There isn't really an argument, it's a simple definition. Islam isn't a race. People who hate Muslims aren't racist. They could be any number of other things depending on their ideology and motivations including ignorant, bigots, or just regular old stupid, but they're NOT racist. If such a group only hates "dark skinned" Muslims, then they're primarily a racist group that is just misapplying a name to themselves. And even "Dark skinned" isn't a race, they'd have to hate white people who spend a lot of time at the beach then. A group, "Fuck Arabs" would be racist--and indefensible.
I hate Islam for the same reason I hate all religions in addition to a few things Islam does that are particularly egregious to me. I am not a racist because of this. My dislike of Islam (or any religion) isn't influenced by the race of any particular follower.
The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Even if it said Fuck Muslims, it still wouldn't be racist. The religion of Islam accepts members of any race, and the term Muslim encompasses all followers of Islam. Calling it racist points you out as an ignorant follower of stereotypes also; the majority of Muslims in the world aren't even middle Eastern, they're in SE Asia and Indonesia.
I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).
OSX might be an obvious choice for some people, and there are a lot of things I like about it, but it's too bad that Apple just doesn't want me as a customer. I'd definitely consider switching at least a few of my computers to OSX if it was possible to install it easily on systems I made myself. Until I can do this I'll just have to stick with operating systems made by companies who actually want my business (Canonical and MS).
If OSX wasn't locked to proprietary and overpriced hardware with limited options it'd be the obvious choice for me to. Maybe apple will change one day, but I don't expect that. I actually like Vista, and Ubuntu is getting better and better very fast.
Al the time on Linux it seems every program looks different and out of place, the only ones that fit are the ones that come with the DE and so are made to look all the same. Take a look at KDE apps on Gnome or vice versa. On windows everything uses standard widgets and themes. And I'm not talking about stuff like Winamp that uses a skin, but take a look at Pidgin on the windows platform, an open source project that looks completely at home on a Gnome desktop. In XP or Vista, the menus and windows aren't drawn the same as other apps. It's more of an annoyance than a mission critical problem, but it really detracts from the professional and complete image that I know Linux is capable of showing.
I don't really believe that. Taking away the porn isn't going to get the shy kid to step out and try for the real thing, like the GP said you don't need porn to masturbate. Also, having porn isn't going to stop a non-shy kid from seeking real relationships either. I think the effects are mostly neutral, which is why it's possible to find or craft evidence to support either extreme viewpoint because there really is no effect at all. Which direction you go with it shows more about the person's own preconceived biases than anything.
You're starting all of your thoughts at the idea that teens shouldn't be seeing porn. And to the core of that idea is that teens seeing porn is bad for them. I don't believe there's harm with kids old enough to want to see porn, seeing porn. Don't take my words to mean we should be encouraging it, or that we should make it easy for them to do so, but 84 million to STOP it? That's a little off the deep end of the morality pool for me, that money could have been used in much better ways.
Your teenage children are going to see porn. They're going to look for it. The "Not MY kids!" mentality isn't helping either. Yes, even your perfect Christian soldier children are going to actively seek out and consume pornography at least once in their lives. Whether, and to the extent that they're able to repress that is determined by how much of your morality actually stuck when you were brainwashing them to feel guilty about perfectly natural and healthy things.
But hey, keep on rocking in the free world, I'm not a parent and it's not my job to tell anyone else how to be one. I think I do have a bit more common sense than a lot of the people who do end up raising kids though. Sometimes I think it's a shame I wont have any of my own.
I'm sensing a karma burn here, but what good is having it if you don't use it:P
Then it's the author's fault for choosing words that could be misinterpreted. There are more precise ways to form the sentence from your example using words that aren't as ambiguous. There are ways to use that word while maintaining a clearer meaning. In the sentence, "His face was livid with anger" you're using livid to describe his face instead of his demeanor, which invites multiple interpretations.
There are at least two commonly used and perfectly valid definitions. It comes from the latin meaning blue in color, but can also be used to describe a state of intense anger. If your point was that you don't think we should tolerate ambiguity in our language, maybe you'd prefer that we simplified and uncluttered the language by removing these kinds of words entirely.
This "rootkit" stuff--and I know it's not a true rootkit, just some overzealous DRM, it's still bad--isn't the only thing that might put some people off from buying Bioshock. The game requires a video card that supports PS3.0, so that means there's a lot of gamers out there that simply wont be able to run the game, DRM or not. Over 40% of Steam users from Valve's hardware survey are not capable of running Bioshock. This article from arstechnica explains, it's mostly the ATI x800/850 users who are being kept from playing. There is a project in development to port Bioshock to work on the older cards, so we'll see how that pans out. This whole thing reminds me of a similar situation with BF2 requiring PS2.0 support, plenty of older cards that could run the game fine otherwise were incompatible because EA didn't include an alternate rendering path for cards that didn't include the new PS standard.
