"I pointed out that some bloggers meet the definition of journalist. Why is that unreasonable?"
It wouldnt be unreasonable. Is that *actually* how you view your responses?
"*yawn* How about the OEDs definition? Or Reference.com? Just bcause YOU don't agree with the dictionary & encylopedia definitions doesn't mean you can dismiss them."
In no way was I dismissing anything. I was disagreeing with both the content of the definition and the way in which you cited it as if it was all that could be said on the subject. You were not, and are not, engaging in productive discourse. A quip and a citation is a rather meaningless post to begin with, and the way you've delivered them has been manipulative and negative. I fail to see how that's contributing. My point was not that i dont find wikipedia's definition of Journalist is lacking, though I clearly feel that way and am not shy about it, but rather that the way you cited a definition was really, really stupid. that is all
Thick replies? Interesting. I tend to reply to posts on their own terms, so you might want roll that back a bit there.
And since your own terms yielded no interesting discourse...
The GP certainly was ranting. Ranting, however, is in no way mutually exclusive with the presentation of an argument. A position was stated (bloggers != journalists) as was an opinion as to why (posession of the ability to disseminate one's opinion does not constitute journalism) Its not a *deep* argument, but argument it is nonetheless. You chose to respond with complete bullshit. Rather than meet his contention that bloggers != journalists with reason, you cite wikipedia. Go slashdot standby! a little hint, when disagreeing with a contention, its customary to say *why* Congratulations, you cited wikipedia. How about you go ahead and justify your belief in said definition. Parent at least briefly summed up why he held his opinion ("You have a keyboard and an opinion not necessarily a degree and a practice sense of professionalism") Not overly well written, but at least its an effort. And the broad challenge to find a better definition, rad. Try arguing for your point. We could toss citations back and forth all day, and it would add nothing to the level of discourse on slashdot.
Now, back to topic. I believe what the GP was attempting to get at is the distinction that our society draws between the definition you've cited from Wikipedia, and the Journalist as a respected and preferentially treated function in society. Though you do rightly correct his director's guild analogy (nice red herring by the way, quoting and slam-dunking an ill-conceived analogy is always a good way to really show how strongly you're intellectually bitch-slapping someone with the rest of your post when there's actually no substance to it) you fail to address his initial point: the ability to broadcast your opinion or your sumnation of the day's events is in no way sufficient to qualify one as Journalist. It is certainly a necessary condition, obviously. Journalism holds itself to certain standards. One might argue where the level of these standards is, depending on one's side of this argument, but the fact remains. Bloggers are the electronic equivalent of the Dude-With-Poorly-Photocopied-Tract on the street corner, until their reputation is built up to say otherwise. Because when it comes down to it, a blog is just some wanker with wordpress until he or she proves that they are worthy of society's trust. I am a die-hard liberal, but in a way I trust even Fox News. I know when i tune in, there's going to be a dramatic slant on everything. But you know what? I know what it is, and how it will affect their coverage. I know that when i tune in and look at the stock-ticker, that those are the real numbers, not some fabrication. I know that when i see a quote attributed to someone, they more likely than not actually said it (it may be drastically out of context, obviously). This is the kind of trust that no blogger has from me unless earned.
People all up their own asses about how awesome blogs are really need to take a step back and try replacing "blog" with "newspaper." Newspapers have been around a very long time, and had the chance to establish their relative trustworthiness. The Times is trusted, the weekly world news is not. Blogs are comparitively new, and they havent had time to establish which are good and which are bad. You all think they have, but they havent. You cannot talk about blogs as one thing just like you cannot talk about newspapers as one thing.
So, there you have my argument. Now, you can either reply in kind, or do your little *sigh* or one-liner prefaced by insult bullshit. Yes, citing wikipedia and challenging for a 'better definition' is bullshit, and I'd be very surprised if I'm the first to say it.
Seriously. Though I'm not about to start buying HD discs, I'd certainly netflix the hell out of them if i could get a gaming system w/ HD DVD capacity for the same price as the commercially available HD DVD players. I've got a Wii. I dont *need* a 360. But its hellof fun, and if it was going to pull double duty, I'd snap one up in a second. But I guess that would make too much sense for M$.
Here's the problem with that. Unles you live up near the arctic circle, you were already leaving work in the light last week, or if you werent then you were not going to work in the dark, or if you were doing both, you were working like a 14 hour day, and this change really shouldnt concern you one way or the other. If you really want sunlight after work, then we should have DST in the winter, you know, when you go to and leave work in the dark, not the summer, when its light all the time anyways. Why dont we just move to permanent DST? that way at least some of the arguments in favor of DST might actually become true.
So, we need energy-saving, safer-driving daylight-shifting policies in the summer? when its already light out after people get off work? Isnt that a little fucking backwards? Shouldnt we do that in the winter, when it would give us 9-5'ers at least half an hour of light in which to walk home from work? No, apparently not, clearly for the entire point of daylight savings to work, we need to implement during the seasons where it has no benefit whatsoever.
I've a couple of brief points of contention, tho i certainly agree with your opinion regarding the worthiness of TFA.
1. RAM. How the fuck can you contend that 256 megs is sufficient for anyone? Do you use outlook? Its a hog. My work box has 512 megs and i use it solely for Outlook and internet, and i want more. Also, have you tried using Vista with only 256 megs? Hardly seems worth it.
2. Definition of a full computer. The mini is a fully functional desktop computer. It happens not to be sold with keyboard, monitor, or mouse. This is problem for consumers, not for the enterprise, who's probably supplying everything to the users piecemeal anyways. I work at a large law firm, which is just a big corporate office, and I have never, *NEVER* seen anyone use a computer system that was purchased as a monitor, computer, keyboard, mouse bundle. The computers are all identical, Dell enterprise boxes, but everyone has a mishmash of Microfsoft ergonomic keyboards and optical mice, and mainly sony monitors. The mini is perfect for the corporate office box scenario where the computer should be quickly and easily swappable for repair and still run decent specs.
