You know, that confused me too but maybe the meaning is changing again.
"Expletive" has come to mean something entirely different than when I was a kid. When I was in grammar school, if a word was an expletive, it meant that it didn't add any information (e.g. "I was driving down the "flippin'" road") to the sentence, although in certain instances, it could be needed to make the sentence grammatical.
Because profanity is often an expletive (e.g. "Slashdot is for fucking morons"), it has come to mean profanity, and, maybe now it is coming to mean any derogative.
FTA:Greg Fryer, an Australian guitar luthier, produced 3 copies of the Red Special in 1996/97 with permission from May, who allowed Fryer to x-ray the body for information on the internal cavities in the body, taking exhaustive body measurements for CAD/CAM reproduction, Fryer named his three replicas John, Paul and George. May has 2 of these guitars, John and George while Fryer kept Paul, which was built with slightly different tone woods for a "more aggressive edge" tonally, for himself.
I found this statement odd, since I have always found May's sound to be extremely aggressive and forward. Kind of the antithesis of Mark Knopfler. IMHO, the Queen songs that have turned into sports anthems (We Will Rock You, We are the Champions), have some of the most aggressive guitar riffs in any music.
There is no answer for the most basic of questions.
Disclaimer: I am a practicing and *believing* Christian.
Despite the assertions of the anti-science Christian crowd, I will happily admit that Christianity has no satisfying or verifiable explanation for the basic ontological questions of existence. But, to be frank, neither does anyone else.
The problem is that--no matter whether you believe in a natural or supernatural ontology--it always leads to a contradiction, and at a most fundamental level. The contradiction? No matter the belief, you have started with a binary sticky wicket. Either the universe is 1)an effect without a cause (it always existed), or 2)something came out of nothing. Surely, some scientist wannabe will try to invoke quantum physics and string theory, but we all know that this is as non-verifiable as the circularity of God creating the universe (and who created God?).
Now, am I saying that, as an explanation, a Creator God is as good of an explanation as a "scientific" one? Nope. In fact, it is probably a violation of Occam's Razor and I believe that religious people probably ought to own up to that. But that fact doesn't make science's explanation any more palatable, and non-believers probably ought to own up to that.
Actually, I am the opposite of you--I was raised in a non-religious home and, the deeper *I* dug, the more I became disillusioned with my atheism/agnosticism. So, you might wonder why I believe (or maybe not)? Not that I read his writings before my conversion, but the theological works of Danish existentialist Soren Kierkegaard resonate the most with me.
Your post kind of circles back on itself. Your point--that you are a Christian on Slashdot with "excellent karma"--seems to indicate that you think that there *isn't* a profound tendency for people here to militate against your beliefs, but then you admit that the reason that your karma isn't all shot to Hell is because your posts often focus on "technical topics."
Notice that you were modded "Troll." I too am a Christian with "excellent karma," but you can rest assured that there is an inverse relationship between the number posts you make that enter into the spiritual realm (even if not off-topic) and your "karma." On the other hand, if someone posts a comment making fun of you and your beliefs, such as the "save me Jebus" ones that are clearly "Flamebait," there is a good chance that they will be modded "Insightful," or at least "Funny."
The reason that my "karma" is "excellent" is that I tend to hold cynical views that are very suspicious of government and business, which is also a prevailing opinion on Slashdot. I never mod or meta-mod *any* poster based upon my perception of whether or not their beliefs (political, religious or otherwise) align with mine, no matter how pissed off they make me. I can't, however, say that of the majority of those who participate in the moderation system. Generally, "Troll"=I don't agree with you, "Insightful"=I agree with you, "Off-topic" only applies to opposing viewpoints, etc.
Didn't you know that on slashdot, snide off-topic comments about America (the spelling "Amerika" is de rigueur here), Red States, Republicans, GWB, Christians, rural people or Global Warming Skeptics equals positive "karma?" Pretty much everything in the moderation scheme--editors having unlimited mod points, the meta-moderation system and the algorithm that determines who gets mod points--work to reinforce the hive mentality.
So, it's time get on board with the group think. Sit back, relax and rip ole Dick Cheney a new one in the next discussion about Linux v. Windows.
P.S. In the time it took me to type this, you got modded "Troll." See what I mean?
I guess that you're intimating that the cigarette companies are pushing this.
