Just to clarify: no, I certainly didn't mean to imply approval! What do ya think I am, a libertarian?;) I was just trying to point out that the differences in punishment meted out to petty criminals versus white collar criminals is an intentional element of a system that rewards and protects the upper classes in exploiting the lower. It's doing what it's meant to. I'm not so sure, however, that merely boycotting certain companies is much of a solution. If people want change, they will have to pursue it at least partly in the political arena, I suspect. The elite have no problem fighting in that arena. What's needed is a sustained critique and challenge to (the contemporary construction of) capitalism itself, I suspect. I don't know exactly what shape or form that movement will take, but I personally doubt we'll see it within the US anytime soon at all. Change is much more likely, I think, to originate in other parts of the world where US (and capitalistic in general) ideology and exploitation is not so ingrained. I think the US is more likely to collapse into something unrecognizable than to transform itself into a more just and egalitarian society. Political and economic power may be too firmly intertwined and entrenched for moderate reforms to stand a chance.
Seriously, it's because the laws and policies of American society are built upon the premise of class warfare. Rich individuals use corporations to shield themselves from the repercussions of their actions. It's a feature, not a bug. It's that simple: a wealthy and powerful elite using a political and economic system that allows them to exploit the lower classes with impunity. It's all about power, and who's wielding it.
I sympathize with you. I really do. (I mean, have you seen the poster for the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie???) But it's worth keeping in mind that all of our precious 80s childhood memories are memories of consumer-culture commodities to begin with. All the Transformer shows, comics, and so forth were *really* just ads for the toys. You're losing perspective if you think they were not exploitative cashgrabs to begin with. These endless remakes (err, reimaginings or whatever they're called these days) aren't bastardizations of these properties, but the perfectly natural and logical extension of what they were designed to do in the first place. Don't blame the studios, what they're doing is perfectly rational (although you can certainly despise them for it). Blame Transformers, and all the other "properties" that get recycled. It's in their nature.
Bush's promotion of "faith based organizations" goes back to before his first term. Do none of you pay attention to your own government?
Re:Nah they should bring back the old Textbooks.
on
Winnie Wrote a Math Book
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm not so sure I buy your "reverse-sexism" argument. In my time at secondary school, many of the guys were too caught up in drugs, booze, and trying to get laid than academic performance. From what I noticed, girl's peer groups were more accepting of high academic performance than were groups of boys, where the social line between jock and nerd were much more strongly defined and enforced.
Boys will never do well as a group academically as long as academic performance is seen as a social stigma.
Retaliation can take the form of exclusion as well. Most anarchisms are based upon the idea of free association; people won't want to associate with someone who doesn't play nice, which would likely end up denying the transgressor access to important infrastructure, resources, &c. They'd need to go over to some other syndicate and try their luck again, or try living in isolation without assistance.
You really, really need to read something about how many Africans were wantonly butchered by Europeans, how many peoples were forced into concentration camps, and how entire cultures were wiped out for no reason other than to satisfy the greed and bloodlust of European savages. To call colonisation Africa's golden age is ridiculously uninformed, cruel, shortsighted, and arrogant. Unfrickin'belieable. Go get a clue. You sound monstrous.
That's a great quote -- thanks for passing it along!
Regarding the racial basis for whiteness, I still somewhat disagree. I don't believe it's really valid to gloss over those grey areas -- the fact is that the borders of whiteness are constantly being redefined and contested. Even defining it in terms of European descent -- well, what's "Europe"? For example, are Greeks "white"? Specifically, were the Classical Greeks "white"? There's a fascinating body of 19th century literature that deals with this; it was a bit of a crisis for racial justifications for European colonialism, since the Classical Greeks were a touchstone of sorts for claims of European cultural and intellectual superiority, but they weren't white enough for the scholars. And regarding the nomenclature that developed to describe "mixed" offspring, my understanding is that mostly developed after the earliest stages of exploration, when slavery created a need for a racial ideology that would justify and perpetuate it.
A "whiteness" scholar, Abby Ferber, argues that English didn't even have a word for "race" in the biological sense of the word until about the 16th century, where it was applied to livestock breeding, and that the word didn't begin to be applied to humans until closer to the 18th century. (The book, in case you're interested, is called "White Man Falling". Fascinating read.)