3. Webcam. kinda silly. I'd never want to video-chat with the people whom i IM. But given the pervasive nature of the conference call in the enterprise environment, i fail to see how increasing webcam existence wouldnt benefit business. Face-to face conference calls? what's not to like?
"Please define Mainstream Islam. Is it Sunni or Shiite?" you know perfectly well that parent was referring to the moderate center of the group of people self-identifying as muslim, who think that the shia/sunni distinction makes about as much difference as most mainstream christians think the protestant/catholic distinction makes. Each sect has wildly differing ideas about how to be christian/muslim, but when it comes down to it, it really doesnt matter.
"You know, that both consider each other heretics, and worthy of death, which is what the whole civil war in Iraq is about, right???" My sunni and shiite acquaintences beg to differ with you. Would you care to cite the appropriate sources, be they texts or speeches by The Leader of each sect stating thus? Sectarian violence is nothing new, nor is it something exclusive to Islam. Ever hear of the 30 years' war? yeah... Equating sectarian violence with the practice of Islam is really stereotypical knee-jerk xenophobic ignorant intolerant bullshit, and I'd suggest you consider educating yourself about a topic before opining on it.
"You know that every place that has a significant muslim population has a surge in violence, right?" Once again, would you care to cite a figure and source for that statement? I think you're talking directly out of your ass, and would be intrigued to see if there is a study or anything behind this statement, or if its just another in a line of baseless rhetoric.
"You know that they blame Israel and the USA for all their problems, even when Israel and USA have nothing to do with the conflicts they have in certain regions (eg Cashmere, Indonesia etc)" I am of the opinion that a plurality of the problems in the Muslim world can be traced back through conditions created as a result of U.S. foreign policy from WWII on, and as such would say that this is not that outrageous of a belief on their parts. however, I'm not convinced that the pronoun "they" is appropriate, unless you'd like to cite a study showing that a majority of the muslim world actually assents to such a statement, which I'm not convinced exists.
I think you would be well served to explore your own prejudices before you go off ranting about how hateful Islam is. I personally have heard nothign come from even the most hateful Imam that i've not heard mirrored in the speech of the extreme Christian Right. How do you think Christians are judged based on Jerry Falwell and his ilk? As a moderate somewhat agnostic christian, it sickens me that i'm in any way associated with such nonsense, and every single muslim I've ever met feels the same way in regards to the hateful imams you list as being representative of mainstream islam.
You are wrong, and you dont know what your are talking about. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.
With regards to the "jedi master who instructed me" business... I always just assumed after seeing yoda with the room full of 'younglings' that yoda, as an adorable and hilarious little gremlin handled all the children, and that as such, Obi Wan would have been instructed by him At Some Point, and then finished up with Qui Gon.
Not that I really care about proving continuity one way or t'other. If your audience has to go to any trouble to explain inconsistencies they maybe you should consider learning how to write. yes, i said it. I love the original trilogy, but jesus, continuity isnt *that* hard to pull off.
Well, its called "global warming" not, "British Isles Warming." there is an aggregate shift warmer, on average, and one of the consequences of that is "climate change" whereby the extremes get more shifty. But speaking on global terms, warming is happening, and is therefore the more accurate term. Also, being an american liberal, the very term climate change is indivisible from that texan asshat running my country, and therefore makes me gag.
"Does anyone remember the PS2 launch? Anyone at all? Same pile of shit, different console. Ahh, and look at how the PS2 crashed and burned...riiight" Actually, comparing the two launches and reactions is a complete red herring. PS2 launched first of that generation, by a considerable margin. The comparison you mean to make is PS2 and 360. That is apples to apples. Everybody bitched about the launch price of the 360, and how horribly its launch sales were, but now its the dominant next-gen console, and will likely remain there simply by virtue of having gained a solid fucking foothold. Or you want to compare GameCube to PS3. that is almost apples to apples, cause again, the PS3 is waaaay more expensive than its competition, whereas the gamecube was competitively priced. You can spout inflation-adjustment BS all you want. But you're not citing figures, and you're ignoring the proportional relation between the PS3's price and the 360 and the Wii. That is why its SOOO expensive. get over it.
"Nevermind that you can't put a PC together with the same features for that price"
how about, Nevermind that you cant put together either ps3 for that price, and Sony is taking massive losses banking on software licenses down the line paying them back, while Nintendo is making a profit on every Wii from launch on, and Microsoft has already established a dominant place for the 360 no matter what the ps3 brings that it doesnt.
Sorry for the run-on sentence, but there was just so, so much wrong with what you were saying i wanted it to be all in one breath for effect.
Saying that 3DO and ps3 are different because there was no demand for the 3DO is bullshit. The effect is the same: low market incentive for 3rd party developers to pay a license fee to develop for the system. Now, this will obviously change if Sony pulls their heads out and starts keeping up with demand. But if they dont, demand will slacken, and they will fail to have a decent foothold in market-share. Like gamecube, except $600. I mean, both nintendo and sony screwed the pooch on launch volume, bigtime. But nintendo had 25% of their promised launch numbers and Sony had maybe 7% or 8%. Lastly, this is purely personal experience, but I've seen ps3's on the shelves (granted only 2, but still) whereas Wiis were still being distributed by waiting list and voucher lines forming at 5 and 6 am when friends went to vie for one last sunday. This, to me, rather soundly invalidates the Sony fan-boy line that people are only buying wiis cause they cant get ps3's.
