It would be as if you were to play a game where you're a German officer killing Jews who are portrayed as being christ-killing, money grubbing, conniving and any other characteristic that is typically used to stereotype Jews.
Gun doesn't portray native americans accurately - it portrays them as jokes. There are TONS of other things out there - books, movies etc. - in which native americans are portrayed in a less than flattering light, in which the atrocities committed against them are described in almost loving detail, but which AREN'T boycotted because they are, at least, more or less accurate.
My understanding of this boycott isn't that it has violence against natives - it's that the portrayal of natives is offensive and inaccurate.
Bzzt. There are plenty of jobs a person who wants to publically agitate for violation the law can get. This just happens to not be one of those.
She could go work for a civil rights practice, any number of non-profits that work for consumer rights, and so on. Hell, she could be an attorney for a firm that doesn't do anything with IP at all.
But instead, she took a job with this particular firm.
She chose to take a job with an IP firm that is rabidly pro-DRM. Then she chose to publically state that she opposes DRM and in fact advocates breaking IP law. She could have taken a different job, she could have not made public statements.
She was in control of her paycheck - and she chose to fuck it up. Nobody forced her to do anything.
Why should an employer *have* to put up with someone who publically agitates against the employer? If someone really is opposed to a certain thing, isn't it that individual's responsibility to pick a job compatible with their beliefs?
They aren't opposed to the fact that there was racism - they are opposed to the portrayal of the Apache in that game based on inaccurate stereotypes.
If the Apache were portrayed accurately, I've no doubt the outrage would be substantially less. In fact, I know it would - certain books, most notably (to me, at least) the Lonesome Dove books by Larry McMurtry have been *well recieved* by many native groups. Why? Because natives are portrayed as people, not as stereotyped jokes, and they are DEFINITELY not portrayed in the most flattering light.
Don't they understand that 100 years CAN be considered a "long time" when one realizes that it is roughly 20% of the history of a region? (Reckoning "post-Columbus history" not total - the tribal histories are, of course, different.)
Context is key. If I were talking about a computer and mentioned a "positively ancient" PDP-11, would you jump in and say that, since you live in a house that's 200 years old, the PDP-11 is, in fact, brand-spanking new? Of course not - you'd place it in context.
In the context of the post-Columbus history, 100 years *is* a long time.
If 99.999% of the world jumped off a bridge, would you do the same thing?
No, but I'd sure as hell stay away from the coastal areas and head for higher ground.
I'm trying to imagine the impact *badum-bum!* of nearly 6 billion people leaping simultaneously off of a bridge. Hell, I'm trying to imagine a bridge that could handle 6 billion people just standing on it, let alone shoving off of it. What would happen when they hit the water? What if they all screamed "CANNONBALL!" before jumping?
Even if he still put everything else first, he'd *STILL* have time.
It takes 3 minutes to load up a crock-pot in the morning. It takes 8 minutes for a microwave lasagna to get finished.
The only extra time investment is up-front, in doing a trivial amount of research (use Google!) to find recipes that are simple and healthy (and cheap!)
I absolutely am not attacking you, but I will state that it is VERY easy, if one takes some small amount of time, to figure out a way to eat well that is not only *less* expensive but far, far healthier and likely about as time consuming as your current diet.
I spend no more than 30 minutes a day on cooking (that's for all 3 meals, total), but I eat a crazily healthy diet that is varied and quite tasty. I have a good amount of energy, I get sufficient nutrition. I live in a "high" cost of living place - Chicago, the city proper - and I typically spend less than $200 a month on food (which includes the occasional splurge).
You're exhausted at the end of the day because you're carrying an extra 200 pounds around - there's just no "nice" way to say that, but I don't mean that as an insult, just a fact. Once you lose much of that weight, and get a decent (no more than 20-30 minutes per day is really needed once you get healthy) exercise regime, I can guarantee that unless you have some severe underlying medical condition you'll have energy to spare.
For the record - every single member of my immediate and secondary (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc) is obese. Minimum of 60-70 lbs overweight - even the teenagers. I am the only person in my family who is not overweight. Unless I somehow won the genetic lottery for weight (not so - I was chubby as a kid) or avoided a virus, or somehow lucked out and just didn't get whatever outside factor influences weight, it's pretty obvious to me what the reason is:
I eat appropriately and I exercise reasonably.