I'm sure that it won't be administered via a cigarette because the delivery system is important too. In the case of cigarettes, the delivery mechanism causes more harm than the nicotine helps. After all, antibiotics are good medicine but you wouldn't administer them by putting them on the tip of a knitting needle and jamming it into your eyeball.
The US government is an Aristocracy that continues to persist because it brainwashes enough of the populace to believe its democracy. People with money govern, and you get... nothing. In fact you pay them.
Or more accurately, a corporate plutocracy. It's a government by the rich people, for the rich people--done with a enough of a smattering of an air of fairness to keep us working in the salt mines and not rioting in the streets with torches and pitchforks.
It's only a false dilemma if there really is a reasonable option C. Do you have one?
Could be this:
FTA: ''The public debate has been extremely one-sided,'' said Franklin, who has been at the center since 1999 and with NOAA since 1982. ``Bill is viewed as a hero in the media for speaking up against NOAA management and he is portrayed as having the support of his staff.
''But the hurricane specialists, by and large, do not agree with much of what he has done,'' Franklin said.
Or this:
FTA: He, his colleagues and Mayfield said Proenza has exaggerated the magnitude of the satellite issue, unintentionally leaving the public -- and Congress -- with the impression that forecasters are not capable of doing their jobs.
Or maybe he was just an arrogant prick who grandstanded one too many times on an extremely important issue related to public confidence in a very important system or, as I said before, something else entirely.
So, if the satellite was so worthless that it will have no effect on weather forecasting, why did we bother supporting it?
The answer is either:
A) They are spinning the loss and trying to blame it on the squealer. or
B) Weather forecasting is so useless, nothing could affect how accurate it is. C) Or something else entirely that you don't know about.
Seriously, don't you think that falls under the heading of a false dilemma?
Actually, I like your method. We'd save a fortune on health care costs. Instead of getting health care, we'll just get NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL. Then people will REALLY learn to never get sick.
Funny, if you do this with alcohol or heroin, it's considered drug abuse and problem-avoidant behavior.
Personally, I find this compulsion to "reduce stress" through pharmacological means to be slightly disconcerting. We seem to always talk about stress as if it were a bad thing when, in fact, it is one of the organism's primary protection mechanisms. Stress is the organisms way of prompting change. You know, the old towards pleasure/away from pain thing.
In the example of the accident victims, maybe they need to learn to be more careful. In the case of the rape victims, maybe they need to learn to avoid people/situations in which they're vulnerable. Stress will help you with that. When I was in middle school, I got jumped by a bunch of kids from another school and beat up pretty badly. I was super-stressed about it for months, but--due to the stress--I also kept away from the area where these kids hung out, thus avoiding another beating.
It makes you wonder if any of these posters ever rode a bicycle with long pants. As usual, there's nothing quite like a non-application of Occam's Razor. Example: "My car won't start! Rogue clowns from Venus must have stolen my spark plugs!"
Why he/she interpreted the rolled up pants leg as the MIT guy trying to be "gangsta"is beyond me. For crap's sake, it isn't even "gangsta" anymore. LL Cool J popularized that in the late 80s. Since it is a covert form of communication, by definition if suburban white folks know about it, it's passe in the hood. For example, teaching your two-year-old to "hit the rock" is probably not going to get you any street cred down on MLK boulevard.
Have Rush and O'Reilly defend him, and all the conservatives will understand just how evil and anti-American having a free liberal-loving internet is.
Bill O'Reilly's "Radio Factor" program just became available in my area and, out of curiosity, I wanted to hear what all of the fuss was about. From the writings/rantings here on slashdot, I expected to someone who--like GOP talking point readers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity--seems to be merely a mouthpiece for Conservatives and Republicans, but I just can't reconcile that with what I've been hearing.
While O'Reilly does seem to me to be quite arrogant and a demagogue on certain morality issues, he's hardly a shill for GWB, the Neocons, corporate interests or the Republican Party. Within the last month, he has:
--called for greater regulation of the Airline Industry and Big Oil
--defended Bill & Hillary Clinton on numerous occasions, including claiming that Bill governed more conservatively tha GWB
--lambasted the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, immigration, the selection of Michael Chertoff as head of Homeland security
--called for more environmental regulations
--criticized the Republicans for helping destroy the middle class
Admittedly, I haven't seen his TV show, but, from what I've heard, I would have a hard time lumping him in with Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, G Gordon Liddy and Neil Boortz. I guess the point is that just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't make them an ideologue.
