"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video..."
I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.
Explain to me how the release of this particular video puts all of our American soldiers in danger. Do you understand the difference between classified and 'military sensitive'? Do you realize that some (not all) things marked as 'classified' are done so just to cover some ass?
I can understand the difference between leaking, for example, the engineering details (and possible achille's heel) of one of our military pieces of equipment, or security details regarding the protection of our nuclear plants and leaking a video that has no security value beyond PR damage control.
You are just sensationalizing a logical fallacy, in a very highschoolish fashion. Pure hand waving. Not buying it.
from where I sit, IBM likes Open Source only as long as they don't have to compete with it.
That surprises me, who wouldn't like to invest time and money to create something, then have to turn around and compete against someone who basically just copies it and gives it away?
Depends on strategy. A company might want to commoditize/subsidize a previously charged (possibly expensive) product or service if it allows them expand their market or set a foothold on a new one. A hardware manufacturer forking into consulting (like IBM did) might find it beneficial to commoditize, subsidize or even give away hardware if that allows them to expand their consulting business.
Not that I'm saying that is exactly and precisely what is happening (or not happening) with the story, but it is completely possible for a company to go to the extend of letting others copy their work if they find it beneficial in expanding their customer base or services.
Thinking like yous is what's wrong with business and politics today -- nobody thinks long-term.
For me, a long term plan involves getting a better job, and if the people at IBM think the same, there's nobody left in that company you can blame for anything that happened in 2005.
So you are arguing that something is certain (or at least highly likely) when in reality it is just a subjective, unfounded conclusion illogically drawn by the shaky, unprovable premise that others working on a company you have not work for before think the same way you do?
Just go back to your button pushing and put your feeble brains absent of logic capable of anything other than whinning like the pussys you are, away and back in that little box you keep for your balls.
Rough men stand in the ready to do violence on your behalf so that YOU can sleep peacably in your fucking miserable bed- George Orwell dickwads
Lastly, to avoid death as a journalist in a war zone, stay away from the enemy dumbshit
I'm sure you feel all rough and manly and strong and awesome as the soldiers you somehow think you are praising and quoting Orwell out of context, but dude, you don't get those attributes by association or verbal quoting.
I could understand how soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan and Al Qaida fight and die to protect our peace. That I understand, that I support.
However, I don't see how our soldiers fighting a military adventure cooked by Bush' chicken hawks, invading a country that had no ties to the *real* enemy, bombing it back to the stone age and put into a terrible situation among civilians is a fight for our peace.
Explain that one to me in a logical, non-rhetorical, non dumbshit way.
It's a war, people die. If you don't want to die, don't hang out with people who carry around AK 47's and RPGs.
How do you tell that to kids, to civilians who happen to live in the area where the bad guys happen to be hanging around? And where where the AK 47's and RPGs with all the people that got shot? Please let me know where in the video do you see them. Thksbye.
At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".
...which sort of runs counter to the point, since he didn't just drill the guy and move on to the next target like he would have if these troops were just engaging in a spot of wanton murder.
Where was the weapon that the wounded man got wounded for to begin with?
Seriously? Have you been out there in the world, other than hang out with fellow coders? For my peers, the Wacom Cintiq is already their "ipad" - draw directly on the lcd "tablet". I myself, am an animator/ renderer, but we occasionally get online advert projects. Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what "serious content creation" means.
At most, I can see my architecture buddies lugging around an iPad to show potential clients the rendering and animation in.mov or whatever apple format, just to snazz things up at a lunch meeting.
I would like to see your statistic figures and charts plz, kthx.
Your buddies might be architects, but you are definitely not. If you have to concoct the red herring counter-example of architect using iPads, I don't see how you would be. You do power stuff, use the tool for that. You don't do power stuff, use the tool you like for whatever it is that you do (read news, watch pr0n, whatever.)
That's all well and good for passive internet viewing or jotting out a quick Facebook message, but for doing serious content creation that's a dubious assertion.
What's the ratio of passive internet junkies wrt serious tech users? Who should you, as a information consumption device (not as a development/power user tool maker), cater to?
Years ago, I had a 486. Today, in 2010, my computer has 8 times the processors, nearly 50 times clock speed, 250 times the RAM, and yet it still can't play these goddamn web-based games at a reasonable speed, even when using Chrome. Meanwhile, Quake II runs just fine on my old 486.