I used to do all those thing, yes. People actually get more annoyed at me when I try and correct them though, so I find I can do my job better if I just smile and nod:)
Most of them are beyond help anyway. I'd also say that those are examples where one would be justified in correcting improper use. I see no problem using begs the question to mean raises the question, it's perfectly acceptable English. Use circular logic or reasoning to refer to the logical fallacy, because these days no one is going to know what you're talking about, or care. And don't bring the law into this, that's another can of worms entirely. Legal jargon is intentionally difficult with numerous minefields to navigate, you'll probably need a lawyer to make sen...oh damn, they're good.
Devs like to hide things there because they know average users wont be able to easily change or find the information, which is why it's used to store CD keys and in the case of Bioshock, this "rootkit" nonsense. It's all a very windows-centric way of doing things too; having a central repository for virtually EVERY little configuration and customization. After spending some time in the Linux/BSD side the method of using individual config files still seems like the more logical, and technically superior way of handling configurations and settings. When I work with the registry I can't help but feel that things are intentionally obfuscated and muddled to discourage me from messing with anything. There are a few good examples of games that do it right, all the UT games use plaintext config files for the game settings. It still uses the registry for your CD key, but they are much better at keeping everything in the install directory than most other games.
I don't see an ethical dilemma here. When you flush it down, the waste and the water no longer belongs to you. I don't think it's practical, or efficient to be monitoring every residence individually, so that just isn't going to happen. If however, we see that a certain neighborhood has a problem with a particular drug, and we have reason to believe this particular house is a meth lab, and the owner has a criminal record, then that information could be used to provide part of a bigger picture to aid law enforcement in getting a warrant.
The real problem is that the public, and not just in America, doesn't take censorship seriously. All censorship is offensive to me. When you've got giant organizations like the ESRB that exist with the sole purpose of keeping you from seeing things that might be offensive, you need to take a step back and see what's wrong with your culture at large because there is something that is fundamentally broken. The question everyone needs to ask themselves is, how much control over what I see do I want to give to the government--or in this case the ESRB? Your answer should be none, as a thinking, rational adult who will expound the virtues of personal responsibility to anyone who'll listen until I'm blue in the face, I say let me decide what to see, read and hear. And if you've got kids, then it's YOUR job as a parent to make sure you control what they see. If you can't do this, or wont, then you have a problem and probably don't have any business raising a child anyway. <br><br> Scrap the ratings systems. All of them, they have no legitimate uses. They exist only to sensor content that a select group of people sees as offensive.
Compared to S. Korea, the continental USA is a big motherfucker. You have to think about that too. You think the distance from one end of Seoul to other is long way? Imagine maintaining those speeds between LA and NY. For a couple hundred million more people too. Internet access doesn't scale so nicely. The USA is a country where you can literally start driving in one direction and go for days, or at least hours without even crossing a state border, and we've got FIFTY of those. If we took all the money we spend on infrastructure and packed it all into one of the smaller states, yeah we'd all have speeds so fast that your HDD becomes the bottle neck. But we have to spread our resources out over VAST distances because you might want to access things more than a few hundred miles away.
I don't condemn them for trying the NCLB act and failing. Trial and error is a part of any complex process like this, I understand that. I condemn them for standing there, watching it fail and refusing to change course or even admit they could have been wrong. Our political culture has made it out that saying you were wrong is a sign of weakness, when in reality it's one of the genius traits that allows you to be nimble in your policies and adapt (like that theory they don't believe in) to the changing reality and find the best solution. Sticking with what obviously doesn't work is more harmful than trying repeatedly and failing. With the latter at least you're crossing off ways that don't work. The current method shows us NOTHING and gets us NOWHERE.
I imagine it is, like many things in life, a give and take situation. Intelligence very likely comes at the expense of normal social interaction and skills. Now a lot of this can be learned academically, rather than intuitively as most people do, and I'm sure a lot of people manage to emulate it nearly perfectly. It's a handicap for those who either can't do this, or just don't see the value in it--if they even believe there exists any at all. And it's not that these people don't get something back, there's a reason why we call such children gifted. The question you should be asking is, is it worth it? And for some it is. I can only speak for myself, and I offer that it is a worthwhile trade off. I think the tragedy here is not that we're all required to make such sacrifices, but that often we aren't given a choice what is given to us, or taken away.
Slashdot Mirror
People chose Judaism.
<br>
I know. That's the point. It wouldn't have been racism either.