The problem is that "net neutrality" sounds so techie and confusing, and the majority of Americans have no idea what the issue is, nor do they care. This is especially dangerous for consumers because in cases where the public is disineterested, lawyers for corporations, unions or special interest groups usually get to write the legislation nearly verbatim.
WTF??? The last four stories are all about games. I enjoy games but I just don't have a lot of time to devote to them. Where do you people get all of this time? I'm so busy earning money, spending time with socializing with friends & family, and trying to keep my middle-aged body in shape that I find it very difficult to justify allocating time to gaming. In fact, the only people I personally know who spend much time on games are my teenagers and their friends.
Maybe it is true--all of you DO live in your mothers' basements:)
The "Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison" say so, so it must be true. Heaven knows that UW Madison isn't as left-wing, America-hating, and socialist as a university can get. Oh wait, maybe it is...
Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.
Literally true, but when Congress and the White House are held by the same party, the President is generally the one who begins any significant initiatives, since he is the "standard bearer" of the party.
I would submit that it is corporations and moneyed special interests that primarily get represented, even when the Congress and White House are held by different parties. Aside from a few issues like abortion, there just isn't that much difference between the Rs and the Ds.
Many of the major laws passed in the last 7 years have been written entirely by White House staff and then handed off to a sponsor in Congress.
Or, as in the case of the credit card companies getting to pen the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, corporations get to write the laws. Welcome to the New Corporate Plutocracy, where the interests of multinational companies carry the day for both parties; the middle class (or what's left of it) be damned.
What this country needs at this point is a leader like Theodore Roosevelt, who--instead of cozying up to the business elite for cash handouts--would be a gadfly who worked against the corporations and for the people. Sadly, the only way that something like this will happen is if someone is willing to spend their own personal money.
...and bacon grease from breakfast was saved in a tin can in the fridge.
It's obvious to me that God intended eggs to be fried in bacon grease. Why else would they taste so good that way? I still keep a can of it in my fridge.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, that confused me too but maybe the meaning is changing again.
"Expletive" has come to mean something entirely different than when I was a kid. When I was in grammar school, if a word was an expletive, it meant that it didn't add any information (e.g. "I was driving down the "flippin'" road") to the sentence, although in certain instances, it could be needed to make the sentence grammatical.
Because profanity is often an expletive (e.g. "Slashdot is for fucking morons"), it has come to mean profanity, and, maybe now it is coming to mean any derogative.
FTA:Greg Fryer, an Australian guitar luthier, produced 3 copies of the Red Special in 1996/97 with permission from May, who allowed Fryer to x-ray the body for information on the internal cavities in the body, taking exhaustive body measurements for CAD/CAM reproduction, Fryer named his three replicas John, Paul and George. May has 2 of these guitars, John and George while Fryer kept Paul, which was built with slightly different tone woods for a "more aggressive edge" tonally, for himself.
I found this statement odd, since I have always found May's sound to be extremely aggressive and forward. Kind of the antithesis of Mark Knopfler. IMHO, the Queen songs that have turned into sports anthems (We Will Rock You, We are the Champions), have some of the most aggressive guitar riffs in any music.
Not exactly. Appalachian people ("Hillbillies") and rural folk are still fair game.
For the low, low price of just $38.99 I can solve all of your browser problems.
I wonder what you would get if we mixed a Linux fanboy and an atheist...oh, never mind it would be a slashdork living in his mother's basement.
Now, let's see if this gets modded "Funny" like your post or "Flamebait."
There is no answer for the most basic of questions.
Disclaimer: I am a practicing and *believing* Christian.
Despite the assertions of the anti-science Christian crowd, I will happily admit that Christianity has no satisfying or verifiable explanation for the basic ontological questions of existence. But, to be frank, neither does anyone else.
The problem is that--no matter whether you believe in a natural or supernatural ontology--it always leads to a contradiction, and at a most fundamental level. The contradiction? No matter the belief, you have started with a binary sticky wicket. Either the universe is 1)an effect without a cause (it always existed), or 2)something came out of nothing. Surely, some scientist wannabe will try to invoke quantum physics and string theory, but we all know that this is as non-verifiable as the circularity of God creating the universe (and who created God?).
Now, am I saying that, as an explanation, a Creator God is as good of an explanation as a "scientific" one? Nope. In fact, it is probably a violation of Occam's Razor and I believe that religious people probably ought to own up to that. But that fact doesn't make science's explanation any more palatable, and non-believers probably ought to own up to that.
