Rhetoric aside, do you believe this is bad enough you're willing to die to fix it? Or even suffer the inconvenience of moving to a different country(1) so it won't affect you?
1. Running to another country just means you'll have to run again later.
2. Name a country that recognizes and actually respects the freedoms that are supposed to be protected in this country by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. If there isn't one, then there would be no point in running. You can't tell me that Freedom of Speech exists in France, Germany, or England.
No, you just misread the summary and typed out an irrelevant rant.
A reporter for Tech-On states that 'Retailers and contract manufacturers in Taiwan say that novice PC users there, like students and housewives, tend to buy the Linux version of the Eee PC701, while geeks go for Windows XP.'"
The claim that geeks prefer the Windows XP version is the part that is expected to raise hackles.
"Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"
You must be under 25.
"Since when is a 29 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"
"You must be under 35."
Seriously, the only reason people in their late teens or 20s act like kids is that they're treated like kids. They do stupid things because they know that they can usually get away with it.
Yes, they are scientifically classified as animals. In the common meaning of the term, though, they aren't.
It's like seeing a chart comparing "Mexicans", "Canadians", and "Americans". You know what the latter refers to, despite the fact that all of the three groups live in the North American continent.
It might be more technically correct to go back to using the term "beast" to refer to non-human animals, but it makes people look at you funny nowadays.
Objecting to public officials with a record of inflammatory public statements about otherwise innocent segments of the citizenry is "fringe"?
Having looked at what they consider "inflammatory statements"... Yes, this is "fringe".
NEWSFLASH: Most Christians believe non-Christians go to Hell when they die. Their answers may differ if you ask them about young babies who die, or people who've never heard the gospel, etc. Whatever, the basic idea is the same.
Outside of college campuses, it generally doesn't freak people out to hear this in the United States. Just about everyone over here knows that Christians think non-Christians are going to hell, and for the most part, no one cares. In western Europe it may be a different matter... Talking about religion there seems to be the social equivalent of picking up a loudspeaker and talking about your sexual fetishes over here.
The only reason Governer Perry stated that he believed that non-Christians go to Hell is that someone specifically asked. Some posters are trying to paint him as someone who shouted it from a podium during a speech to intimidate non-Christians, and that's bull.
Damn those immigrants, gays, and atheists for... well, for just being around and not being WASPy I guess. If only our citizenry were only Fine, Upstanding White Men of Wealth and Means!
...This is equivalent to calling your opponent a Nazi in order to kill a debate, and has nothing to do with the GP's post.
This is like looking for a pin in a stack of needles.
Do terrorists, even specific types of terrorists, have some sort of uniform, identifiable facial expression right before they attack? I imagine some would be enraged, some would be peaceful, some would be resolute, and some might even be happy.
Since when did the monetary cost of a crime determine its punishment?
...Since centuries ago (possibly even millenia, though probably not in the US for obvious reasons), and it's been consistently upheld.
The premeditated murder of a drug dealer and the premeditated murder of famous Hollywood celebrity certainly have different economic impacts, but both are capital offenses punishable by (at the very least) life imprisonment.
Yeah, and which one is more likely to actually get life in prison? Unless the murder of the drug dealer was by a rival drug dealer or gets tagged as a "hate crime", the killer's more likely to get 20 than life (and may even get paroled before that).
You don't think someone who steals a laptop is likely to get the same sentence as someone who steals a candy bar, do you?
It was a terrorist attack intended to disrupt a major part of the infrastructure, period.
Terrorism, by definition, has to have some sort of political goal in mind (wanting power, autonomy, etc), and has to have the intention of intimidation. This has neither.
I don't see anyone shaking in fear over Comcast's website being inaccessible...
P.S. No, they did not discover the gene for making stupid racist remarks, which forced Dr. Watson into retirement last year.
"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours â" whereas all the testing says not really."
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Watson was forced into retirement for saying that wanting everyone to be "equal" doesn't make them so. Of course, the moment that the POSSIBILITY of any inherent inequality is brought up, any rational debate is impossible because no one wants to consider it.
It's the secular equivalent of heresy. The mob isn't interested in disproving what was said; they simply want to silence or destroy the person saying it.
