The exact number is subject to dispute, but here's a pointer to the future: A lot of the people I know are thinking about or have their mind set on buying a Mac as their next computer. Nobody I know is excited about buying Vista.
Also, that 4% number you are quoting is PPC Macs only - that company lists Intel Macs as a different category, and lists them at 2%, with a a monthly growth of about 0.2% steady for the past year. Oh yeah, and there's a poll on their website about what's the best browser. Safari is 2nd (after Firefox) with 16%. Given that Safari is only available on the Mac... Well, don't trust any statistics you haven't faked yourself, as the saying goes.
I don't remember the source, but he was right in that ad hominem attacks end a civilized argument. Thanks for playing. Don't let it bother you that others actually think about the world we're living in.
There's a difference there, a crucial one. Culture is the framework that we use to judge things. As such, judging cultures can't work. A culture is a context, not an object of judgement. Art, for example, only makes sense in the context of a culture. Behaviour likewise - shaking hands is a friendly gesture in our culture, in other cultures it has no meaning whatsoever. Spray-painting a picture of the king is an expression in our culture, in the Thai culture it's an offense on a basic value they hold. Maybe comparable with holding a public orgy on main street at noon, which offends most americans and will almost certainly lead to arrests.
I suggest you read up on the history of North Korea. The current leader is an oppressive and probably mentally unstable asshole, for all I know. His father was a different kind of ruler, even though he was a dictator as well. But the two don't compare, just like Washington and Bush aren't the same quality of president.
Christian? We? God? The original text says creator. Which basically leaves it completely open for any belief systems. Except for those who don't believe in a creator. You might be surprised, but that's the majority of religions that humans invented during their stay on this planet. Actually, semantically it also includes those that believe in creation as a joint effort of many gods.
Again, do you have any evidence to support these claims? I studied this specific topic for one semester, yes. That's been many years ago, however, so I can't quote you any authorities or books and I won't bother to look it up because the stuff is somewhere in the cellar if at all.
As for the stability of oppressive regimes, if you consider the context we are both right. Stable countries, yes. But in the 3rd world, oppressive regimes last longer than those trying to reform and work in the interest of their people. Source: Luttwack, "Coup de'etat", in the Appendix. There's a table comparing lots of data on this point.
theorize away other people's freedom. I'm more concerned with people fantasizing freedoms that are taken for granted when they aren't. Freedom isn't that simple. For the Thai, defacing the kings picture is not a freedom, it's an act of aggression. And speaking of that, where is Janet Jackson's freedom to show her nipples during superbowl break?
What gives you any more right to criticise the morality of others, than they have in criticising the morality of the Thai government? Good reversal. Here's your answer:
If we both agree to accept your point of view, then you give me that right, because you claim that same right for yourself in regards of judging the Thai government's stance on free speech.
If we both agree on my point of view, then I have no such right, but I don't need it because we are already in agreement.
If we don't agree on any point, then I give myself that right because if you don't accept my limitations I don't consider them as a valid defense.
And it is - in our culture, there's a meme that says dying for freedom is a good thing. "better dead than slave" is a proverb around where I was born.
Other cultures prefer survival to ideology.
Still others say that wisdom lies in waiting, and dying for freedom now is usually a stupid thing because you can get both freedom and life if you wait for the right moment.
Really, in the end it comes down to who can actually enforce his beleifs. Exactly. Ethics is an invention of the powerful.
If we follow your line of logic, then it stands to reason that our own criminal justice system has no legitimacy None except that we're able to enforce it.
You are in effect advocating a state of perpetual anarchy Not really, no. I just want us all to realize that our culture isn't superior in any way. The fact that it conquered our lands is not because it's superior, but because we killed everyone with a different culture.
Europe went through the same period earlier. During the middle ages, white skin was the sign of the nobles, and they used make-up to lighten it up. Same reason: Tanned skin was a sign for having to work in the fields all day.
Do you spot the difference? If you say "in my eyes", that changes your statement. It leaves room for other opinions. If you say - like someone else in this thread - "any system that does this is BROKEN" - that's a statement of a different quality. Yeah, call it semantics, but semantics is important (see Whorf, Korzybski, et al).
I'll bite: Broken according to what criteria? Are these criteria subjective or objective? The fact that others share your subjectivity doesn't make it objective, btw.
Don't get me wrong, if this were to happen over here, I'd complain about it. But different cultures == different values. You see, you americans call us europeans perverts and socialists because we don't mind naked women on (non-porn) magazin covers and working health care systems.
It is a presupposition in our culture that freedom of speech is per se a good thing.
I agree, mostly.
However, that is an assumption of our culture. It's a good part arrogance to claim it as world-wide truth. Or can you make a purely logical case for why this statement is true?