Actually, I am the opposite of you--I was raised in a non-religious home and, the deeper *I* dug, the more I became disillusioned with my atheism/agnosticism. So, you might wonder why I believe (or maybe not)? Not that I read his writings before my conversion, but the theological works of Danish existentialist Soren Kierkegaard resonate the most with me.
Your post kind of circles back on itself. Your point--that you are a Christian on Slashdot with "excellent karma"--seems to indicate that you think that there *isn't* a profound tendency for people here to militate against your beliefs, but then you admit that the reason that your karma isn't all shot to Hell is because your posts often focus on "technical topics."
Notice that you were modded "Troll." I too am a Christian with "excellent karma," but you can rest assured that there is an inverse relationship between the number posts you make that enter into the spiritual realm (even if not off-topic) and your "karma." On the other hand, if someone posts a comment making fun of you and your beliefs, such as the "save me Jebus" ones that are clearly "Flamebait," there is a good chance that they will be modded "Insightful," or at least "Funny."
The reason that my "karma" is "excellent" is that I tend to hold cynical views that are very suspicious of government and business, which is also a prevailing opinion on Slashdot. I never mod or meta-mod *any* poster based upon my perception of whether or not their beliefs (political, religious or otherwise) align with mine, no matter how pissed off they make me. I can't, however, say that of the majority of those who participate in the moderation system. Generally, "Troll"=I don't agree with you, "Insightful"=I agree with you, "Off-topic" only applies to opposing viewpoints, etc.
Sorry, you must be new here.
Didn't you know that on slashdot, snide off-topic comments about America (the spelling "Amerika" is de rigueur here), Red States, Republicans, GWB, Christians, rural people or Global Warming Skeptics equals positive "karma?" Pretty much everything in the moderation scheme--editors having unlimited mod points, the meta-moderation system and the algorithm that determines who gets mod points--work to reinforce the hive mentality.
So, it's time get on board with the group think. Sit back, relax and rip ole Dick Cheney a new one in the next discussion about Linux v. Windows.
P.S. In the time it took me to type this, you got modded "Troll." See what I mean?
All roads lead to $$$$$
for the flame war
I guess that you're intimating that the cigarette companies are pushing this.
I'm sure that it won't be administered via a cigarette because the delivery system is important too. In the case of cigarettes, the delivery mechanism causes more harm than the nicotine helps. After all, antibiotics are good medicine but you wouldn't administer them by putting them on the tip of a knitting needle and jamming it into your eyeball.
The US government is an Aristocracy that continues to persist because it brainwashes enough of the populace to believe its democracy. People with money govern, and you get... nothing. In fact you pay them.
Or more accurately, a corporate plutocracy. It's a government by the rich people, for the rich people--done with a enough of a smattering of an air of fairness to keep us working in the salt mines and not rioting in the streets with torches and pitchforks.
Just goes to show how much a bunch of gov't bureaucrats know. Or maybe there just being ass-kissy with business again.
It's only a false dilemma if there really is a reasonable option C. Do you have one?
Could be this:
FTA: ''The public debate has been extremely one-sided,'' said Franklin, who has been at the center since 1999 and with NOAA since 1982. ``Bill is viewed as a hero in the media for speaking up against NOAA management and he is portrayed as having the support of his staff.
''But the hurricane specialists, by and large, do not agree with much of what he has done,'' Franklin said.
Or this:
FTA: He, his colleagues and Mayfield said Proenza has exaggerated the magnitude of the satellite issue, unintentionally leaving the public -- and Congress -- with the impression that forecasters are not capable of doing their jobs.
Or maybe he was just an arrogant prick who grandstanded one too many times on an extremely important issue related to public confidence in a very important system or, as I said before, something else entirely.
So, if the satellite was so worthless that it will have no effect on weather forecasting, why did we bother supporting it?
The answer is either:
A) They are spinning the loss and trying to blame it on the squealer. or
B) Weather forecasting is so useless, nothing could affect how accurate it is.
C) Or something else entirely that you don't know about.
Seriously, don't you think that falls under the heading of a false dilemma?
Wow, now that is an classic example of a strawman argument.
Funny, if you do this with alcohol or heroin, it's considered drug abuse and problem-avoidant behavior.