For some strange reason, quite many Japanese sites, specifically message boards and chat rooms (tcup for instance), are completely outdated. They've been created in the mid or late 90's and never been upgraded since then. The trend might be gradually reversing but it isn't going fast and there doesn't appear to be a major interest in the Web 2.0 (nicovideo.jp is a good Japanese YouTube though). It's quite paradoxical to think in some aspect Japan is so low-tech on the web. But then again the most interesting sites are not always the ones on the cutting-edge...
Frankly, I like it that way. When I go to an "outdated" site, I know that it isn't going to slow my browser to a crawl, vomit obnoxious Flash at me, start loading a ridiculously large (and poorly designed) Java applet, or a combination of the three. Sure, there are add-ons to handle that stuff, but I have to maintain them, and they're irrelevant if I'm using a computer other than my own.
You're right - we actually have pretty extensive protection for free speech in the UK, with far less restriction than in the US. In the UK, I can say "Gordon Brown is a noxious prick" without any legal repercussions. If I was in the US, I couldn't say that about George W Bush without being arrested.
...What? Did you miss the hundreds of protesters outside GWB's ranch in Crawford doing just that, not to mention the millions of other people who say it almost daily?
At least in the US I can still criticize religions other than Christianity without being arrested and accused of "inciting hatred" (not violence, but "hatred"). Sure, you can get harrassed in court in either nation by someone you offend, but at least you can't be criminally tried here (yet).
If you really want to test whether your country's citizens have freedom of speech, publicly say something along the lines of "I think the official estimate of deaths during the Holocaust is an exaggeration."
I'm tired of hearing "bill of rights" applied in ridiculous situations by people or organizations who want to make it seem like they're being oppressed.
It seems to me that every meaningful phrase or term -anything that elicits a positive reaction in people- eventually gets co-opted by a political or corporate organization and turned into a complete farce. Sometimes it recovers, sometimes it doesn't.
When's the last time you heard the word "wholesome" in a BS-free situation?
Unfortunately, his Slashdot-using customers probably wouldn't make a dent if every one of them dropped him. Furthermore, many of them won't, because the ISP will be the only one available in some areas.
Maybe his bombastic words will provide good ammo to use against others like him, at least.
If you consider people who enter the country to seek a better life and provide vital labor resources to the economy as enemies, why not every citizen as well?
I've lived in Texas, and in Arizona for a shorter period of time.
Your picture of a migrant who wants to send money back home to his family, and prove himself useful to the US, may hold true for an immigrant working in the fields of Georgia or Alabama. What I saw in the Southwest wasn't even close.
They want to drive the Americans out while taking advantage of what the latter has built, as many of them will tell you that to your face. Before going to the Southwest, I didn't believe this. It sounded alarmist when I heard others tell me.
As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough reason to treat them with suspicion, and to not rule out regarding them as enemies.
Many poor people that I see to not know how to, or don't want to make an attempt to, properly manage the money they do have. Why do I see families who don't have a phone or computer, and whose children run around in hand-me-downs, that have an XBox 360 and a 54" TV?
Poor (American, not African/Haitian/etc) Blacks seem to be worse about this, though I've seen it in Whites as well. No, I don't think that there's some sort of "buy stupid crap instead of teaching and feeding your kids" gene that's prevalent in Blacks, but this is a problem that has a snowball effect.
If the children could be reached, the next generation could be better. But if you give the family a computer, the kids won't get to touch it; the parents will pawn it or use it to watch porn. There's no point in giving the kids books because the parents won't read to them. I know, because this is what I tried!
Handwaving and saying "oh quit worrying about it" is just another way of saying "get over it."
"Stop whining" is another good one. Any of them can be applied quite well to this article, but I like it the most.
It was a group of black developers complaining about stereotyping, and a female black developer patting herself on the back for being black and getting a CS degree.
Because it affects them personally in all kinds of negative ways.
That's certainly what they're saying, but I'm not seeing it. My CS and math classes started out with blacks making up about a third of each class. After midterms, over half of them disappeared. This is with left-leaning teachers who definitely were not going to be unfair to them, and with tutors and classmates who were willing to help them.
Maybe the fact that they're convinced everyone else is out to hold them down has something to do with it?
Only the US has a peculiar obsession with separating its population into ethnic groups.