If sony doesnt get its shit together, the ps3 will not have a market-share large enough to make long-lasting 3rd party development viable, and will thus not be able to recoup the massive losses they're taking on each console sold, not to mention R&D, and will end up being rather drastically hurt in the long run, as a company. this is purely my opinion, and you may feel free to disagree with my analysis of the matter.
yes, three swings certainly is a herculean undertaking worthy of description as "all that effort" thank you for giving me the recognition my efforts deserve. and, Duh, they're not all the same. As long as you think you're showing the error in my thinking, I'll go ahead and help you out a bit. Not all swings are the same either: I was swinging vaguely consistently in an arc... perhaps the breaking comes from a quick jerk, consistent with the remote slipping or being suddenly let go. Perhaps the broken straps in question had first been worn partially through at the anchor point on the wiimote from sliding back and forth. Perhaps the Sony Sabotage Fairy is sneaking around weakening wiimote straps to boost ps3 sales. My point was that A) i had been unable to break the strap, and more importantly that B) even if the strap was made of wet pasta, I fail to see how the failure of the backup safety device could cause the remote to fly from the hand, as it is intended to be structural only after the remote has been dropped/thrown. The claim in the suit is that the failure of the strap caused damage to tvs and whatnot by causing the remote to be dropped/thrown. This is patently bullshit backwards ass logic.
Actually, its more like using a sledgehammer to tap the A button. I got a Wii at launch, and the thin cord that attaches the strap to the remote is smaller than the ones being sold now. So the fuck what? After a couple pretty savage drops onto my hardwood floor (by drunken guests passing the remote between themselves) it became apparent that the remote itself is nearly indestructible. So i decided to test the strap. I went over to my bed, held the end of the strap, and whipped it downward at my bed. Hard. nothing Again, harder. nothing againagain, as hard as i could muster. nothing. I was unable to break the strap. maybe I'm just a wuss, but i kinda doubt it.
people need to settle the fuck down and realize that they're playing a fucking video game, not the world fucking series.
Also, how could the strap breaking possibly *cause* the remote to come out of one's hand? At most, it could fail to *prevent* the remote to go flying across the room... but i dont really understand how, in the physical universe in which we live, the strap could possibly break *before* the remote has left the hand in such a way as to *cause* anything. I guess you could snag the strap on some kind of protruding hook that then ripped the cord while the remote was still in the hand, but causing it to leave the hand? BULLSHIT. and any decent lawyer will pick apart the logic on that in about 5 minutes.
Uh... Printable solar panels, by negating the need for extensive/expensive fabrications processes will do both, make them more efficient and less expensive. Isnt that the whole point?
The funny/sad thing about this comment is that it made me realize that i have a bank of south facing windows and a wii, so i will probably end up doing jsut that....
Actually, a friend who works at nintendo said that during a pre-launch wiitennis tournament over there, a wiimote was thrown through a piece of sheet rock accidentally (large room being renovated i guess) and that while the case of the mote was scratched and banged, it was basically intact, and still functioned perfectly.
It must not have gone in nose first, I'd expect the cover on the IR camera to be the least durable part of it.
I thought that was pretty intense. though of course, comes with all the skepticism a 3rd party account should. or whatever.
My original draft waxed far too long and convoluted to be of any use to the discourse, so instead, I will ramble a bit.
I think one of the fundamental difficulties you and i are having is that you fail to understand how I can glean any use from the bible if I find much of it to be factually inaccurate and disagree with many of its assertions. At the same time, I fail to understand how you can insist on the factual veracity of wildly improbable stories, and imply that to do otherwise eradicates their value. I'm not sure how we're going to get around this. I like striving to be a better person, and I see that to be the value of religion. The fact that I place equal importance on the teachings of jesus and aristotle, plato, nietzsche, thoroeau, wittgenstein, etc. might confuse you, but it makes perfect sense to me.
As to evolution, the bible says god created the earth, man, and all the plants, animals and whatnot contained therein. It is somewhat vague on how he did this, save that it was done over the course of 7 days. We dont know whether that refers to earth time, or time as god experiences it, which, I'd certainly hope would be on another plane of experience all together. Anyways if god can create such a wonderfully complicated thing as the earth and its ecosystems and all that, why couldnt he choose to do so by way of evolution from single source as advocated by evolutionary science? All of existence springs from a single point, God, (not trying to straw-man here, this is really my understanding of biblical metaphysics) why would god necessarily go to the multiple source model once he starts in on the living organisms? A split began between faith and science, with galileo, I guess. No longer was science 'understanding the method of creation' it was 'destroying faith by undermining the facts laid down in the bible' I find this to be silly. Science and religion answer different questions: how and why.
One final note. you do seem to have endeavored to conduct yourself mostly respectfully in this discussion. However, you rely very heavily on red herring and straw-man tactics. I find this to be remarkably disrespectful, as was your request that "we" refrain from profanity when I was clearly the only one a-cussin'. If you primary mode of discussion is going to be quote and respond, then mixing in the odd 'completely not a quote and respond' section is rather intellectually dishonest, as far as the discussion goes, and quite rude and disrespectful, as far as the interpersonal aspect goes. For example, the whole "if christianity is untrue..." bit. Where did that come from? I'm not sure how saying that some of the bible should be read allegorically instead of literally is in any way the same thing as calling an entire religion untrue.
now I must sleep off the turkey. Thank you for a rather atypical slashdot discussion. It has been interesting.
No, quite the opposite. Jesus was all about the moral duty to help those in need, obviously. I feel that a lot of the "Compassionate Conservatism" (via W, not what that phrase should actually mean) style shafting of the destitute stems from a confused idea regarding the extent to which humans are responsible for or subject to, fate. Somehow everything is unfolding according to god's plan, and at the same time, poor people are responsible for their poverty, and rich people are responsible for their good fortune as well, so why should they give anythign away, afterall, its *theirs*. They *earned* it. Jesus was pretty fucking awesome, there's just such a vocal group of people in this country claiming to be his followers who haven't a clue what any of it really means, so they revert to letter of the law bullshit. And thus, science is the devil and we should keep our kids as ignorant as possble.
So, no, jimbo, i dont think that the bible actually tells us not to give alms anywhere, I think that taking the fall from paradise too literally leads to a messed up understanding of the capricious nature of the unfolding of events, which is why i choose to read it as allegory extolling the virtue of not letting oneself be caught up in a tide of bad counsel simply because it aligns with and validates your baser inclinations. Seems like a pretty good message to me. Not sure why that needs to get lost in debate over whether or not a talking snake convinced the two progenetors of our entire species to eat a fruit containing the knowlede of good and evil, thus earning exile from a garden where strife and toil were nonexistent.
well quite. I see that we're doing the selectively responding to sentences out of context thing. Fine.