Browser-based "apps" are all about doing exactly the same stuff we could do 15 years ago, but doing it slower and shittier, although we have hardware that's literally hundreds to thousands of times more powerful.
The problem is not internet/browser technology but their application on things that are not appropriate for it. The idea should be to use the internet for things we could not do before. Too bad most developers miss that basic premise.
It's stupid to do this just for the iPad, but if it helps to move more towards web standards then I don't care about the means to the end..
If I could mod you up more I would. I think Flash technology has its place (.ie. Flex, Adobe LiveCycle)... in intranets/extranets. It should have no place in the public internet open for public consumption unless it stops being a proprietary technology.
To reiterate, just as blackberry users feel inclined to ditch their gadgets for an iPhone or an Android phone, there are people that will ditch their netbooks for one of these iPad thingie machingies. And this will be independent of whether their netbooks are sufficient in terms of technical capabilities or cost. Whether that number of people will be massive or just sufficiently large to be economically viable is besides the point. The very fact that such an artifact has been so much widely spoken is revolutionary in itself, independently of whether it is technically innovative or superior. It has an appeal that is undeniable, and that's part of good engineering. There is good engineering behind it, it is packaged in a revolutionary way, and none of that can be denied.
Some of you people should learn a thing or two about economics.
Agreed.
My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device. It may do what it does very well, but it is hardly original.
Does it really f* matter that it is not? Does it really matter if some people insist it is? What are you, a history guardian? What matters is the impact is has (or can have) with consumers. Everything else is subjective.
Regardless, I still think it's overpriced, considering it's priced like a full-featured device yet only has half the functionality.
That's for consumers (a lot of them) to decide. For me, I would not buy one. For my wife, I would. It's all about this interesting concept called "target market".
yes, I'm aware of "small costs money, Apple tax, it's not for you, you just don't understand the device", and every other response. I don't care.
Does it matter that you don't?
I still think it's overpriced.
That's fine and dandy so long as you understand that opinions are not fact, that yours is a subjective opinion and that what matters is whether Apple can create a niche market for this device that is 1) substantial, and 2) economically viable. Observing the common markets based on netbook usage, it seems to be that 1 and 2 will be case.
To be honest, it really isn't overprice considering we are willing to pay a netbook for $300. This device goes up to $490.00 providing you perhaps less computing capabilities than a netbook (or a full-blown development laptop), but providing a more appealing platform for information consumers; people who only care (or need to care) about browsing the web, upload their pics, buy stuff online and pay their bills.
People will decide that it is not overpriced *for what it is* and will get it. And if we observe how people personalize their gadgets, they will learn (or even force themselves) to love it even with its limitations.
It is overpriced for you. It is *for me*. So what? It is not overpriced for me to buy for my wife. It will not be overpriced for many people (specially the Apple loyal customer base, which is their right to be if they choose like Apple stuff.)
And that's all that matter. Market segment. Learn that concept. The device is not targeted for you (who don't need it, don't like it, or cannot afford it.) Since it isn't targeted to you as a customer, it doesn't really matter if you care for it.
Getting the fundamentalist nutjobs out of the public schools and into their own little inbred communities where they can't do any harm to the rest of society would just be a bonus, as far as I'm concerned.
They already have this, its called home schooling.
Interesting generalization of home schoolers, also considering that, despite all generalizations being thrown as evidence against this practice, home schooled kids actually do well. Of the few home schooling families I've found, I've not seen one motivated by religion or right-wing-nuttery.
My wife and I are college graduates, educated and traveled. Me raised Catholic (but not a practitioner) and my wife an occasional practitioner of Buddhism and Shinto - hardly describable as fundamentalist nutjobs, and yet we are strongly considering home schooling for our daughter. My sister is a Mathematics professor and she supplements (or rather fixes) a lot of my 2nd-grader nephew's public schooling with home schooling of her own (way beyond just mere homework), including experiments in Botany, World History and the basics of logic and argumentation (.ie. differences between facts and opinions.)
Obviously, this is purely an anecdotal observation so take it with a grain of salt. But it seems rather hypocritical to belittle home schooling from a soap box (an action usually done from a sense of intellectual superiority... read arrogance). Ideological posturing does not replace logical thinking.