That's utter bull. Every nation does the same, even the ones that insist they don't. If you have blocks of people in your country who have a separate culture and separate rules that they want to live by, it's foolish to ignore that and refuse to classify them.
If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.
This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.
Mr. Packer said the decision was made principally because of demographic considerations.
Only a tiny fraction of the members of underrepresented minority groups who take AP exams take the tests in one of those four affected subject areas, he said.
The College Board has made it a priority to reach such students, including those who are African- American and Hispanic.
It looks like there were plenty of students, just not enough of the right color.
Yeah, that's a good idea. What's worse than the typical dumbass redneck American? That same typical dumbass redneck American with a gun.
Why do you people always bring up "rednecks"?
Are these "rednecks" running around overpopulated cities in gangs, killing each other and terrorizing people?
Doesn't look like it to me.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Are "redneck" children going nuts and shooting up schools? No, those are generally middle-class outcasts.
If you're going to try to blame problems on a group, try picking one that's at least believable.
It doesn't conflict at all with what I said, US is selling your privacy and your freedom thinking this way you'll fight terrorism...
It conflicts with your original point arguing against gun ownership. You want people to give up that freedom in order for you to feel safer, and then you turn around and blast people who are giving up a different freedom in order to feel safe.
Both types of people are foolishly making it easier for their enemies to control them.
Willing to use a quote from the U.S. president Benjamin Franklyn: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
Not only does your quote conflict with your original argument, but Benjamin Franklin was never president.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Running to another country just means you'll have to run again later.
2. Name a country that recognizes and actually respects the freedoms that are supposed to be protected in this country by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. If there isn't one, then there would be no point in running. You can't tell me that Freedom of Speech exists in France, Germany, or England.
No, you just misread the summary and typed out an irrelevant rant.
The claim that geeks prefer the Windows XP version is the part that is expected to raise hackles.
"Since when is a 29 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"
"You must be under 35."
Seriously, the only reason people in their late teens or 20s act like kids is that they're treated like kids. They do stupid things because they know that they can usually get away with it.
It would be less distressing if the "tons" were spread across more than two or three kids.
Yes, they are scientifically classified as animals. In the common meaning of the term, though, they aren't.
It's like seeing a chart comparing "Mexicans", "Canadians", and "Americans". You know what the latter refers to, despite the fact that all of the three groups live in the North American continent.
It might be more technically correct to go back to using the term "beast" to refer to non-human animals, but it makes people look at you funny nowadays.
Having looked at what they consider "inflammatory statements"... Yes, this is "fringe".
NEWSFLASH: Most Christians believe non-Christians go to Hell when they die. Their answers may differ if you ask them about young babies who die, or people who've never heard the gospel, etc. Whatever, the basic idea is the same.
Outside of college campuses, it generally doesn't freak people out to hear this in the United States. Just about everyone over here knows that Christians think non-Christians are going to hell, and for the most part, no one cares. In western Europe it may be a different matter... Talking about religion there seems to be the social equivalent of picking up a loudspeaker and talking about your sexual fetishes over here.
The only reason Governer Perry stated that he believed that non-Christians go to Hell is that someone specifically asked. Some posters are trying to paint him as someone who shouted it from a podium during a speech to intimidate non-Christians, and that's bull.
This is like looking for a pin in a stack of needles.
Do terrorists, even specific types of terrorists, have some sort of uniform, identifiable facial expression right before they attack? I imagine some would be enraged, some would be peaceful, some would be resolute, and some might even be happy.
Yeah, and which one is more likely to actually get life in prison? Unless the murder of the drug dealer was by a rival drug dealer or gets tagged as a "hate crime", the killer's more likely to get 20 than life (and may even get paroled before that).
You don't think someone who steals a laptop is likely to get the same sentence as someone who steals a candy bar, do you?
Terrorism, by definition, has to have some sort of political goal in mind (wanting power, autonomy, etc), and has to have the intention of intimidation. This has neither.
I don't see anyone shaking in fear over Comcast's website being inaccessible...
It's just a regular crime, not terrorism.
"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours â" whereas all the testing says not really."
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Watson was forced into retirement for saying that wanting everyone to be "equal" doesn't make them so. Of course, the moment that the POSSIBILITY of any inherent inequality is brought up, any rational debate is impossible because no one wants to consider it.