"Here's the fallacy of that concept. Jesus himself talked about Adam and Eve as if they were real, not allegory" And here's the fallacy of that concept: using material from within a source to show its own veracity. Relying on circular reasoning would cause one to fail an assignment in my 9th grade speech/rhetoric class: why is it being proffered in this discussion? The bible was not sent down on a fax from heaven. It is a product of Man, and Man is fallable. Add on top of that the fact that the gospels have been translated numerous times over the past couple thousand years, and you get a document which should not be treated as a factual record. Ever played telephone? yeah... Does this undermine the moral lessons contained within? I see no reason why it should. The golden rule, for example, suffers not one whit from my skepticism over whether or not Adam and Eve were real people. Do unto others is one of the most fundamental moral imperatives in the western tradition, as you can see by its presence in everything from aristotle to the bible, to disney movies.
"Why should the affluent help anyone? If Christianity is an outdated mind-virus, why should any individual do anything to help anyone besides themselves?" Well, this is not a problem specifically constrained to Christians, obviously. By the by, using rhetoric like outdated mind-virus as if it was somethign i was saying or implying is total bullshit. Respond to what I *actually* said, or fuck off. However, my point was that there is an inherent contradiction between the explicit dictates of all 3 faiths of the book, and the sense of responsibility for Fate implicit in the losing of Paradise. To specifically answer your initial question, the affluent should help anyone because it is the good moral action, and Christianity, by and large, just like all religions, advocates good moral action. I would argue that all deviations from this principle stem from ignorant people misinterpreting the Word, or the varying importance of different parts of the Word. Anyone who has read any of the new testament would have a hard time arguing that Christianity was meant to be anything but a big hippie love fest. Ideas reified as authoritarian institutions, viz. The Church (not the catholic church, just organized religion), have a way of messing up good ideas.
"that does not change the fact that Adam had a choice to make, and he made it" Well, of course not. But whats the lesson from being so drastically punished for a bad decision made in the absence of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Respect Mah Authoritaaaahh!!!! Punishing people so disproportionately for a bad decision made in the absence of a moral understanding of the ramifications is one of the less compassionate acts ever ascribed to a deity. I choose not to ascribe cruelty to my concept of the divine.
"The question is nonsense. Could God make 4=6? Can God smell the color nine? Nonsense. Tripe. But you may ask nonsense if you like. Don't expect a sensible answer, though" please see above regarding bullshit rhetoric. That simpsons reference was placed there purely as an acknowledgement that i was aware that my musings could be construed that way and that i did not mean them that way. The completely fucking obvious way in which that was originally stated leaves me with no other conclusion than you're either just being a cock, or you have an axe to grind about pseudo-intellectual questions like that. Axe to grind, I feel you; being a cock, fuck off.
"Well, if my kid was self-destructive, I might kick him out of the house and set up boundaries about what constituted a healthy relationship with him. FWIW - God did not stop talking to Adam. Adam still had some relationship with God - it was simply fundamentally different from the previous relationship. Adam had hope of fully restored relationship with God on the basis of God's mercy." We're talking about your 20-month old
I hear what you're saying. And yet, I'd argue that this very impulse, as you say, to disobey god, is what makes us human. We better ourselves though trial and error. You can make it as clear as possible to your toddler that he shouldnt touch the top of the stove when its on, but he's not really going to understand what that means till he burns himself. And by understanding that he will enter a larger world. The story of adam and eve is, in my opinion, allegory that is often taken WAAAAAAY to literally. This is obvious to many devout christians I'm friends with, but seems not to be to many millions of others in this country. We, as humans, like to be responsible for our lot in life. It makes troubles easier to deal with and the good things all that much sweeter. The knowledge that we were in some way responsible for having been cast out of paradise, and the accompanying sense of duty to take that responsibility and make the best of what we have, may have been very useful when 1 in 5 children made it to adulthood, life expectancies were in the 30's, etc, etc... Now, however, it is simply confusing matters for a society with sufficient resources to prevent those conditions. I would argue that this concept is responsible for the pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality that prevents many of the affluent from doing their share to help those less fortunate. People of that mindset that I've encountered have a very narrow view of what responsibility actually means, and tend to mistake providence, blessings, and luck for their own agency. Which is, of course, just silly.
Now not to be abjectly blasphemous, but is it *really* possible for god not to have known what adam and eve would do? I realize that this is somewhat akin to Homer's question to flanders, could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?, but it is something that has always bothered me. Some people say that that is the nature of faith, belief in the improbable. Fine. I'm personally not capable of belief in that which is directly contradicted by reason. The unexplained by reason, and the reasonably improbable, I'm all over. This is what drew me to buddhism (*duck* I know, I know, how trite, well you'll just have to deal with it) is its focus on the non-rational as opposed to the irrational.
Lastly, when your kid disobeys you, and you punish him, dont you afterward console him and try to help cement the experience as something to learn from?...or... do you kick him out of the house and stop talking to him? Adam and Eve had it easy, they *actually* spoke with god and knew what he wanted them to do. Not so easy now that talking to god has become a rather more mystical experience.
I used TabMix extension and it simply put in a second row of small tabs once I had enough open. Also, it let me keep the close tab button at the top right corner. There's really no excuse for not being able to instantly click on any of your tabs, whether because of scrolling, or because of them simply being unattainably hidden under. Either way, the standard FF way totally sucks. Find an extension you like that manages tabs better, thats my advice.
Slashdot Mirror
"I pointed out that some bloggers meet the definition of journalist. Why is that unreasonable?"
It wouldnt be unreasonable. Is that *actually* how you view your responses?
"*yawn* How about the OEDs definition? Or Reference.com? Just bcause YOU don't agree with the dictionary & encylopedia definitions doesn't mean you can dismiss them."