Impasse
There isn't really an argument, it's a simple definition. Islam isn't a race. People who hate Muslims aren't racist. They could be any number of other things depending on their ideology and motivations including ignorant, bigots, or just regular old stupid, but they're NOT racist. If such a group only hates "dark skinned" Muslims, then they're primarily a racist group that is just misapplying a name to themselves. And even "Dark skinned" isn't a race, they'd have to hate white people who spend a lot of time at the beach then. A group, "Fuck Arabs" would be racist--and indefensible.
I hate Islam for the same reason I hate all religions in addition to a few things Islam does that are particularly egregious to me. I am not a racist because of this. My dislike of Islam (or any religion) isn't influenced by the race of any particular follower.
The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Even if it said Fuck Muslims, it still wouldn't be racist. The religion of Islam accepts members of any race, and the term Muslim encompasses all followers of Islam. Calling it racist points you out as an ignorant follower of stereotypes also; the majority of Muslims in the world aren't even middle Eastern, they're in SE Asia and Indonesia.
I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).
I've never seen star trek
OSX might be an obvious choice for some people, and there are a lot of things I like about it, but it's too bad that Apple just doesn't want me as a customer. I'd definitely consider switching at least a few of my computers to OSX if it was possible to install it easily on systems I made myself. Until I can do this I'll just have to stick with operating systems made by companies who actually want my business (Canonical and MS).
If OSX wasn't locked to proprietary and overpriced hardware with limited options it'd be the obvious choice for me to. Maybe apple will change one day, but I don't expect that. I actually like Vista, and Ubuntu is getting better and better very fast.
Al the time on Linux it seems every program looks different and out of place, the only ones that fit are the ones that come with the DE and so are made to look all the same. Take a look at KDE apps on Gnome or vice versa. On windows everything uses standard widgets and themes. And I'm not talking about stuff like Winamp that uses a skin, but take a look at Pidgin on the windows platform, an open source project that looks completely at home on a Gnome desktop. In XP or Vista, the menus and windows aren't drawn the same as other apps. It's more of an annoyance than a mission critical problem, but it really detracts from the professional and complete image that I know Linux is capable of showing.
I don't really believe that. Taking away the porn isn't going to get the shy kid to step out and try for the real thing, like the GP said you don't need porn to masturbate. Also, having porn isn't going to stop a non-shy kid from seeking real relationships either. I think the effects are mostly neutral, which is why it's possible to find or craft evidence to support either extreme viewpoint because there really is no effect at all. Which direction you go with it shows more about the person's own preconceived biases than anything.
You're starting all of your thoughts at the idea that teens shouldn't be seeing porn. And to the core of that idea is that teens seeing porn is bad for them. I don't believe there's harm with kids old enough to want to see porn, seeing porn. Don't take my words to mean we should be encouraging it, or that we should make it easy for them to do so, but 84 million to STOP it? That's a little off the deep end of the morality pool for me, that money could have been used in much better ways.
:P
Your teenage children are going to see porn. They're going to look for it. The "Not MY kids!" mentality isn't helping either. Yes, even your perfect Christian soldier children are going to actively seek out and consume pornography at least once in their lives. Whether, and to the extent that they're able to repress that is determined by how much of your morality actually stuck when you were brainwashing them to feel guilty about perfectly natural and healthy things.
But hey, keep on rocking in the free world, I'm not a parent and it's not my job to tell anyone else how to be one. I think I do have a bit more common sense than a lot of the people who do end up raising kids though. Sometimes I think it's a shame I wont have any of my own.
I'm sensing a karma burn here, but what good is having it if you don't use it
P226
Then it's the author's fault for choosing words that could be misinterpreted. There are more precise ways to form the sentence from your example using words that aren't as ambiguous. There are ways to use that word while maintaining a clearer meaning. In the sentence, "His face was livid with anger" you're using livid to describe his face instead of his demeanor, which invites multiple interpretations.
There are at least two commonly used and perfectly valid definitions. It comes from the latin meaning blue in color, but can also be used to describe a state of intense anger. If your point was that you don't think we should tolerate ambiguity in our language, maybe you'd prefer that we simplified and uncluttered the language by removing these kinds of words entirely.
This "rootkit" stuff--and I know it's not a true rootkit, just some overzealous DRM, it's still bad--isn't the only thing that might put some people off from buying Bioshock. The game requires a video card that supports PS3.0, so that means there's a lot of gamers out there that simply wont be able to run the game, DRM or not. Over 40% of Steam users from Valve's hardware survey are not capable of running Bioshock. This article from arstechnica explains, it's mostly the ATI x800/850 users who are being kept from playing. There is a project in development to port Bioshock to work on the older cards, so we'll see how that pans out. This whole thing reminds me of a similar situation with BF2 requiring PS2.0 support, plenty of older cards that could run the game fine otherwise were incompatible because EA didn't include an alternate rendering path for cards that didn't include the new PS standard.