Maybe you indeed have seen a sufficiently large number of home schooling families of such a nature that you can say with logical confidence that they are mostly fundamentalist nutjobs. Or maybe you are just pulling that generalization out of your ass. Maybe you are being objective. Maybe you are being subjective. Only you know for certain.
How does the sticking power of TOS test out in court? Do facebook's TOS actually mean anything, if all you need to do to access their site is to type in a URL? I mean there isn't even a clickthrough to have them pretend like they care. Yes, I seriously would like to know.
Those are excellent questions that need to be resolved either amicably or in a court of law (which is what was going to happen.) The later is expensive. Unless you have some powerful backer$s you can't do it alone (though it begs the question why he didn't contact the EFF in the first place.)
If I were him, I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit that I was behind the creation of both GNOME and Mono.
I mean, GNOME is the shittiest open source desktop environment around. It's built on the worst toolkit (Gtk+), it has way too many dependencies and is a pain in the ass to build. It's slow, it's bloated, and most of its applications suck. Compared to KDE, XFCE, and even goddamn CDE, GNOME looks like complete crap.
Just read through the other comments in this thread to learn about the problems with Mono.
Well, you would do best by showing him how it's done. Looking forward to see your next contrib to FOSS.
In *america* world, if your identity is compromised like this, people will go bankrupt very easily. That in majority of cases bring peoples life to stand still. They have to go through hell to fix the problem. He deserves what he got. Let him rot in jail.
Merely 90% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.
The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.
Not if we develop FTL traveler, it wont, you physics philistine!!! </shakes trekkie fist in anger>
How much free speech do you need at age 6? How about being free of saying that your parents are Jewish, or that your parents are, say novelists or scientists or whatever who happen to be censored by the party without having your teacher telling you to shut up (at best) or sending you into the corner because your parents are traitor, counter revolutionary, dogs or some other shit while all the other kids laugh at you (at worst)?
Seriously man. That is a really stupid question.
Those things wouldn't be censored in USSR.
Really? </sarcasm>
One would have to to try to publish something in the range between "Capitalism is good" and "Communists eat babies" to actually notice that there is actually a censor somewhere. Of course, some people did just that
Which would be their natural right, no?
but none of them were six years old.
But their six year old kids would suffer (directly and indirectly) because their parents decided to exercise that interesting thing called freedom of expression.
Yes, instilling "healthy skepticism" by perverting the nature of God and religion is just what our kids need. Nothing is worse than ignorant athiests and science fundies that neither understand or appreciate the roles of religion in our society.
Not when it comes to claim as a "hard scientific" fact that God is an instrument of the oppressing masses while simultaneously teaching kids that IT IS OK FOR THE PARTY to kill people for their beliefs or for their relative's beliefs (yeah, you could be killed because your cousin believes in X or Y.)
I mean, seriously, how much more stupid can you be that you completely missed the point - that it was not teaching of atheism, but conditioning at an early age to accept widespread murder of those in the opposition.
Not only that, and say what you will about theism, it was religious organizations in Nicaragua at the time who were at the forefront of human rights which is why the political establishment of the time made them a target.
Atheism as a way of thinking != politically motivated religious persecution.
Only an ideologytard would miss the difference between the two.
Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking — and Google’s policy.
So, he's saying a five year old understands the political system he's living under and its ramifications? A 5 year old?
I'd like to know what about the system made its mark on..a five year old.
When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.
Did you live in the Soviet Union? Ever lived in a place like that?
Must have left an real impression having the Cat in the Hat censored
How much free speech do you need at age 6? How about being free of saying that your parents are Jewish, or that your parents are, say novelists or scientists or whatever who happen to be censored by the party without having your teacher telling you to shut up (at best) or sending you into the corner because your parents are traitor, counter revolutionary, dogs or some other shit while all the other kids laugh at you (at worst)?
Slashdot Mirror
"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video..."
I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.
Explain to me how the release of this particular video puts all of our American soldiers in danger. Do you understand the difference between classified and 'military sensitive'? Do you realize that some (not all) things marked as 'classified' are done so just to cover some ass?
I can understand the difference between leaking, for example, the engineering details (and possible achille's heel) of one of our military pieces of equipment, or security details regarding the protection of our nuclear plants and leaking a video that has no security value beyond PR damage control.