In no way was I dismissing anything. I was disagreeing with both the content of the definition and the way in which you cited it as if it was all that could be said on the subject. You were not, and are not, engaging in productive discourse. A quip and a citation is a rather meaningless post to begin with, and the way you've delivered them has been manipulative and negative. I fail to see how that's contributing.
My point was not that i dont find wikipedia's definition of Journalist is lacking, though I clearly feel that way and am not shy about it, but rather that the way you cited a definition was really, really stupid.
that is all
Thick replies? Interesting. I tend to reply to posts on their own terms, so you might want roll that back a bit there.
And since your own terms yielded no interesting discourse...
The GP certainly was ranting. Ranting, however, is in no way mutually exclusive with the presentation of an argument. A position was stated (bloggers != journalists) as was an opinion as to why (posession of the ability to disseminate one's opinion does not constitute journalism)
Its not a *deep* argument, but argument it is nonetheless.
You chose to respond with complete bullshit.
Rather than meet his contention that bloggers != journalists with reason, you cite wikipedia. Go slashdot standby! a little hint, when disagreeing with a contention, its customary to say *why* Congratulations, you cited wikipedia. How about you go ahead and justify your belief in said definition. Parent at least briefly summed up why he held his opinion ("You have a keyboard and an opinion not necessarily a degree and a practice sense of professionalism") Not overly well written, but at least its an effort. And the broad challenge to find a better definition, rad. Try arguing for your point. We could toss citations back and forth all day, and it would add nothing to the level of discourse on slashdot.
Now, back to topic.
I believe what the GP was attempting to get at is the distinction that our society draws between the definition you've cited from Wikipedia, and the Journalist as a respected and preferentially treated function in society. Though you do rightly correct his director's guild analogy (nice red herring by the way, quoting and slam-dunking an ill-conceived analogy is always a good way to really show how strongly you're intellectually bitch-slapping someone with the rest of your post when there's actually no substance to it) you fail to address his initial point: the ability to broadcast your opinion or your sumnation of the day's events is in no way sufficient to qualify one as Journalist. It is certainly a necessary condition, obviously. Journalism holds itself to certain standards. One might argue where the level of these standards is, depending on one's side of this argument, but the fact remains. Bloggers are the electronic equivalent of the Dude-With-Poorly-Photocopied-Tract on the street corner, until their reputation is built up to say otherwise. Because when it comes down to it, a blog is just some wanker with wordpress until he or she proves that they are worthy of society's trust.
I am a die-hard liberal, but in a way I trust even Fox News. I know when i tune in, there's going to be a dramatic slant on everything. But you know what? I know what it is, and how it will affect their coverage. I know that when i tune in and look at the stock-ticker, that those are the real numbers, not some fabrication. I know that when i see a quote attributed to someone, they more likely than not actually said it (it may be drastically out of context, obviously). This is the kind of trust that no blogger has from me unless earned.
People all up their own asses about how awesome blogs are really need to take a step back and try replacing "blog" with "newspaper." Newspapers have been around a very long time, and had the chance to establish their relative trustworthiness. The Times is trusted, the weekly world news is not. Blogs are comparitively new, and they havent had time to establish which are good and which are bad. You all think they have, but they havent. You cannot talk about blogs as one thing just like you cannot talk about newspapers as one thing.
So, there you have my argument.
Now, you can either reply in kind, or do your little *sigh* or one-liner prefaced by insult bullshit. Yes, citing wikipedia and challenging for a 'better definition' is bullshit, and I'd be very surprised if I'm the first to say it.
*yawn*
why dont you try replying to the argument of parent instead of resting your case on the over generalized definition in an encyclopedia?
Seriously.
Though I'm not about to start buying HD discs, I'd certainly netflix the hell out of them if i could get a gaming system w/ HD DVD capacity for the same price as the commercially available HD DVD players.
I've got a Wii. I dont *need* a 360. But its hellof fun, and if it was going to pull double duty, I'd snap one up in a second.
But I guess that would make too much sense for M$.
Here's the problem with that. Unles you live up near the arctic circle, you were already leaving work in the light last week, or if you werent then you were not going to work in the dark, or if you were doing both, you were working like a 14 hour day, and this change really shouldnt concern you one way or the other.
If you really want sunlight after work, then we should have DST in the winter, you know, when you go to and leave work in the dark, not the summer, when its light all the time anyways.
Why dont we just move to permanent DST? that way at least some of the arguments in favor of DST might actually become true.
So, we need energy-saving, safer-driving daylight-shifting policies in the summer? when its already light out after people get off work? Isnt that a little fucking backwards? Shouldnt we do that in the winter, when it would give us 9-5'ers at least half an hour of light in which to walk home from work?
No, apparently not, clearly for the entire point of daylight savings to work, we need to implement during the seasons where it has no benefit whatsoever.
I've a couple of brief points of contention, tho i certainly agree with your opinion regarding the worthiness of TFA.
1. RAM. How the fuck can you contend that 256 megs is sufficient for anyone? Do you use outlook? Its a hog. My work box has 512 megs and i use it solely for Outlook and internet, and i want more. Also, have you tried using Vista with only 256 megs? Hardly seems worth it.
2. Definition of a full computer. The mini is a fully functional desktop computer. It happens not to be sold with keyboard, monitor, or mouse. This is problem for consumers, not for the enterprise, who's probably supplying everything to the users piecemeal anyways. I work at a large law firm, which is just a big corporate office, and I have never, *NEVER* seen anyone use a computer system that was purchased as a monitor, computer, keyboard, mouse bundle. The computers are all identical, Dell enterprise boxes, but everyone has a mishmash of Microfsoft ergonomic keyboards and optical mice, and mainly sony monitors. The mini is perfect for the corporate office box scenario where the computer should be quickly and easily swappable for repair and still run decent specs.
3. Webcam. kinda silly. I'd never want to video-chat with the people whom i IM. But given the pervasive nature of the conference call in the enterprise environment, i fail to see how increasing webcam existence wouldnt benefit business. Face-to face conference calls? what's not to like?