I used to do all those thing, yes. People actually get more annoyed at me when I try and correct them though, so I find I can do my job better if I just smile and nod :)
Most of them are beyond help anyway. I'd also say that those are examples where one would be justified in correcting improper use. I see no problem using begs the question to mean raises the question, it's perfectly acceptable English. Use circular logic or reasoning to refer to the logical fallacy, because these days no one is going to know what you're talking about, or care. And don't bring the law into this, that's another can of worms entirely. Legal jargon is intentionally difficult with numerous minefields to navigate, you'll probably need a lawyer to make sen...oh damn, they're good.
Devs like to hide things there because they know average users wont be able to easily change or find the information, which is why it's used to store CD keys and in the case of Bioshock, this "rootkit" nonsense. It's all a very windows-centric way of doing things too; having a central repository for virtually EVERY little configuration and customization. After spending some time in the Linux/BSD side the method of using individual config files still seems like the more logical, and technically superior way of handling configurations and settings. When I work with the registry I can't help but feel that things are intentionally obfuscated and muddled to discourage me from messing with anything. There are a few good examples of games that do it right, all the UT games use plaintext config files for the game settings. It still uses the registry for your CD key, but they are much better at keeping everything in the install directory than most other games.
No one is impressed by your pedantry. It's a living language, get used to it.
(Not even going to post AC, I've got the karma to burn.)
Which is any amount.
I don't see an ethical dilemma here. When you flush it down, the waste and the water no longer belongs to you. I don't think it's practical, or efficient to be monitoring every residence individually, so that just isn't going to happen. If however, we see that a certain neighborhood has a problem with a particular drug, and we have reason to believe this particular house is a meth lab, and the owner has a criminal record, then that information could be used to provide part of a bigger picture to aid law enforcement in getting a warrant.
The real problem is that the public, and not just in America, doesn't take censorship seriously. All censorship is offensive to me. When you've got giant organizations like the ESRB that exist with the sole purpose of keeping you from seeing things that might be offensive, you need to take a step back and see what's wrong with your culture at large because there is something that is fundamentally broken. The question everyone needs to ask themselves is, how much control over what I see do I want to give to the government--or in this case the ESRB? Your answer should be none, as a thinking, rational adult who will expound the virtues of personal responsibility to anyone who'll listen until I'm blue in the face, I say let me decide what to see, read and hear. And if you've got kids, then it's YOUR job as a parent to make sure you control what they see. If you can't do this, or wont, then you have a problem and probably don't have any business raising a child anyway.
<br><br>
Scrap the ratings systems. All of them, they have no legitimate uses. They exist only to sensor content that a select group of people sees as offensive.
You're not alone, and I slept for 15 hours last night.
Compared to S. Korea, the continental USA is a big motherfucker. You have to think about that too. You think the distance from one end of Seoul to other is long way? Imagine maintaining those speeds between LA and NY. For a couple hundred million more people too. Internet access doesn't scale so nicely. The USA is a country where you can literally start driving in one direction and go for days, or at least hours without even crossing a state border, and we've got FIFTY of those. If we took all the money we spend on infrastructure and packed it all into one of the smaller states, yeah we'd all have speeds so fast that your HDD becomes the bottle neck. But we have to spread our resources out over VAST distances because you might want to access things more than a few hundred miles away.
Also Romney I believe.
I don't condemn them for trying the NCLB act and failing. Trial and error is a part of any complex process like this, I understand that. I condemn them for standing there, watching it fail and refusing to change course or even admit they could have been wrong. Our political culture has made it out that saying you were wrong is a sign of weakness, when in reality it's one of the genius traits that allows you to be nimble in your policies and adapt (like that theory they don't believe in) to the changing reality and find the best solution. Sticking with what obviously doesn't work is more harmful than trying repeatedly and failing. With the latter at least you're crossing off ways that don't work. The current method shows us NOTHING and gets us NOWHERE.
I imagine it is, like many things in life, a give and take situation. Intelligence very likely comes at the expense of normal social interaction and skills. Now a lot of this can be learned academically, rather than intuitively as most people do, and I'm sure a lot of people manage to emulate it nearly perfectly. It's a handicap for those who either can't do this, or just don't see the value in it--if they even believe there exists any at all. And it's not that these people don't get something back, there's a reason why we call such children gifted. The question you should be asking is, is it worth it? And for some it is. I can only speak for myself, and I offer that it is a worthwhile trade off. I think the tragedy here is not that we're all required to make such sacrifices, but that often we aren't given a choice what is given to us, or taken away.