How delightful. The Europeans come along, shove the Aborigines to the margins, systematically abuse them for decades, then, when many groups are now basically shadows of what they once were, blame them for what they are and insist the only solution is restart the old policies that lead them to where they are.
I know there are some decent, humane Australians, I've met them. But there sure seem to be a lot of bastards like you.
The Aborigines suffered well over a century of institutionalized abuse and cultural destruction by the Australian government. That might explain the circumstances many live in now, and it is mirrored in other indigenous populations around the world, where governments essentially made it policy to wipe out the cultures. For reference, see other indigenous groups like the Ainu of Japan, the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, and New World Indians (in particular those who suffered the particular delights of the Spanish, but even American Indians and Canadian indigenous peoples). These populations were not left to their own devices. They were subject to systematic and culturally, socially and economically devastating policies.
Why is this theory necessary? And what does it explain. Urban civilizations developed first in temperate zones. The key factor seems to have been population density. Agriculture allowed humans to exist in far greater numbers in a geographical area, and in general could produce calories far in excess of basic nutritional requirements, meaning not everyone had to dedicate vast portions of their waking hours to the acquisition of calories. Out of that grows everything; urban civilization, specialization into various trades, a political class, large-scale infrastructure, literacy and so forth.
You might have noticed they brought their technologies with them. Where there technologies weren't up to snuff, they died (the Franklin expedition to find the Northwest Passage, the early Roanoke colony). And guess what, the populations they overwhelmed can still use those technologies. It's not like your average American Indian can't use a fucking cell phone or your average Australian Aborigine can't drive a car.
Oh, and I'd like to see a racist piece of crap like you dropped into the Kalahari with a San toolkit and see how long you fucking last.
Mainly because there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the first signs of "modern" cognition are in southern Africa, and then seems to have been moved elsewhere as modern populations began spreading. This does not suggest a kind of multi-regional modern cognition hypothesis, but rather a singular point of genesis of such behaviors.
Actually Africa was ahead in some key respects. The Iron Age began in East Africa, for instance.
But ultimately it's pure geography. Good chunks of the land area of the planet simply are not capable of supporting dense populations, which are a basic requirement for kick starting advanced civilizations. Those technologies can certainly be imported to less desirable areas (ie. the Great Plains) but obviously have to be developed in more favorable areas first.
While I recommend Jered Diamond cautiously, Guns, Germs and Steel does really lay out precisely why some areas spawned civilizations and others didn't. Most importantly, for the Eurocentric racist crowd, all the key technological developments that put Europe at the top of the heap came from elsewhere. The basic staple crops and animal husbandry were developed in Asia, and writing was developed (probably independently) in the Middle East, Egypt and China. Early metallurgy flowed out of the East Mediterranean and the Iron Age burst out of East Africa. Urban civilization was also an import from elsewhere. Hell, even pottery was apparently invented in Japan something like 16,000 years ago.
While Europeans were basically still at the "savage" stage, Mesopotomia, the Nile, the Indian subcontinent and China were spawning the first literate urban societies with the basic features of what we would call civilizations.
Those features are at best described as pseudo-archaic, and Australian natives are certainly not the only ones to possess the heavier brows, and by no means are they as pronounced as they are in Neandertals, and what's more in most other respects, Aborigine skull structure is within the general confines of Modern skulls.
Boy, there's a lot of pure rubbish by some incredibly ignorant fucktards being posted tonight.
Huh? No, they are morphologically modern humans. Anyone the least bit familiar with Neandertal and Modern skeletal structures can see where Aborigines fall.
There's at least some limited evidence of modern behaviors in Africa something around 70,000 years ago. You're a few decades out of date here. In particular see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klasies_River_Caves
I think timelines are still fuzzy enough to suggest that modern behaviors evolved in Africa itself.
Actually it was about 45-50k years of isolation before other moderns got into Asia and you start to see an inflow of genes from other modern populations.
Sounds great. So your wife can read posts like "Just opened gaybuttfucksex.avi in wmplayer.exe" "Rewound to 18:55 of gaybuttfucksex.avi" "Rewound to 18:55 of gaybuttfucksex.avi" "Enlarged 18:55 of gaybuttfucksex.avi to 250%"
Some people think the current HPQ board doesn't have a lot of smarts.
This has to be wrong, because it suggests that there is another group of people out there who think the board does, and I thought it was pretty much universally recognized now that HP has probably the most retarded, moronic, intellectually challenged, half-witted, cretinistic, sheer-fuckingly-stupid board in the industrialized world.
I'm afraid you'll have to wait the obligatory week for your chance. The HP board is trying as hard as it can to match the CEO replacement cycle with the Mozilla release cycle, so give them a chance.
We're looking at dumping satellite. We can download the movies we want, and there are quite a few shows available on the net. Some of it isn't legit, but for the amount we watch TV, it's insane to be paying the better part of $80 or $90 a month, particularly as with satellite they just pump out a lot of affiliate stations so you end up with fifteen of the same episode of House or whatever within a few hours of each other.