Anyways, I suppose my point is that if the boundaries are fluid (and there's no doubt that they are), any claim to objective categorization is ultimately contingent and suspect. Any attempts to clearly define those boundaries will always be intimately tied to the wielding of power.
Thanks again for your thoughts -- that Franklin quote really is a find. I think I'm gonna try to work tawny into my conversations when I can.;)
Yeah, and you think "whites" have white skin? I'm comparing my skin to my wood desk right now, and actually, it's not a bad match! Maybe those of German descent, like me, are actually brown, eh? (Although I'm half Czech, as well -- oops, I can't remember, are Slavs "white" or not? I suppose it depends on where and when I am!)
Conversations like this miss the point, though. "Race", as the word gets bandied about, is an entirely constructed, historical term. It means nothing outside of specific situations. 100 years ago the Irish *very literally* weren't considered white. In the 19th centuries the English upper classes didn't consider the lower classes to be white -- they *really* saw (or thought they saw, which is the same thing) darker skin on those of lower status. There's plenty of examples of Age of Discovery explorers describing Native Americans/First Nations peoples as "white" -- for those explorers, the idea of race (as we understand and use that word today) didn't exist!
Hah -- fair enough! But y'see, I have a friend who works for IBM, and has a family-and-friends deal on a line of IBM notebooks, and *that one* can play Civ4, which I hear can run on Cedega, and my current one *can't*, and...and...
Yeah, I'm just whining. But I would really rather prefer a notebook without Vista, and it doesn't look like I have any choice if I buy via my friend.
Hell, all you *really* need is a paper trail. A receipt that gets printed out that the voter can double check and put in the box, which is only opened in case of a recount (with some ridings/counties/whatever recounted randomly, others on demand). You have the convenience of speedy results, with the backup option of a legitimate recount. That way you're back to Hard Work to really rig anything.
Oh yeah, and the States *really* needs to take the management of elections (drawing riding/county/whatever borders, manning the polling stations, etc.) out of the hands of partisans and create an arms-length institution to run the show. Stuff like gerrymandering just shouldn't be happening.
Actually, perhaps a case can be made that you and all the other grammar-Nazis are wrong! Harddrive failures effect Windows, since I betcha lots of those failures lead to purchases of new machines, which almost inevitably come with a Windows license -- cha-ching! A new Windows license, out of thin air! Effected by an HD failure!
(Seriously, though, I'm currently frustrated by this very thing, since my notebook's HD is dead as a doorknob -- it only works at all with a livecd. I'm choked about the situation because I really don't want to buy a new notebook with a Windows license, but it looks like the best deal I can get right now doesn't have the option for anything else. I'll be kinda sad if I end up "owning" a copy of Vista.)
As is often the case, and contrary to what many Americans would like to believe, the problem goes back much further than Bush. American governments have been pissing on the word Democracy for over 50 years now, and everyone (outside the States, at least) knows that it's just American-speak for "country that does what we tell it", regardless of whether or not it's actually a democracy or a military dictatorship. In fact, if anything, looking at the US's history in Latin America, the word "Democracy" is probably more likely to be used by American governments to describe dictatorships than actual democracies, since the dictatorships seem to generally be more willing to play puppet state.
One major flaw in your reasoning is that developers will have no incentive to invest the resources to "learn the ins and outs of the Cell" if there's not a huge install base. Those AAA titles are fuckin'*expensive*, especially on strange ass hardware no one's used before. So no, Sony can't really afford a slow start. Slow start = small install base = no return on expensive AAA titles. For example, in this very article Konami is talking about making MGS non-exclusive. Do you really think cross-platform games will be super-optimized for the Cell? Why would any company invest tonnes of money in developing for the system with by *far* the smallest install base and by *far* the lowest sales numbers?
And besides, the overwhelming success of the Wii should show that, despite what a certain type of elitist gamer would have everyone believe, *most people don't really care about "cutting edge graphics"*!!!