Anyway - I just want to say that yes, it sucks when the cards are stacked against a person, but you aren't screwed - there's stuff you can do, and you'd be surprised how little time that it actually takes to do it. The crock pot is your friend!:)
Steve Jobs was trying to engage in a friendly discussion and I took a swipe at him? Oh, I see. You meant that we were having a friendly discussion and then you mistook something I said for a personal attack against someone who isn't here, and you nobly leapt to his defense. I'm sure he'll sleep better knowing you're on the job.
I'm still not sure how my citing someone as a possible example of a certain type of high-functioning sociopath in order to possibly provide more illumination for a discussion that was in part about people able to perform certain tasks that high-functioning sociopaths are able to perform is considered "talking trash." Silly me, I'd thought it was "reasonable to the discussion."
But don't you worry yourself about that - there's bigger fish to fry! I hear that RIGHT NOW, in one of the Your Rights Online discussions, someone is (probably not) making fun of Linus Torvalds!
BWJones, your Open Source community needs you - go ye forth and righteously (but pointlessly) defend those who are not actually under attack!
Why would you say this unless you yourself had unresolved issues....
I'm sure I have a great many unresolved issues - but they aren't relevant to this discussion, are they?
Perhaps, instead of focusing on the issues of others, you might choose to look closer to home - maybe you'll find out why you feel the need to take a personal swipe at someone who's trying to engage in a friendly discussion.
Perhaps you just need more fiber - I know I get pointlessly irritable when my bowels aren't regular.
I very much think that an idealized lie detector will be feasible, and that it will, as you suggest, involve multiple technologies acting in concert. Polygraph devices, fMRI, voice stress and a number of other techniques not yet discovered could, I imagine, be refined and combined should serve well in this capacity.
The real problem - again, you suggest it - is that some people live a lie as if it is the truth. The question is, are these people insane? Are they so insane that they won't be able to tell "useful" lies, meaning that they will be able to lie convincingly, but unable to lie about things relevant to determining criminal culpability? (Would there be a way of using such a combination technique and certain questions to determine what sort of liar they are in the first place?)
Sociopaths are the obvious first source of skilled liars - some of the most successfull people in the world are stone sociopaths, in part because they lie so convincingly (to themselves, as well as others). I've heard it suggested that Steve Jobs is a sociopath of this sort. (And, I should note, that "sociopath" is being used in that case in a very specific meaning, not as a general "raging loony" sense [though Jobs is, no doubt, somewhat loony:)])
There aren't many male prostitutes servicing women (but more than you'd think) but there are a STAGGERING number of male prostitutes servicing men. Just being nitpicky:)
If a straight person is in a 'regular' guild and says "Oh, I have to go - my boyfriend and I are going out tonight, I have to get ready" such a statement is met without comment.
If a gay person were to say "Oh, I have to go - my girlfriend and I are going out tonight, I have to get ready" such a statement usually gets met with "Uh... I thought you were a girl? How can you have a girlfriend?" at best, and "OMGZZ! UR A DYKE!!!" with a swift kick from the guild at worst.
One should be perfectly free to not have to worry that if they say the pronoun of the person they're involved with that they'll get grief for it. That's the point of a GLBT friendly guild - one can be oneself without getting harassed by small-minded idiots over something that really is irrelevant.
I've never once heard of a GBLT guild excluding anyone - usually these guilds are described as "GBLT friendly." Meaning that people of whatever stripe are welcome, but that, yes, Virginia, here thar be queers.
In fact, I know many heterosexuals who've joined various GBLT friendly clans/guilds/groups in games mainly because it means they'll almost certainly find a more tolerant atmosphere, with few l4m3 k1dd13z annoying them.
A "whites only" guild would be EXclusive, not INclusive. If you can show me where any of these guilds are advertising themselves as "GBLT only" - well, yeah, that sort of thing would be bad.
I believe a large part of Gates' public face on his charitable giving is to offset the negative view of him by so many.