"Please define Mainstream Islam. Is it Sunni or Shiite?"
you know perfectly well that parent was referring to the moderate center of the group of people self-identifying as muslim, who think that the shia/sunni distinction makes about as much difference as most mainstream christians think the protestant/catholic distinction makes. Each sect has wildly differing ideas about how to be christian/muslim, but when it comes down to it, it really doesnt matter.
"You know, that both consider each other heretics, and worthy of death, which is what the whole civil war in Iraq is about, right???"
My sunni and shiite acquaintences beg to differ with you. Would you care to cite the appropriate sources, be they texts or speeches by The Leader of each sect stating thus? Sectarian violence is nothing new, nor is it something exclusive to Islam. Ever hear of the 30 years' war? yeah... Equating sectarian violence with the practice of Islam is really stereotypical knee-jerk xenophobic ignorant intolerant bullshit, and I'd suggest you consider educating yourself about a topic before opining on it.
"You know that every place that has a significant muslim population has a surge in violence, right?"
Once again, would you care to cite a figure and source for that statement? I think you're talking directly out of your ass, and would be intrigued to see if there is a study or anything behind this statement, or if its just another in a line of baseless rhetoric.
"You know that they blame Israel and the USA for all their problems, even when Israel and USA have nothing to do with the conflicts they have in certain regions (eg Cashmere, Indonesia etc)"
I am of the opinion that a plurality of the problems in the Muslim world can be traced back through conditions created as a result of U.S. foreign policy from WWII on, and as such would say that this is not that outrageous of a belief on their parts. however, I'm not convinced that the pronoun "they" is appropriate, unless you'd like to cite a study showing that a majority of the muslim world actually assents to such a statement, which I'm not convinced exists.
I think you would be well served to explore your own prejudices before you go off ranting about how hateful Islam is. I personally have heard nothign come from even the most hateful Imam that i've not heard mirrored in the speech of the extreme Christian Right. How do you think Christians are judged based on Jerry Falwell and his ilk? As a moderate somewhat agnostic christian, it sickens me that i'm in any way associated with such nonsense, and every single muslim I've ever met feels the same way in regards to the hateful imams you list as being representative of mainstream islam.
You are wrong, and you dont know what your are talking about.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.
With regards to the "jedi master who instructed me" business...
I always just assumed after seeing yoda with the room full of 'younglings' that yoda, as an adorable and hilarious little gremlin handled all the children, and that as such, Obi Wan would have been instructed by him At Some Point, and then finished up with Qui Gon.
Not that I really care about proving continuity one way or t'other. If your audience has to go to any trouble to explain inconsistencies they maybe you should consider learning how to write. yes, i said it. I love the original trilogy, but jesus, continuity isnt *that* hard to pull off.
Well, its called "global warming" not, "British Isles Warming."
there is an aggregate shift warmer, on average, and one of the consequences of that is "climate change" whereby the extremes get more shifty.
But speaking on global terms, warming is happening, and is therefore the more accurate term.
Also, being an american liberal, the very term climate change is indivisible from that texan asshat running my country, and therefore makes me gag.
"Does anyone remember the PS2 launch? Anyone at all? Same pile of shit, different console. Ahh, and look at how the PS2 crashed and burned...riiight"
Actually, comparing the two launches and reactions is a complete red herring. PS2 launched first of that generation, by a considerable margin. The comparison you mean to make is PS2 and 360. That is apples to apples. Everybody bitched about the launch price of the 360, and how horribly its launch sales were, but now its the dominant next-gen console, and will likely remain there simply by virtue of having gained a solid fucking foothold. Or you want to compare GameCube to PS3. that is almost apples to apples, cause again, the PS3 is waaaay more expensive than its competition, whereas the gamecube was competitively priced. You can spout inflation-adjustment BS all you want. But you're not citing figures, and you're ignoring the proportional relation between the PS3's price and the 360 and the Wii. That is why its SOOO expensive. get over it.
"Nevermind that you can't put a PC together with the same features for that price"
how about, Nevermind that you cant put together either ps3 for that price, and Sony is taking massive losses banking on software licenses down the line paying them back, while Nintendo is making a profit on every Wii from launch on, and Microsoft has already established a dominant place for the 360 no matter what the ps3 brings that it doesnt.
Sorry for the run-on sentence, but there was just so, so much wrong with what you were saying i wanted it to be all in one breath for effect.
Saying that 3DO and ps3 are different because there was no demand for the 3DO is bullshit. The effect is the same: low market incentive for 3rd party developers to pay a license fee to develop for the system. Now, this will obviously change if Sony pulls their heads out and starts keeping up with demand. But if they dont, demand will slacken, and they will fail to have a decent foothold in market-share. Like gamecube, except $600. I mean, both nintendo and sony screwed the pooch on launch volume, bigtime. But nintendo had 25% of their promised launch numbers and Sony had maybe 7% or 8%.
Lastly, this is purely personal experience, but I've seen ps3's on the shelves (granted only 2, but still) whereas Wiis were still being distributed by waiting list and voucher lines forming at 5 and 6 am when friends went to vie for one last sunday. This, to me, rather soundly invalidates the Sony fan-boy line that people are only buying wiis cause they cant get ps3's.
If sony doesnt get its shit together, the ps3 will not have a market-share large enough to make long-lasting 3rd party development viable, and will thus not be able to recoup the massive losses they're taking on each console sold, not to mention R&D, and will end up being rather drastically hurt in the long run, as a company.
this is purely my opinion, and you may feel free to disagree with my analysis of the matter.
yes, three swings certainly is a herculean undertaking worthy of description as "all that effort" thank you for giving me the recognition my efforts deserve.
and, Duh, they're not all the same. As long as you think you're showing the error in my thinking, I'll go ahead and help you out a bit. Not all swings are the same either: I was swinging vaguely consistently in an arc... perhaps the breaking comes from a quick jerk, consistent with the remote slipping or being suddenly let go. Perhaps the broken straps in question had first been worn partially through at the anchor point on the wiimote from sliding back and forth. Perhaps the Sony Sabotage Fairy is sneaking around weakening wiimote straps to boost ps3 sales.