That is incorrect. Imperial refers to the measurements used by the UK and the Commonwealth, which differ from the American equivalents. I think the yanks use "American Traditional" or "American Customary" or something like that.
"...outside the norm"...? I disagree. Material consumption is the most powerful ideology in our culture -- we're trained to believe in it more than we are to believe in democracy, liberty, or social justice. So-called "geeks" who participate in gadget-consumption aren't out of the norm, they are a very boring EXAMPLE of it. Not really a whit different, IMO, than tweens gobbling up Paris Hilton branded fashion accessories.
Thank you! Tech workers are notoriously resistant to even *unionizing*, let alone seizing control of the tech they service. Knowing how to repair the things makes no difference as long as the wage system remains the dominant paradigm. As long as that is in place the robot-fixers are not one whit different from factory workers on a line -- utterly alienated from the products of their own labour.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clarify: no, I certainly didn't mean to imply approval! What do ya think I am, a libertarian? ;) I was just trying to point out that the differences in punishment meted out to petty criminals versus white collar criminals is an intentional element of a system that rewards and protects the upper classes in exploiting the lower. It's doing what it's meant to. I'm not so sure, however, that merely boycotting certain companies is much of a solution. If people want change, they will have to pursue it at least partly in the political arena, I suspect. The elite have no problem fighting in that arena. What's needed is a sustained critique and challenge to (the contemporary construction of) capitalism itself, I suspect. I don't know exactly what shape or form that movement will take, but I personally doubt we'll see it within the US anytime soon at all. Change is much more likely, I think, to originate in other parts of the world where US (and capitalistic in general) ideology and exploitation is not so ingrained. I think the US is more likely to collapse into something unrecognizable than to transform itself into a more just and egalitarian society. Political and economic power may be too firmly intertwined and entrenched for moderate reforms to stand a chance.
Seriously, it's because the laws and policies of American society are built upon the premise of class warfare. Rich individuals use corporations to shield themselves from the repercussions of their actions. It's a feature, not a bug. It's that simple: a wealthy and powerful elite using a political and economic system that allows them to exploit the lower classes with impunity. It's all about power, and who's wielding it.
I sympathize with you. I really do. (I mean, have you seen the poster for the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie???) But it's worth keeping in mind that all of our precious 80s childhood memories are memories of consumer-culture commodities to begin with. All the Transformer shows, comics, and so forth were *really* just ads for the toys. You're losing perspective if you think they were not exploitative cashgrabs to begin with. These endless remakes (err, reimaginings or whatever they're called these days) aren't bastardizations of these properties, but the perfectly natural and logical extension of what they were designed to do in the first place. Don't blame the studios, what they're doing is perfectly rational (although you can certainly despise them for it). Blame Transformers, and all the other "properties" that get recycled. It's in their nature.
Bush's promotion of "faith based organizations" goes back to before his first term. Do none of you pay attention to your own government?
Boys will never do well as a group academically as long as academic performance is seen as a social stigma.
Phew! I loves me my Konq web/file browsing power too! Glad to hear we're just getting more choice.
Retaliation can take the form of exclusion as well. Most anarchisms are based upon the idea of free association; people won't want to associate with someone who doesn't play nice, which would likely end up denying the transgressor access to important infrastructure, resources, &c. They'd need to go over to some other syndicate and try their luck again, or try living in isolation without assistance.
You really, really need to read something about how many Africans were wantonly butchered by Europeans, how many peoples were forced into concentration camps, and how entire cultures were wiped out for no reason other than to satisfy the greed and bloodlust of European savages. To call colonisation Africa's golden age is ridiculously uninformed, cruel, shortsighted, and arrogant. Unfrickin'belieable. Go get a clue. You sound monstrous.