Outside of the technology world, I know not one single person who hates Bill Gates. Honestly, I think most people know him as "that obscenely wealthy guy" or as "that guy who bought our school all those computers" or as "that guy who's giving billions of dollars away" and NOT as "the convicted monopolist."
His public - and by public, I mean the 99% of the world that isn't aware of MS's machinations on any real level and wouldn't give a shit even if they were - image is hardly tarnished.
I think he gives all this money away because he just doesn't need it, would have a near impossible time spending it, and because there's a chance to do some good with it. I have a hard time imagining him being kept awake at night having bad dreams about people burning him in effigy at a LUG somewhere.
Anyway - yes, his business ethics are for shit, and yes, technologists the world over find him to be the anti-christ or close enough to it (though Darl might give him a run for his money these days), but honestly, we'd be deluding ourselves if we imagined we were anything even close to being relevant in swaying public opinion. Want proof? Look at MSFT's profits. If people actually thought as many of us do, you'd think there'd be at least *some* kind of impact, right?
... they want smart women, yet they go about trying to gather 'em by insulting their intelligence.
I got into technology because it was interesting and challenging. My gender had very little to do with my career aspirations. Maybe I'm a fluke, but I sure as hell never felt like certain fields were "off limits" to me just because I'm a setter rather than a pointer. I think the only time I ever heard "girls can't do that..." is when I tried to pee standing up, so maybe I'm just lucky.
I'll also say that I don't want more women in tech. I don't want more men in tech. I don't want more fluffy orange velociraptors in tech. What I want are more *good* people in tech - people who are smart, can think well, can do the work, and are good to work with. Specifically targeting "underrepresented" groups for a specific career based solely on demographic reasons is absurd. Ability is what should metter, not what one has under the hood.
Well, my first experience was the pilot - not the first episode that aired.
In that, I found that the pace was glacial, the acting was wretched (like most other ensemble shows - they didn't seem to have gelled yet) and the dialogue and storing bored me greatly. I got about 20-30 minutes into the episode, turned to the friend who was trying to introduce the show to me and said "For this you wait in line all night?" (This was after Serenity came out). So, I don't think I gave it a really fair chance.
I've since been told that if I were to start with the first episode instead, I'd like it more - something about a train robbery? - because it shows more of the "real" show. Anyway, I'm waiting until I can get the wretched pilot out of my memory, and then I'll try again.
Earth-like to astronomers means "not a gas giant."
Which sounds kind of silly, until one realizes that, of all the extra-solar planets we're currently aware of, "not a gas giant" really IS pretty close to "Earth-like."
I have seen some of it, and I found it awful, but I'd *still* like to see something like this happen because:
1) I'm not the only person in the universe - just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I should be opposed to other people having it, especially since... 2) I don't have to watch it. 3) This type of model - DVD subscription or something - might get applied to something I *do* like. 4) It's kind of funny when people who are fans quote the show at me and I look at them blankly - fans are always surprised when they discover that someone like me is a non-fan.
Yeah, I was thinking about that waking-up/going to sleep part, I think, when I said that.
I often hit my snooze alarm in the mornings. Nine minutes sometimes feels like hours when I'm in that half-dozing state. I can easily imagine some kind of similar subjective dilation of time-sense.
My point was that, until we have a successful freezing and revival after an extended duration, we cannot know, for sure, what the subjective experience will be. As I said, I suspect that it will be near instantaneous, but there's still things like the snooze-button scenario to think about.
Sure, currently the law requires that people die first. However, from my understanding of the literature, a LOT of damage/decay happens because of that. In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if "right to die" also wound up allowing people who were terminally ill to have themselves frozen while still alive, as a way of reducing ischemic damage potential.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a small correction -
It would be as if you were to play a game where you're a German officer killing Jews who are portrayed as being christ-killing, money grubbing, conniving and any other characteristic that is typically used to stereotype Jews.
Gun doesn't portray native americans accurately - it portrays them as jokes. There are TONS of other things out there - books, movies etc. - in which native americans are portrayed in a less than flattering light, in which the atrocities committed against them are described in almost loving detail, but which AREN'T boycotted because they are, at least, more or less accurate.