My point was that A) i had been unable to break the strap, and more importantly that B) even if the strap was made of wet pasta, I fail to see how the failure of the backup safety device could cause the remote to fly from the hand, as it is intended to be structural only after the remote has been dropped/thrown. The claim in the suit is that the failure of the strap caused damage to tvs and whatnot by causing the remote to be dropped/thrown. This is patently bullshit backwards ass logic.
Actually, its more like using a sledgehammer to tap the A button.
I got a Wii at launch, and the thin cord that attaches the strap to the remote is smaller than the ones being sold now.
So the fuck what?
After a couple pretty savage drops onto my hardwood floor (by drunken guests passing the remote between themselves) it became apparent that the remote itself is nearly indestructible. So i decided to test the strap.
I went over to my bed, held the end of the strap, and whipped it downward at my bed. Hard.
nothing
Again, harder.
nothing
againagain, as hard as i could muster.
nothing.
I was unable to break the strap.
maybe I'm just a wuss, but i kinda doubt it.
people need to settle the fuck down and realize that they're playing a fucking video game, not the world fucking series.
Also, how could the strap breaking possibly *cause* the remote to come out of one's hand? At most, it could fail to *prevent* the remote to go flying across the room... but i dont really understand how, in the physical universe in which we live, the strap could possibly break *before* the remote has left the hand in such a way as to *cause* anything. I guess you could snag the strap on some kind of protruding hook that then ripped the cord while the remote was still in the hand, but causing it to leave the hand? BULLSHIT. and any decent lawyer will pick apart the logic on that in about 5 minutes.
Uh... Printable solar panels, by negating the need for extensive/expensive fabrications processes will do both, make them more efficient and less expensive. Isnt that the whole point?
The funny/sad thing about this comment is that it made me realize that i have a bank of south facing windows and a wii, so i will probably end up doing jsut that....
he was clearly refering to the sun heating and evaporating the earth's oceans, thus "starting" the rest of the water cycle. you're just being a tool.
Uh, that sounds like the awesomest bond-villian world-holding-hostage device ever.
Actually, a friend who works at nintendo said that during a pre-launch wiitennis tournament over there, a wiimote was thrown through a piece of sheet rock accidentally (large room being renovated i guess) and that while the case of the mote was scratched and banged, it was basically intact, and still functioned perfectly.
It must not have gone in nose first, I'd expect the cover on the IR camera to be the least durable part of it.
I thought that was pretty intense. though of course, comes with all the skepticism a 3rd party account should. or whatever.
My original draft waxed far too long and convoluted to be of any use to the discourse, so instead, I will ramble a bit.
I think one of the fundamental difficulties you and i are having is that you fail to understand how I can glean any use from the bible if I find much of it to be factually inaccurate and disagree with many of its assertions. At the same time, I fail to understand how you can insist on the factual veracity of wildly improbable stories, and imply that to do otherwise eradicates their value. I'm not sure how we're going to get around this. I like striving to be a better person, and I see that to be the value of religion. The fact that I place equal importance on the teachings of jesus and aristotle, plato, nietzsche, thoroeau, wittgenstein, etc. might confuse you, but it makes perfect sense to me.
As to evolution, the bible says god created the earth, man, and all the plants, animals and whatnot contained therein. It is somewhat vague on how he did this, save that it was done over the course of 7 days. We dont know whether that refers to earth time, or time as god experiences it, which, I'd certainly hope would be on another plane of experience all together. Anyways if god can create such a wonderfully complicated thing as the earth and its ecosystems and all that, why couldnt he choose to do so by way of evolution from single source as advocated by evolutionary science? All of existence springs from a single point, God, (not trying to straw-man here, this is really my understanding of biblical metaphysics) why would god necessarily go to the multiple source model once he starts in on the living organisms?
A split began between faith and science, with galileo, I guess. No longer was science 'understanding the method of creation' it was 'destroying faith by undermining the facts laid down in the bible' I find this to be silly. Science and religion answer different questions: how and why.
One final note. you do seem to have endeavored to conduct yourself mostly respectfully in this discussion. However, you rely very heavily on red herring and straw-man tactics. I find this to be remarkably disrespectful, as was your request that "we" refrain from profanity when I was clearly the only one a-cussin'. If you primary mode of discussion is going to be quote and respond, then mixing in the odd 'completely not a quote and respond' section is rather intellectually dishonest, as far as the discussion goes, and quite rude and disrespectful, as far as the interpersonal aspect goes. For example, the whole "if christianity is untrue..." bit. Where did that come from? I'm not sure how saying that some of the bible should be read allegorically instead of literally is in any way the same thing as calling an entire religion untrue.
now I must sleep off the turkey.
Thank you for a rather atypical slashdot discussion. It has been interesting.
No, quite the opposite. Jesus was all about the moral duty to help those in need, obviously. I feel that a lot of the "Compassionate Conservatism" (via W, not what that phrase should actually mean) style shafting of the destitute stems from a confused idea regarding the extent to which humans are responsible for or subject to, fate. Somehow everything is unfolding according to god's plan, and at the same time, poor people are responsible for their poverty, and rich people are responsible for their good fortune as well, so why should they give anythign away, afterall, its *theirs*. They *earned* it. Jesus was pretty fucking awesome, there's just such a vocal group of people in this country claiming to be his followers who haven't a clue what any of it really means, so they revert to letter of the law bullshit. And thus, science is the devil and we should keep our kids as ignorant as possble.