You are just sensationalizing a logical fallacy, in a very highschoolish fashion. Pure hand waving. Not buying it.
from where I sit, IBM likes Open Source only as long as they don't have to compete with it.
That surprises me, who wouldn't like to invest time and money to create something, then have to turn around and compete against someone who basically just copies it and gives it away?
Depends on strategy. A company might want to commoditize/subsidize a previously charged (possibly expensive) product or service if it allows them expand their market or set a foothold on a new one. A hardware manufacturer forking into consulting (like IBM did) might find it beneficial to commoditize, subsidize or even give away hardware if that allows them to expand their consulting business.
Not that I'm saying that is exactly and precisely what is happening (or not happening) with the story, but it is completely possible for a company to go to the extend of letting others copy their work if they find it beneficial in expanding their customer base or services.
Thinking like yous is what's wrong with business and politics today -- nobody thinks long-term.
For me, a long term plan involves getting a better job, and if the people at IBM think the same, there's nobody left in that company you can blame for anything that happened in 2005.
So you are arguing that something is certain (or at least highly likely) when in reality it is just a subjective, unfounded conclusion illogically drawn by the shaky, unprovable premise that others working on a company you have not work for before think the same way you do?
Here, for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
Just go back to your button pushing and put your feeble brains absent of logic capable of anything other than whinning like the pussys you are, away and back in that little box you keep for your balls.
Rough men stand in the ready to do violence on your behalf so that YOU can sleep peacably in your fucking miserable bed- George Orwell dickwads
Lastly, to avoid death as a journalist in a war zone, stay away from the enemy dumbshit
I'm sure you feel all rough and manly and strong and awesome as the soldiers you somehow think you are praising and quoting Orwell out of context, but dude, you don't get those attributes by association or verbal quoting.
I could understand how soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan and Al Qaida fight and die to protect our peace. That I understand, that I support.
However, I don't see how our soldiers fighting a military adventure cooked by Bush' chicken hawks, invading a country that had no ties to the *real* enemy, bombing it back to the stone age and put into a terrible situation among civilians is a fight for our peace.
Explain that one to me in a logical, non-rhetorical, non dumbshit way.
It's a war, people die. If you don't want to die, don't hang out with people who carry around AK 47's and RPGs.
How do you tell that to kids, to civilians who happen to live in the area where the bad guys happen to be hanging around? And where where the AK 47's and RPGs with all the people that got shot? Please let me know where in the video do you see them. Thksbye.
At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".
...which sort of runs counter to the point, since he didn't just drill the guy and move on to the next target like he would have if these troops were just engaging in a spot of wanton murder.
Where was the weapon that the wounded man got wounded for to begin with?
There are kids visible in the van that gets shot up, nuf said.
....because if there's one thing you never, ever see in war, it's the use of children to cover terrorist operations.
And the possibility that this could happen lead to the certainty that is exactly what was happening... how?
I'm sure you say the same apologizing things about the sep. 2001 attacks, right? You aren't a hypocrite, right?
How did you come up to that conclusion?
I hate to break it to you, but wood is usually flammable.
And saw dust can be explosive!
i don't think they'll be able to disassemble, they used a proprietary torx-type screw. *that*'ll stop 'em!
Octopuses are very ingenious at unscrewing things. Glowing mega mutant octopuses will rule the world I tell ya!
Seriously? Have you been out there in the world, other than hang out with fellow coders? For my peers, the Wacom Cintiq is already their "ipad" - draw directly on the lcd "tablet". I myself, am an animator/ renderer, but we occasionally get online advert projects. Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what "serious content creation" means.
At most, I can see my architecture buddies lugging around an iPad to show potential clients the rendering and animation in .mov or whatever apple format, just to snazz things up at a lunch meeting.
I would like to see your statistic figures and charts plz, kthx.
Your buddies might be architects, but you are definitely not. If you have to concoct the red herring counter-example of architect using iPads, I don't see how you would be. You do power stuff, use the tool for that. You don't do power stuff, use the tool you like for whatever it is that you do (read news, watch pr0n, whatever.)
That's all well and good for passive internet viewing or jotting out a quick Facebook message, but for doing serious content creation that's a dubious assertion.
What's the ratio of passive internet junkies wrt serious tech users? Who should you, as a information consumption device (not as a development/power user tool maker), cater to?