It's the secular equivalent of heresy. The mob isn't interested in disproving what was said; they simply want to silence or destroy the person saying it.
Frankly, I like it that way. When I go to an "outdated" site, I know that it isn't going to slow my browser to a crawl, vomit obnoxious Flash at me, start loading a ridiculously large (and poorly designed) Java applet, or a combination of the three. Sure, there are add-ons to handle that stuff, but I have to maintain them, and they're irrelevant if I'm using a computer other than my own.
At least in the US I can still criticize religions other than Christianity without being arrested and accused of "inciting hatred" (not violence, but "hatred"). Sure, you can get harrassed in court in either nation by someone you offend, but at least you can't be criminally tried here (yet).
If you really want to test whether your country's citizens have freedom of speech, publicly say something along the lines of "I think the official estimate of deaths during the Holocaust is an exaggeration."
The GP post wasn't speaking literally. He was saying that the Government doesn't regard its own illegal actions as illegal.
It's a Nixon quote that he's referring to. "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html
I'm tired of hearing "bill of rights" applied in ridiculous situations by people or organizations who want to make it seem like they're being oppressed.
It seems to me that every meaningful phrase or term -anything that elicits a positive reaction in people- eventually gets co-opted by a political or corporate organization and turned into a complete farce. Sometimes it recovers, sometimes it doesn't.
When's the last time you heard the word "wholesome" in a BS-free situation?
This will be impressive if the project is successful. I admit that I'll be a bit disappointed that we didn't do it first, though.
Of course, it's going to be a while off, either way. Maybe our space program will have a renaissance in the meantime.
Unfortunately, his Slashdot-using customers probably wouldn't make a dent if every one of them dropped him. Furthermore, many of them won't, because the ISP will be the only one available in some areas.
Maybe his bombastic words will provide good ammo to use against others like him, at least.
I've lived in Texas, and in Arizona for a shorter period of time.
Your picture of a migrant who wants to send money back home to his family, and prove himself useful to the US, may hold true for an immigrant working in the fields of Georgia or Alabama. What I saw in the Southwest wasn't even close.
They want to drive the Americans out while taking advantage of what the latter has built, as many of them will tell you that to your face. Before going to the Southwest, I didn't believe this. It sounded alarmist when I heard others tell me.
As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough reason to treat them with suspicion, and to not rule out regarding them as enemies.
Many poor people that I see to not know how to, or don't want to make an attempt to, properly manage the money they do have. Why do I see families who don't have a phone or computer, and whose children run around in hand-me-downs, that have an XBox 360 and a 54" TV?
Poor (American, not African/Haitian/etc) Blacks seem to be worse about this, though I've seen it in Whites as well. No, I don't think that there's some sort of "buy stupid crap instead of teaching and feeding your kids" gene that's prevalent in Blacks, but this is a problem that has a snowball effect.
If the children could be reached, the next generation could be better. But if you give the family a computer, the kids won't get to touch it; the parents will pawn it or use it to watch porn. There's no point in giving the kids books because the parents won't read to them. I know, because this is what I tried!
"Stop whining" is another good one. Any of them can be applied quite well to this article, but I like it the most.
It was a group of black developers complaining about stereotyping, and a female black developer patting herself on the back for being black and getting a CS degree.
That's certainly what they're saying, but I'm not seeing it. My CS and math classes started out with blacks making up about a third of each class. After midterms, over half of them disappeared. This is with left-leaning teachers who definitely were not going to be unfair to them, and with tutors and classmates who were willing to help them.
Maybe the fact that they're convinced everyone else is out to hold them down has something to do with it?
That's utter bull. Every nation does the same, even the ones that insist they don't. If you have blocks of people in your country who have a separate culture and separate rules that they want to live by, it's foolish to ignore that and refuse to classify them.
If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.
This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.
It looks like there were plenty of students, just not enough of the right color.
It conflicts with your original point arguing against gun ownership. You want people to give up that freedom in order for you to feel safer, and then you turn around and blast people who are giving up a different freedom in order to feel safe.
Both types of people are foolishly making it easier for their enemies to control them.
Not only does your quote conflict with your original argument, but Benjamin Franklin was never president.
I don't think I want to take advice from you.