Personally, I find this compulsion to "reduce stress" through pharmacological means to be slightly disconcerting. We seem to always talk about stress as if it were a bad thing when, in fact, it is one of the organism's primary protection mechanisms. Stress is the organisms way of prompting change. You know, the old towards pleasure/away from pain thing.
In the example of the accident victims, maybe they need to learn to be more careful. In the case of the rape victims, maybe they need to learn to avoid people/situations in which they're vulnerable. Stress will help you with that. When I was in middle school, I got jumped by a bunch of kids from another school and beat up pretty badly. I was super-stressed about it for months, but--due to the stress--I also kept away from the area where these kids hung out, thus avoiding another beating.
It makes you wonder if any of these posters ever rode a bicycle with long pants. As usual, there's nothing quite like a non-application of Occam's Razor. Example: "My car won't start! Rogue clowns from Venus must have stolen my spark plugs!"
Why he/she interpreted the rolled up pants leg as the MIT guy trying to be "gangsta"is beyond me. For crap's sake, it isn't even "gangsta" anymore. LL Cool J popularized that in the late 80s. Since it is a covert form of communication, by definition if suburban white folks know about it, it's passe in the hood. For example, teaching your two-year-old to "hit the rock" is probably not going to get you any street cred down on MLK boulevard.
Thanks a lot...I just snorted cereal milk through my nose.
Have Rush and O'Reilly defend him, and all the conservatives will understand just how evil and anti-American having a free liberal-loving internet is.
Bill O'Reilly's "Radio Factor" program just became available in my area and, out of curiosity, I wanted to hear what all of the fuss was about. From the writings/rantings here on slashdot, I expected to someone who--like GOP talking point readers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity--seems to be merely a mouthpiece for Conservatives and Republicans, but I just can't reconcile that with what I've been hearing.
While O'Reilly does seem to me to be quite arrogant and a demagogue on certain morality issues, he's hardly a shill for GWB, the Neocons, corporate interests or the Republican Party. Within the last month, he has:
--called for greater regulation of the Airline Industry and Big Oil
--defended Bill & Hillary Clinton on numerous occasions, including claiming that Bill governed more conservatively tha GWB
--lambasted the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, immigration, the selection of Michael Chertoff as head of Homeland security
--called for more environmental regulations
--criticized the Republicans for helping destroy the middle class
Admittedly, I haven't seen his TV show, but, from what I've heard, I would have a hard time lumping him in with Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, G Gordon Liddy and Neil Boortz. I guess the point is that just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't make them an ideologue.
The problem is that "net neutrality" sounds so techie and confusing, and the majority of Americans have no idea what the issue is, nor do they care. This is especially dangerous for consumers because in cases where the public is disineterested, lawyers for corporations, unions or special interest groups usually get to write the legislation nearly verbatim.
WTF??? The last four stories are all about games. I enjoy games but I just don't have a lot of time to devote to them. Where do you people get all of this time? I'm so busy earning money, spending time with socializing with friends & family, and trying to keep my middle-aged body in shape that I find it very difficult to justify allocating time to gaming. In fact, the only people I personally know who spend much time on games are my teenagers and their friends.
:)
Maybe it is true--all of you DO live in your mothers' basements
The "Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison" say so, so it must be true. Heaven knows that UW Madison isn't as left-wing, America-hating, and socialist as a university can get. Oh wait, maybe it is...
Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.
Literally true, but when Congress and the White House are held by the same party, the President is generally the one who begins any significant initiatives, since he is the "standard bearer" of the party.
I would submit that it is corporations and moneyed special interests that primarily get represented, even when the Congress and White House are held by different parties. Aside from a few issues like abortion, there just isn't that much difference between the Rs and the Ds.
Many of the major laws passed in the last 7 years have been written entirely by White House staff and then handed off to a sponsor in Congress.
Or, as in the case of the credit card companies getting to pen the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, corporations get to write the laws. Welcome to the New Corporate Plutocracy, where the interests of multinational companies carry the day for both parties; the middle class (or what's left of it) be damned.
What this country needs at this point is a leader like Theodore Roosevelt, who--instead of cozying up to the business elite for cash handouts--would be a gadfly who worked against the corporations and for the people. Sadly, the only way that something like this will happen is if someone is willing to spend their own personal money.
...and bacon grease from breakfast was saved in a tin can in the fridge.
It's obvious to me that God intended eggs to be fried in bacon grease. Why else would they taste so good that way? I still keep a can of it in my fridge.