My understanding of this boycott isn't that it has violence against natives - it's that the portrayal of natives is offensive and inaccurate.
If that's one's personal choice, then yes.
Some people value their career over not being a robot.
Some people value not being a robot over their career.
Some people enjoy being robots, just like some people enjoy being a rebel identical to all the other rebels out there.
Bzzt. There are plenty of jobs a person who wants to publically agitate for violation the law can get. This just happens to not be one of those.
She could go work for a civil rights practice, any number of non-profits that work for consumer rights, and so on. Hell, she could be an attorney for a firm that doesn't do anything with IP at all.
But instead, she took a job with this particular firm.
She chose to take a job with an IP firm that is rabidly pro-DRM. Then she chose to publically state that she opposes DRM and in fact advocates breaking IP law. She could have taken a different job, she could have not made public statements.
She was in control of her paycheck - and she chose to fuck it up. Nobody forced her to do anything.
Why should an employer *have* to put up with someone who publically agitates against the employer? If someone really is opposed to a certain thing, isn't it that individual's responsibility to pick a job compatible with their beliefs?
They aren't opposed to the fact that there was racism - they are opposed to the portrayal of the Apache in that game based on inaccurate stereotypes.
If the Apache were portrayed accurately, I've no doubt the outrage would be substantially less. In fact, I know it would - certain books, most notably (to me, at least) the Lonesome Dove books by Larry McMurtry have been *well recieved* by many native groups. Why? Because natives are portrayed as people, not as stereotyped jokes, and they are DEFINITELY not portrayed in the most flattering light.
There is a difference.
What's with Europeans?
Don't they understand that 100 years CAN be considered a "long time" when one realizes that it is roughly 20% of the history of a region? (Reckoning "post-Columbus history" not total - the tribal histories are, of course, different.)
Context is key. If I were talking about a computer and mentioned a "positively ancient" PDP-11, would you jump in and say that, since you live in a house that's 200 years old, the PDP-11 is, in fact, brand-spanking new? Of course not - you'd place it in context.
In the context of the post-Columbus history, 100 years *is* a long time.
If 99.999% of the world jumped off a bridge, would you do the same thing?
No, but I'd sure as hell stay away from the coastal areas and head for higher ground.
I'm trying to imagine the impact *badum-bum!* of nearly 6 billion people leaping simultaneously off of a bridge. Hell, I'm trying to imagine a bridge that could handle 6 billion people just standing on it, let alone shoving off of it. What would happen when they hit the water? What if they all screamed "CANNONBALL!" before jumping?
All that they were essentially saying is "homophobes aren't welcome here". I fail to see why anyone could possibly take offense at that.
You answer your own question - they take offense because they're homophobes.
Even if he still put everything else first, he'd *STILL* have time.
It takes 3 minutes to load up a crock-pot in the morning. It takes 8 minutes for a microwave lasagna to get finished.
The only extra time investment is up-front, in doing a trivial amount of research (use Google!) to find recipes that are simple and healthy (and cheap!)
I absolutely am not attacking you, but I will state that it is VERY easy, if one takes some small amount of time, to figure out a way to eat well that is not only *less* expensive but far, far healthier and likely about as time consuming as your current diet.
:)
I spend no more than 30 minutes a day on cooking (that's for all 3 meals, total), but I eat a crazily healthy diet that is varied and quite tasty. I have a good amount of energy, I get sufficient nutrition. I live in a "high" cost of living place - Chicago, the city proper - and I typically spend less than $200 a month on food (which includes the occasional splurge).
You're exhausted at the end of the day because you're carrying an extra 200 pounds around - there's just no "nice" way to say that, but I don't mean that as an insult, just a fact. Once you lose much of that weight, and get a decent (no more than 20-30 minutes per day is really needed once you get healthy) exercise regime, I can guarantee that unless you have some severe underlying medical condition you'll have energy to spare.
For the record - every single member of my immediate and secondary (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc) is obese. Minimum of 60-70 lbs overweight - even the teenagers. I am the only person in my family who is not overweight. Unless I somehow won the genetic lottery for weight (not so - I was chubby as a kid) or avoided a virus, or somehow lucked out and just didn't get whatever outside factor influences weight, it's pretty obvious to me what the reason is:
I eat appropriately and I exercise reasonably.