I can't define exactly how much or which right the Thai government has to judge those within Thailand, but I'm pretty certain they have more right to do that than some stranger living thousands of miles away who's never been even close to the country.
Good catch on the first one, though. Yes, I fell for the assumption that the grandparent meant "medieval" in a deragatory sense. He probably did, but it shouldn't be taken for granted.
You need to brush up your knowledge about contemporary asian culture. Thailand does not condone rape of children (which happens there) anymore than the US condones rape of children (which happens there as well). And the king isn't fearful or insecure, he might be one of the best politicians on this planet right now. In fact, he has less to fear than your president, and his approval rating is so high he would win any election outright. In fact, the king could've ended the recent coup just by going on radio or TV and saying he doesn't like it.
The government that's blocking YouTube isn't run by the king, btw. The kings position in the government isn't executive. You might need to brush up your knowledge about contemporary asian government systems as well.
"your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Where does your right to define what's good, ethical and just end?
Freedom is a more complicated value than that. Even in the west, its meaning has changed over time. During much of the middle ages in Europe, for example, "Freedom" regularily meant "freedom from oppression, freedom from hunger, freedom from misery". The common meaning today is not "freedom from", but "freedom to" - freedom to do what you want, freedom to speak your mind, freedom to choose your wife, job, etc. - that nuance makes for vital differences. Many medieval europeans were quite happy to forego the freedom of speech if it meant surviving the winter, or the freedom to choose their job in exchange for the freedom from the misery of someone living on the streets.
And yes, oppressive regimes are often the most stable. Ludwak wrote good book about that. But that wasn't the point, was it?
The Thais really do love their king. In Thailand, you do not have the freedom to piss on his statue or spray paint his picture. You can criticise him, if you want, but respect is expected. And you can be respectul and critical at the same time. It's not about not being allowed to express yourself, it's about how you do it. Can I come to the US and shoot the president and I'll be set free if I explain it was my way of expressing my deep resentment for his politics? Defacing a picture of the king is illegal in Thailand just like shooting the president is illegal in the US. In both countries, there are enough legal ways to express your opinion.
The coup was a couple of weeks after I visited. However, I can also see it in perspective. These coups aren't so rare in Thailand - look at the bottom of the page you linked. Most of the times, the military has kicked out a corrupt government and held elections for a new one. May or may not play out that way this time, we'll see.
The point, however, was a different one. There are no two opinions about the king in Thailand, so much that the coup could not have succeeded had he opposed it. Well, look here, the very article you linked has a good summary of that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for that law! See, I own a bunch of copyrights as well (almost everyone does, if you've ever written something, you own its copyright).
The exact number is subject to dispute, but here's a pointer to the future: A lot of the people I know are thinking about or have their mind set on buying a Mac as their next computer. Nobody I know is excited about buying Vista.
Also, that 4% number you are quoting is PPC Macs only - that company lists Intel Macs as a different category, and lists them at 2%, with a a monthly growth of about 0.2% steady for the past year. Oh yeah, and there's a poll on their website about what's the best browser. Safari is 2nd (after Firefox) with 16%. Given that Safari is only available on the Mac...
Well, don't trust any statistics you haven't faked yourself, as the saying goes.
I don't remember the source, but he was right in that ad hominem attacks end a civilized argument. Thanks for playing. Don't let it bother you that others actually think about the world we're living in.
There's a difference there, a crucial one. Culture is the framework that we use to judge things. As such, judging cultures can't work. A culture is a context, not an object of judgement. Art, for example, only makes sense in the context of a culture. Behaviour likewise - shaking hands is a friendly gesture in our culture, in other cultures it has no meaning whatsoever. Spray-painting a picture of the king is an expression in our culture, in the Thai culture it's an offense on a basic value they hold. Maybe comparable with holding a public orgy on main street at noon, which offends most americans and will almost certainly lead to arrests.
I suggest you read up on the history of North Korea. The current leader is an oppressive and probably mentally unstable asshole, for all I know. His father was a different kind of ruler, even though he was a dictator as well. But the two don't compare, just like Washington and Bush aren't the same quality of president.
The point is to challenge the "absurd".
Lots of what you consider perfectly normal is quite absurd in the view of other cultures.
So who gets to define what's absurd and what isn't?
As for the stability of oppressive regimes, if you consider the context we are both right. Stable countries, yes. But in the 3rd world, oppressive regimes last longer than those trying to reform and work in the interest of their people. Source: Luttwack, "Coup de'etat", in the Appendix. There's a table comparing lots of data on this point. theorize away other people's freedom. I'm more concerned with people fantasizing freedoms that are taken for granted when they aren't. Freedom isn't that simple. For the Thai, defacing the kings picture is not a freedom, it's an act of aggression. And speaking of that, where is Janet Jackson's freedom to show her nipples during superbowl break?