Years ago, I had a 486. Today, in 2010, my computer has 8 times the processors, nearly 50 times clock speed, 250 times the RAM, and yet it still can't play these goddamn web-based games at a reasonable speed, even when using Chrome. Meanwhile, Quake II runs just fine on my old 486.
Browser-based "apps" are all about doing exactly the same stuff we could do 15 years ago, but doing it slower and shittier, although we have hardware that's literally hundreds to thousands of times more powerful.
The problem is not internet/browser technology but their application on things that are not appropriate for it. The idea should be to use the internet for things we could not do before. Too bad most developers miss that basic premise.
It's stupid to do this just for the iPad, but if it helps to move more towards web standards then I don't care about the means to the end..
If I could mod you up more I would. I think Flash technology has its place (.ie. Flex, Adobe LiveCycle)... in intranets/extranets. It should have no place in the public internet open for public consumption unless it stops being a proprietary technology.
To reiterate, just as blackberry users feel inclined to ditch their gadgets for an iPhone or an Android phone, there are people that will ditch their netbooks for one of these iPad thingie machingies. And this will be independent of whether their netbooks are sufficient in terms of technical capabilities or cost. Whether that number of people will be massive or just sufficiently large to be economically viable is besides the point. The very fact that such an artifact has been so much widely spoken is revolutionary in itself, independently of whether it is technically innovative or superior. It has an appeal that is undeniable, and that's part of good engineering. There is good engineering behind it, it is packaged in a revolutionary way, and none of that can be denied.
Agreed.
My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device. It may do what it does very well, but it is hardly original.
Does it really f* matter that it is not? Does it really matter if some people insist it is? What are you, a history guardian? What matters is the impact is has (or can have) with consumers. Everything else is subjective.
Regardless, I still think it's overpriced, considering it's priced like a full-featured device yet only has half the functionality.
That's for consumers (a lot of them) to decide. For me, I would not buy one. For my wife, I would. It's all about this interesting concept called "target market".
yes, I'm aware of "small costs money, Apple tax, it's not for you, you just don't understand the device", and every other response. I don't care.
Does it matter that you don't?
I still think it's overpriced.
That's fine and dandy so long as you understand that opinions are not fact, that yours is a subjective opinion and that what matters is whether Apple can create a niche market for this device that is 1) substantial, and 2) economically viable. Observing the common markets based on netbook usage, it seems to be that 1 and 2 will be case.
To be honest, it really isn't overprice considering we are willing to pay a netbook for $300. This device goes up to $490.00 providing you perhaps less computing capabilities than a netbook (or a full-blown development laptop), but providing a more appealing platform for information consumers; people who only care (or need to care) about browsing the web, upload their pics, buy stuff online and pay their bills.
People will decide that it is not overpriced *for what it is* and will get it. And if we observe how people personalize their gadgets, they will learn (or even force themselves) to love it even with its limitations.
It is overpriced for you. It is *for me*. So what? It is not overpriced for me to buy for my wife. It will not be overpriced for many people (specially the Apple loyal customer base, which is their right to be if they choose like Apple stuff.)
And that's all that matter. Market segment. Learn that concept. The device is not targeted for you (who don't need it, don't like it, or cannot afford it.) Since it isn't targeted to you as a customer, it doesn't really matter if you care for it.
Getting the fundamentalist nutjobs out of the public schools and into their own little inbred communities where they can't do any harm to the rest of society would just be a bonus, as far as I'm concerned.
They already have this, its called home schooling.
Interesting generalization of home schoolers, also considering that, despite all generalizations being thrown as evidence against this practice, home schooled kids actually do well. Of the few home schooling families I've found, I've not seen one motivated by religion or right-wing-nuttery.
My wife and I are college graduates, educated and traveled. Me raised Catholic (but not a practitioner) and my wife an occasional practitioner of Buddhism and Shinto - hardly describable as fundamentalist nutjobs, and yet we are strongly considering home schooling for our daughter. My sister is a Mathematics professor and she supplements (or rather fixes) a lot of my 2nd-grader nephew's public schooling with home schooling of her own (way beyond just mere homework), including experiments in Botany, World History and the basics of logic and argumentation (.ie. differences between facts and opinions.)