Anyway - I just want to say that yes, it sucks when the cards are stacked against a person, but you aren't screwed - there's stuff you can do, and you'd be surprised how little time that it actually takes to do it. The crock pot is your friend!
Good luck
Steve Jobs was trying to engage in a friendly discussion and I took a swipe at him? Oh, I see. You meant that we were having a friendly discussion and then you mistook something I said for a personal attack against someone who isn't here, and you nobly leapt to his defense. I'm sure he'll sleep better knowing you're on the job.
:)
I'm still not sure how my citing someone as a possible example of a certain type of high-functioning sociopath in order to possibly provide more illumination for a discussion that was in part about people able to perform certain tasks that high-functioning sociopaths are able to perform is considered "talking trash." Silly me, I'd thought it was "reasonable to the discussion."
But don't you worry yourself about that - there's bigger fish to fry! I hear that RIGHT NOW, in one of the Your Rights Online discussions, someone is (probably not) making fun of Linus Torvalds!
BWJones, your Open Source community needs you - go ye forth and righteously (but pointlessly) defend those who are not actually under attack!
And yeah, no hard feelings - I mean that
Why would you say this unless you yourself had unresolved issues....
I'm sure I have a great many unresolved issues - but they aren't relevant to this discussion, are they?
Perhaps, instead of focusing on the issues of others, you might choose to look closer to home - maybe you'll find out why you feel the need to take a personal swipe at someone who's trying to engage in a friendly discussion.
Perhaps you just need more fiber - I know I get pointlessly irritable when my bowels aren't regular.
Take care.
I very much think that an idealized lie detector will be feasible, and that it will, as you suggest, involve multiple technologies acting in concert. Polygraph devices, fMRI, voice stress and a number of other techniques not yet discovered could, I imagine, be refined and combined should serve well in this capacity.
:)])
The real problem - again, you suggest it - is that some people live a lie as if it is the truth. The question is, are these people insane? Are they so insane that they won't be able to tell "useful" lies, meaning that they will be able to lie convincingly, but unable to lie about things relevant to determining criminal culpability? (Would there be a way of using such a combination technique and certain questions to determine what sort of liar they are in the first place?)
Sociopaths are the obvious first source of skilled liars - some of the most successfull people in the world are stone sociopaths, in part because they lie so convincingly (to themselves, as well as others). I've heard it suggested that Steve Jobs is a sociopath of this sort. (And, I should note, that "sociopath" is being used in that case in a very specific meaning, not as a general "raging loony" sense [though Jobs is, no doubt, somewhat loony
9/11 was our 9/11.
Challenger was Challenger.
The two aren't similar in any way, shape or form, except that people who shouldn't have died, did.
There aren't many male prostitutes servicing women (but more than you'd think) but there are a STAGGERING number of male prostitutes servicing men. Just being nitpicky :)
Absurd quantities of beer were involved.
Exactly so.
If a straight person is in a 'regular' guild and says "Oh, I have to go - my boyfriend and I are going out tonight, I have to get ready" such a statement is met without comment.
If a gay person were to say "Oh, I have to go - my girlfriend and I are going out tonight, I have to get ready" such a statement usually gets met with "Uh... I thought you were a girl? How can you have a girlfriend?" at best, and "OMGZZ! UR A DYKE!!!" with a swift kick from the guild at worst.
One should be perfectly free to not have to worry that if they say the pronoun of the person they're involved with that they'll get grief for it. That's the point of a GLBT friendly guild - one can be oneself without getting harassed by small-minded idiots over something that really is irrelevant.
I've never once heard of a GBLT guild excluding anyone - usually these guilds are described as "GBLT friendly." Meaning that people of whatever stripe are welcome, but that, yes, Virginia, here thar be queers.
In fact, I know many heterosexuals who've joined various GBLT friendly clans/guilds/groups in games mainly because it means they'll almost certainly find a more tolerant atmosphere, with few l4m3 k1dd13z annoying them.