If we both agree to accept your point of view, then you give me that right, because you claim that same right for yourself in regards of judging the Thai government's stance on free speech.
If we both agree on my point of view, then I have no such right, but I don't need it because we are already in agreement.
If we don't agree on any point, then I give myself that right because if you don't accept my limitations I don't consider them as a valid defense.
And it is - in our culture, there's a meme that says dying for freedom is a good thing. "better dead than slave" is a proverb around where I was born.
Other cultures prefer survival to ideology.
Still others say that wisdom lies in waiting, and dying for freedom now is usually a stupid thing because you can get both freedom and life if you wait for the right moment.
I'm sure there are more alternatives.
Wasn't the zune the device that added DRM to anything you put on it? Or was it just when you "shared" it (that 3-days, 3-plays thing)?
Great deal - get DRM free music from EMI. Put it on your zune - *bang*, DRM added. Another MS shoot-yourself-in-the-foot moment.
Sun has one one the market, and it's been around for a couple months: "Project Blackbox".
As usual, the "visionaries" at MS simply feed us what others have invented as their great ideas.
Further up in the thread. But anyways, yes let's rephrase that question:
Your right to define what I may or may not do ends where I begin. If I want to hit you, who are you to tell me I can't do it?
Resolve that without giving me a great argument as to why the Thai can do whatever they please no matter how much it offends you.
Europe went through the same period earlier. During the middle ages, white skin was the sign of the nobles, and they used make-up to lighten it up. Same reason: Tanned skin was a sign for having to work in the fields all day.
Do you spot the difference? If you say "in my eyes", that changes your statement. It leaves room for other opinions. If you say - like someone else in this thread - "any system that does this is BROKEN" - that's a statement of a different quality. Yeah, call it semantics, but semantics is important (see Whorf, Korzybski, et al).
I'll bite: Broken according to what criteria? Are these criteria subjective or objective? The fact that others share your subjectivity doesn't make it objective, btw.
Don't get me wrong, if this were to happen over here, I'd complain about it. But different cultures == different values. You see, you americans call us europeans perverts and socialists because we don't mind naked women on (non-porn) magazin covers and working health care systems.
It is a presupposition in our culture that freedom of speech is per se a good thing.
I agree, mostly.
However, that is an assumption of our culture. It's a good part arrogance to claim it as world-wide truth. Or can you make a purely logical case for why this statement is true?
I can't define exactly how much or which right the Thai government has to judge those within Thailand, but I'm pretty certain they have more right to do that than some stranger living thousands of miles away who's never been even close to the country.
Good catch on the first one, though. Yes, I fell for the assumption that the grandparent meant "medieval" in a deragatory sense. He probably did, but it shouldn't be taken for granted.
Weird, there are several cultures on this planet that consider american culture "ass-backwards". How do you parse that?
The government that's blocking YouTube isn't run by the king, btw. The kings position in the government isn't executive. You might need to brush up your knowledge about contemporary asian government systems as well. "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Where does your right to define what's good, ethical and just end?
Freedom is a more complicated value than that. Even in the west, its meaning has changed over time. During much of the middle ages in Europe, for example, "Freedom" regularily meant "freedom from oppression, freedom from hunger, freedom from misery". The common meaning today is not "freedom from", but "freedom to" - freedom to do what you want, freedom to speak your mind, freedom to choose your wife, job, etc. - that nuance makes for vital differences. Many medieval europeans were quite happy to forego the freedom of speech if it meant surviving the winter, or the freedom to choose their job in exchange for the freedom from the misery of someone living on the streets.
And yes, oppressive regimes are often the most stable. Ludwak wrote good book about that. But that wasn't the point, was it?
The Thais really do love their king. In Thailand, you do not have the freedom to piss on his statue or spray paint his picture. You can criticise him, if you want, but respect is expected. And you can be respectul and critical at the same time. It's not about not being allowed to express yourself, it's about how you do it. Can I come to the US and shoot the president and I'll be set free if I explain it was my way of expressing my deep resentment for his politics? Defacing a picture of the king is illegal in Thailand just like shooting the president is illegal in the US. In both countries, there are enough legal ways to express your opinion.
You been to Thailand? I have, and the love for their king is real and very basic.
The people of North Korea actually loved their previous leader, his sun is only riding on that wave.
Do you know anything about what you're saying?
The coup was a couple of weeks after I visited. However, I can also see it in perspective. These coups aren't so rare in Thailand - look at the bottom of the page you linked. Most of the times, the military has kicked out a corrupt government and held elections for a new one. May or may not play out that way this time, we'll see.
The point, however, was a different one. There are no two opinions about the king in Thailand, so much that the coup could not have succeeded had he opposed it. Well, look here, the very article you linked has a good summary of that.