetized cockroach in order to learn about it, that's not bad. Because you're trying to minimize the suffering, and you're doing something to learn about it. And it absolutely is necessary to perform the action in order to learn it, the same way the a kid will learn a lot more doing the dissection of the frog himself than watching a video of it.
In this case you are talking about something other than mutilation for effect. Dissecting to educate is not the same thing as ripping something open to attach wires and make it work.
I think we could agree that we simply lack the information currently to make an educated statement on if or how this would impact a person's development. I'm sure a teacher's perspective when teaching could make all the difference in the world. The problem of course is that teachers are not supposed to be teaching morality and often get in trouble if they do.
I still question why this was built this way, when there are viable alternatives that would never bring up the question. Most technology has a similar ability to be seen as good, yet used for very bad things. We have always crossed the line with technology. Computers have been used to spy on everyone, atomic energy has been used to kill and threaten, sound has been used for propaganda and weaponry in addition to education and entertainment, the same can be said with radar and microwaves.
I'm not anti-tech mind you, nor am I anti-education.