A "whites only" guild would be EXclusive, not INclusive. If you can show me where any of these guilds are advertising themselves as "GBLT only" - well, yeah, that sort of thing would be bad.
I believe a large part of Gates' public face on his charitable
giving is to offset the negative view of him by so many.
Outside of the technology world, I know not one single person who hates Bill Gates. Honestly, I think most people know him as "that obscenely wealthy guy" or as "that guy who bought our school all those computers" or as "that guy who's giving billions of dollars away" and NOT as "the convicted monopolist."
His public - and by public, I mean the 99% of the world that isn't aware of MS's machinations on any real level and wouldn't give a shit even if they were - image is hardly tarnished.
I think he gives all this money away because he just doesn't need it, would have a near impossible time spending it, and because there's a chance to do some good with it. I have a hard time imagining him being kept awake at night having bad dreams about people burning him in effigy at a LUG somewhere.
Anyway - yes, his business ethics are for shit, and yes, technologists the world over find him to be the anti-christ or close enough to it (though Darl might give him a run for his money these days), but honestly, we'd be deluding ourselves if we imagined we were anything even close to being relevant in swaying public opinion. Want proof? Look at MSFT's profits. If people actually thought as many of us do, you'd think there'd be at least *some* kind of impact, right?
... they want smart women, yet they go about trying to gather 'em by insulting their intelligence.
I got into technology because it was interesting and challenging. My gender had very little to do with my career aspirations. Maybe I'm a fluke, but I sure as hell never felt like certain fields were "off limits" to me just because I'm a setter rather than a pointer. I think the only time I ever heard "girls can't do that..." is when I tried to pee standing up, so maybe I'm just lucky.
I'll also say that I don't want more women in tech. I don't want more men in tech. I don't want more fluffy orange velociraptors in tech. What I want are more *good* people in tech - people who are smart, can think well, can do the work, and are good to work with. Specifically targeting "underrepresented" groups for a specific career based solely on demographic reasons is absurd. Ability is what should metter, not what one has under the hood.
Well, my first experience was the pilot - not the first episode that aired.
In that, I found that the pace was glacial, the acting was wretched (like most other ensemble shows - they didn't seem to have gelled yet) and the dialogue and storing bored me greatly. I got about 20-30 minutes into the episode, turned to the friend who was trying to introduce the show to me and said "For this you wait in line all night?" (This was after Serenity came out). So, I don't think I gave it a really fair chance.
I've since been told that if I were to start with the first episode instead, I'd like it more - something about a train robbery? - because it shows more of the "real" show. Anyway, I'm waiting until I can get the wretched pilot out of my memory, and then I'll try again.
Earth-like to astronomers means "not a gas giant."
Which sounds kind of silly, until one realizes that, of all the extra-solar planets we're currently aware of, "not a gas giant" really IS pretty close to "Earth-like."
I have seen some of it, and I found it awful, but I'd *still* like to see something like this happen because:
1) I'm not the only person in the universe - just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I should be opposed to other people having it, especially since...
2) I don't have to watch it.
3) This type of model - DVD subscription or something - might get applied to something I *do* like.
4) It's kind of funny when people who are fans quote the show at me and I look at them blankly - fans are always surprised when they discover that someone like me is a non-fan.
So good luck.
So, what's so evil about Disney again?
That they're one of the key corporations behind the ever increasing extensions of copyright duration would be the biggie for me.
Granted, if it weren't them, someone else would do it, but they did do it. So meh.
Yeah, I was thinking about that waking-up/going to sleep part, I think, when I said that.
I often hit my snooze alarm in the mornings. Nine minutes sometimes feels like hours when I'm in that half-dozing state. I can easily imagine some kind of similar subjective dilation of time-sense.
My point was that, until we have a successful freezing and revival after an extended duration, we cannot know, for sure, what the subjective experience will be. As I said, I suspect that it will be near instantaneous, but there's still things like the snooze-button scenario to think about.
Sure, currently the law requires that people die first. However, from my understanding of the literature, a LOT of damage/decay happens because of that. In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if "right to die" also wound up allowing people who were terminally ill to have themselves frozen while still alive, as a way of reducing ischemic damage potential.