Regarding the racial basis for whiteness, I still somewhat disagree. I don't believe it's really valid to gloss over those grey areas -- the fact is that the borders of whiteness are constantly being redefined and contested. Even defining it in terms of European descent -- well, what's "Europe"? For example, are Greeks "white"? Specifically, were the Classical Greeks "white"? There's a fascinating body of 19th century literature that deals with this; it was a bit of a crisis for racial justifications for European colonialism, since the Classical Greeks were a touchstone of sorts for claims of European cultural and intellectual superiority, but they weren't white enough for the scholars. And regarding the nomenclature that developed to describe "mixed" offspring, my understanding is that mostly developed after the earliest stages of exploration, when slavery created a need for a racial ideology that would justify and perpetuate it. A "whiteness" scholar, Abby Ferber, argues that English didn't even have a word for "race" in the biological sense of the word until about the 16th century, where it was applied to livestock breeding, and that the word didn't begin to be applied to humans until closer to the 18th century. (The book, in case you're interested, is called "White Man Falling". Fascinating read.)
Anyways, I suppose my point is that if the boundaries are fluid (and there's no doubt that they are), any claim to objective categorization is ultimately contingent and suspect. Any attempts to clearly define those boundaries will always be intimately tied to the wielding of power.
Thanks again for your thoughts -- that Franklin quote really is a find. I think I'm gonna try to work tawny into my conversations when I can. ;)
Conversations like this miss the point, though. "Race", as the word gets bandied about, is an entirely constructed, historical term. It means nothing outside of specific situations. 100 years ago the Irish *very literally* weren't considered white. In the 19th centuries the English upper classes didn't consider the lower classes to be white -- they *really* saw (or thought they saw, which is the same thing) darker skin on those of lower status. There's plenty of examples of Age of Discovery explorers describing Native Americans/First Nations peoples as "white" -- for those explorers, the idea of race (as we understand and use that word today) didn't exist!
Yeah, I'm just whining. But I would really rather prefer a notebook without Vista, and it doesn't look like I have any choice if I buy via my friend.
/walks off in shame
Oh yeah, and the States *really* needs to take the management of elections (drawing riding/county/whatever borders, manning the polling stations, etc.) out of the hands of partisans and create an arms-length institution to run the show. Stuff like gerrymandering just shouldn't be happening.
(Seriously, though, I'm currently frustrated by this very thing, since my notebook's HD is dead as a doorknob -- it only works at all with a livecd. I'm choked about the situation because I really don't want to buy a new notebook with a Windows license, but it looks like the best deal I can get right now doesn't have the option for anything else. I'll be kinda sad if I end up "owning" a copy of Vista.)
As is often the case, and contrary to what many Americans would like to believe, the problem goes back much further than Bush. American governments have been pissing on the word Democracy for over 50 years now, and everyone (outside the States, at least) knows that it's just American-speak for "country that does what we tell it", regardless of whether or not it's actually a democracy or a military dictatorship. In fact, if anything, looking at the US's history in Latin America, the word "Democracy" is probably more likely to be used by American governments to describe dictatorships than actual democracies, since the dictatorships seem to generally be more willing to play puppet state.
Oh wait, wrong decade. You're letting the terrorists win!
And besides, the overwhelming success of the Wii should show that, despite what a certain type of elitist gamer would have everyone believe, *most people don't really care about "cutting edge graphics"*!!!
Hey, don't insult minidiscs like that! At least they were recordable!
That is incorrect. Imperial refers to the measurements used by the UK and the Commonwealth, which differ from the American equivalents. I think the yanks use "American Traditional" or "American Customary" or something like that.
Thanks for your comments about "I Will Fear No Evil". That was one of the most utterly *disappointing* novels I've ever read.
My, I bet you're a lot of fun at parties!
"...outside the norm"...? I disagree. Material consumption is the most powerful ideology in our culture -- we're trained to believe in it more than we are to believe in democracy, liberty, or social justice. So-called "geeks" who participate in gadget-consumption aren't out of the norm, they are a very boring EXAMPLE of it. Not really a whit different, IMO, than tweens gobbling up Paris Hilton branded fashion accessories.
Y'know, the very stuff you describe may in fact be the point of the whole line of research. It would save their budget on agent provocateurs.
What's with the scare quotes? Irrational hatred of all public services?
Ho...ly...shit.
Thank you! Tech workers are notoriously resistant to even *unionizing*, let alone seizing control of the tech they service. Knowing how to repair the things makes no difference as long as the wage system remains the dominant paradigm. As long as that is in place the robot-fixers are not one whit different from factory workers on a line -- utterly alienated from the products of their own labour.