So, no, jimbo, i dont think that the bible actually tells us not to give alms anywhere, I think that taking the fall from paradise too literally leads to a messed up understanding of the capricious nature of the unfolding of events, which is why i choose to read it as allegory extolling the virtue of not letting oneself be caught up in a tide of bad counsel simply because it aligns with and validates your baser inclinations. Seems like a pretty good message to me. Not sure why that needs to get lost in debate over whether or not a talking snake convinced the two progenetors of our entire species to eat a fruit containing the knowlede of good and evil, thus earning exile from a garden where strife and toil were nonexistent.
namaste,
matt
well quite. I see that we're doing the selectively responding to sentences out of context thing. Fine.
"Here's the fallacy of that concept. Jesus himself talked about Adam and Eve as if they were real, not allegory" And here's the fallacy of that concept: using material from within a source to show its own veracity. Relying on circular reasoning would cause one to fail an assignment in my 9th grade speech/rhetoric class: why is it being proffered in this discussion? The bible was not sent down on a fax from heaven. It is a product of Man, and Man is fallable. Add on top of that the fact that the gospels have been translated numerous times over the past couple thousand years, and you get a document which should not be treated as a factual record. Ever played telephone? yeah... Does this undermine the moral lessons contained within? I see no reason why it should. The golden rule, for example, suffers not one whit from my skepticism over whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.
Do unto others is one of the most fundamental moral imperatives in the western tradition, as you can see by its presence in everything from aristotle to the bible, to disney movies.
"Why should the affluent help anyone? If Christianity is an outdated mind-virus, why should any individual do anything to help anyone besides themselves?" Well, this is not a problem specifically constrained to Christians, obviously. By the by, using rhetoric like outdated mind-virus as if it was somethign i was saying or implying is total bullshit. Respond to what I *actually* said, or fuck off. However, my point was that there is an inherent contradiction between the explicit dictates of all 3 faiths of the book, and the sense of responsibility for Fate implicit in the losing of Paradise. To specifically answer your initial question, the affluent should help anyone because it is the good moral action, and Christianity, by and large, just like all religions, advocates good moral action. I would argue that all deviations from this principle stem from ignorant people misinterpreting the Word, or the varying importance of different parts of the Word. Anyone who has read any of the new testament would have a hard time arguing that Christianity was meant to be anything but a big hippie love fest. Ideas reified as authoritarian institutions, viz. The Church (not the catholic church, just organized religion), have a way of messing up good ideas.
"that does not change the fact that Adam had a choice to make, and he made it" Well, of course not. But whats the lesson from being so drastically punished for a bad decision made in the absence of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Respect Mah Authoritaaaahh!!!! Punishing people so disproportionately for a bad decision made in the absence of a moral understanding of the ramifications is one of the less compassionate acts ever ascribed to a deity. I choose not to ascribe cruelty to my concept of the divine.
"The question is nonsense. Could God make 4=6? Can God smell the color nine? Nonsense. Tripe. But you may ask nonsense if you like. Don't expect a sensible answer, though" please see above regarding bullshit rhetoric. That simpsons reference was placed there purely as an acknowledgement that i was aware that my musings could be construed that way and that i did not mean them that way. The completely fucking obvious way in which that was originally stated leaves me with no other conclusion than you're either just being a cock, or you have an axe to grind about pseudo-intellectual questions like that. Axe to grind, I feel you; being a cock, fuck off.
"Well, if my kid was self-destructive, I might kick him out of the house and set up boundaries about what constituted a healthy relationship with him. FWIW - God did not stop talking to Adam. Adam still had some relationship with God - it was simply fundamentally different from the previous relationship. Adam had hope of fully restored relationship with God on the basis of God's mercy." We're talking about your 20-month old
I hear what you're saying. And yet, I'd argue that this very impulse, as you say, to disobey god, is what makes us human. We better ourselves though trial and error. You can make it as clear as possible to your toddler that he shouldnt touch the top of the stove when its on, but he's not really going to understand what that means till he burns himself. And by understanding that he will enter a larger world.
...or... do you kick him out of the house and stop talking to him?
The story of adam and eve is, in my opinion, allegory that is often taken WAAAAAAY to literally. This is obvious to many devout christians I'm friends with, but seems not to be to many millions of others in this country.
We, as humans, like to be responsible for our lot in life. It makes troubles easier to deal with and the good things all that much sweeter. The knowledge that we were in some way responsible for having been cast out of paradise, and the accompanying sense of duty to take that responsibility and make the best of what we have, may have been very useful when 1 in 5 children made it to adulthood, life expectancies were in the 30's, etc, etc... Now, however, it is simply confusing matters for a society with sufficient resources to prevent those conditions.
I would argue that this concept is responsible for the pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality that prevents many of the affluent from doing their share to help those less fortunate. People of that mindset that I've encountered have a very narrow view of what responsibility actually means, and tend to mistake providence, blessings, and luck for their own agency. Which is, of course, just silly.
Now not to be abjectly blasphemous, but is it *really* possible for god not to have known what adam and eve would do? I realize that this is somewhat akin to Homer's question to flanders, could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?, but it is something that has always bothered me. Some people say that that is the nature of faith, belief in the improbable. Fine. I'm personally not capable of belief in that which is directly contradicted by reason. The unexplained by reason, and the reasonably improbable, I'm all over. This is what drew me to buddhism (*duck* I know, I know, how trite, well you'll just have to deal with it) is its focus on the non-rational as opposed to the irrational.
Lastly, when your kid disobeys you, and you punish him, dont you afterward console him and try to help cement the experience as something to learn from?
Adam and Eve had it easy, they *actually* spoke with god and knew what he wanted them to do. Not so easy now that talking to god has become a rather more mystical experience.
... and prank calling someone in the U.S. he referred to as "Mr. EEEsoc"
well, you can set it up near you zune, and then play stuff on it wirelessly. But you can only play each song 3 times...
I used TabMix extension and it simply put in a second row of small tabs once I had enough open. Also, it let me keep the close tab button at the top right corner.
There's really no excuse for not being able to instantly click on any of your tabs, whether because of scrolling, or because of them simply being unattainably hidden under.
Either way, the standard FF way totally sucks.
Find an extension you like that manages tabs better, thats my advice.