Obviously, this is purely an anecdotal observation so take it with a grain of salt. But it seems rather hypocritical to belittle home schooling from a soap box (an action usually done from a sense of intellectual superiority... read arrogance). Ideological posturing does not replace logical thinking.
Maybe you indeed have seen a sufficiently large number of home schooling families of such a nature that you can say with logical confidence that they are mostly fundamentalist nutjobs. Or maybe you are just pulling that generalization out of your ass. Maybe you are being objective. Maybe you are being subjective. Only you know for certain.
How does the sticking power of TOS test out in court? Do facebook's TOS actually mean anything, if all you need to do to access their site is to type in a URL? I mean there isn't even a clickthrough to have them pretend like they care. Yes, I seriously would like to know.
Those are excellent questions that need to be resolved either amicably or in a court of law (which is what was going to happen.) The later is expensive. Unless you have some powerful backer$s you can't do it alone (though it begs the question why he didn't contact the EFF in the first place.)
If I were him, I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit that I was behind the creation of both GNOME and Mono.
I mean, GNOME is the shittiest open source desktop environment around. It's built on the worst toolkit (Gtk+), it has way too many dependencies and is a pain in the ass to build. It's slow, it's bloated, and most of its applications suck. Compared to KDE, XFCE, and even goddamn CDE, GNOME looks like complete crap.
Just read through the other comments in this thread to learn about the problems with Mono.
Well, you would do best by showing him how it's done. Looking forward to see your next contrib to FOSS.
In *america* world, if your identity is compromised like this, people will go bankrupt very easily. That in majority of cases bring peoples life to stand still. They have to go through hell to fix the problem. He deserves what he got. Let him rot in jail.
Fixed that for you.
How insightful.
Merely 90% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.
The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.
Not if we develop FTL traveler, it wont, you physics philistine!!! </shakes trekkie fist in anger>
How much free speech do you need at age 6? How about being free of saying that your parents are Jewish, or that your parents are, say novelists or scientists or whatever who happen to be censored by the party without having your teacher telling you to shut up (at best) or sending you into the corner because your parents are traitor, counter revolutionary, dogs or some other shit while all the other kids laugh at you (at worst)?
Seriously man. That is a really stupid question.
Those things wouldn't be censored in USSR.
Really? </sarcasm>
One would have to to try to publish something in the range between "Capitalism is good" and "Communists eat babies" to actually notice that there is actually a censor somewhere. Of course, some people did just that
Which would be their natural right, no?
but none of them were six years old.
But their six year old kids would suffer (directly and indirectly) because their parents decided to exercise that interesting thing called freedom of expression.
Or that didn't happen in the U.S.S.R either?
Yes, instilling "healthy skepticism" by perverting the nature of God and religion is just what our kids need. Nothing is worse than ignorant athiests and science fundies that neither understand or appreciate the roles of religion in our society.
Not when it comes to claim as a "hard scientific" fact that God is an instrument of the oppressing masses while simultaneously teaching kids that IT IS OK FOR THE PARTY to kill people for their beliefs or for their relative's beliefs (yeah, you could be killed because your cousin believes in X or Y.)
I mean, seriously, how much more stupid can you be that you completely missed the point - that it was not teaching of atheism, but conditioning at an early age to accept widespread murder of those in the opposition.
Not only that, and say what you will about theism, it was religious organizations in Nicaragua at the time who were at the forefront of human rights which is why the political establishment of the time made them a target.
Atheism as a way of thinking != politically motivated religious persecution.
Only an ideologytard would miss the difference between the two.
Mr. Brin lived in the Soviet Union until he was nearly 6 years old, and he said the experience of living under a totalitarian system that censored political speech influenced his thinking — and Google’s policy.
So, he's saying a five year old understands the political system he's living under and its ramifications? A 5 year old?
I'd like to know what about the system made its mark on ..a five year old.
When I was five the only thing I was concerned about was getting home from school and playing.
Did you live in the Soviet Union? Ever lived in a place like that?
Must have left an real impression having the Cat in the Hat censored
How much free speech do you need at age 6? How about being free of saying that your parents are Jewish, or that your parents are, say novelists or scientists or whatever who happen to be censored by the party without having your teacher telling you to shut up (at best) or sending you into the corner because your parents are traitor, counter revolutionary, dogs or some other shit while all the other kids laugh at you (at worst)?
Seriously man. That is a really stupid question.