It's a pity Netflix sucks, it would be nice to have a decent affordable movie streaming service. I'm not going to torrents because I want to rob the entertainment industry blind, but because I want to have a decent selection of movies I can watch when I want.
And let me underscore that not only did he break Italian law, but he also attempted to use his political position to deny an Italian prosecutors the right to pursue the charges against him. So, seeing as he violated laws regarding age of sexual consent AND abused his power to try to evade the legal consequences of that, please spell out for me clearly how he still could be a good Prime Minister.
But surely not trying to abuse his position as the head of government to get around potential prosecution over sexual relations with an underage prostitute is an abuse of power and abuse of process, which, so far as I can tell, would mean he would be unfit to be Prime Minister. You have this odd sort of angle where he can wantonly violate Italian law, but that's okay if he's a good Prime Minister. By definition, a head of government who violates legislation that said government is bound to uphold is not a good head of government.
That's not even talking about clear conflicts of interest in pushing through legislation clearly designed for his own benefit. I'm talking about Italian criminal law here. Italians, like most other people in the industrialized world, are not allowed to have sex with minors. Yes, the precise age at which one ceases to be a minor varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but Italian law has set the age at 18, and he was paying and having sex with someone below the age at which Italian law recognizes the two parties can have consent.
I'm trying to get this straight. He's violating Italian law (maybe even European law, considering the alleged origins of some of the girls), but that's okay? What you're saying is that the Italian Prime Minister is above the law.
Slashdot Mirror
How delightful. The Europeans come along, shove the Aborigines to the margins, systematically abuse them for decades, then, when many groups are now basically shadows of what they once were, blame them for what they are and insist the only solution is restart the old policies that lead them to where they are.
I know there are some decent, humane Australians, I've met them. But there sure seem to be a lot of bastards like you.
Except we see the beginnings of symbolic thinking and other aspects of modern cognition in Africa first.
The Aborigines suffered well over a century of institutionalized abuse and cultural destruction by the Australian government. That might explain the circumstances many live in now, and it is mirrored in other indigenous populations around the world, where governments essentially made it policy to wipe out the cultures. For reference, see other indigenous groups like the Ainu of Japan, the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, and New World Indians (in particular those who suffered the particular delights of the Spanish, but even American Indians and Canadian indigenous peoples). These populations were not left to their own devices. They were subject to systematic and culturally, socially and economically devastating policies.
Why is this theory necessary? And what does it explain. Urban civilizations developed first in temperate zones. The key factor seems to have been population density. Agriculture allowed humans to exist in far greater numbers in a geographical area, and in general could produce calories far in excess of basic nutritional requirements, meaning not everyone had to dedicate vast portions of their waking hours to the acquisition of calories. Out of that grows everything; urban civilization, specialization into various trades, a political class, large-scale infrastructure, literacy and so forth.
You might have noticed they brought their technologies with them. Where there technologies weren't up to snuff, they died (the Franklin expedition to find the Northwest Passage, the early Roanoke colony). And guess what, the populations they overwhelmed can still use those technologies. It's not like your average American Indian can't use a fucking cell phone or your average Australian Aborigine can't drive a car.
Oh, and I'd like to see a racist piece of crap like you dropped into the Kalahari with a San toolkit and see how long you fucking last.
Mainly because there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the first signs of "modern" cognition are in southern Africa, and then seems to have been moved elsewhere as modern populations began spreading. This does not suggest a kind of multi-regional modern cognition hypothesis, but rather a singular point of genesis of such behaviors.
Actually Africa was ahead in some key respects. The Iron Age began in East Africa, for instance.
But ultimately it's pure geography. Good chunks of the land area of the planet simply are not capable of supporting dense populations, which are a basic requirement for kick starting advanced civilizations. Those technologies can certainly be imported to less desirable areas (ie. the Great Plains) but obviously have to be developed in more favorable areas first.
While I recommend Jered Diamond cautiously, Guns, Germs and Steel does really lay out precisely why some areas spawned civilizations and others didn't. Most importantly, for the Eurocentric racist crowd, all the key technological developments that put Europe at the top of the heap came from elsewhere. The basic staple crops and animal husbandry were developed in Asia, and writing was developed (probably independently) in the Middle East, Egypt and China. Early metallurgy flowed out of the East Mediterranean and the Iron Age burst out of East Africa. Urban civilization was also an import from elsewhere. Hell, even pottery was apparently invented in Japan something like 16,000 years ago.
While Europeans were basically still at the "savage" stage, Mesopotomia, the Nile, the Indian subcontinent and China were spawning the first literate urban societies with the basic features of what we would call civilizations.
Those features are at best described as pseudo-archaic, and Australian natives are certainly not the only ones to possess the heavier brows, and by no means are they as pronounced as they are in Neandertals, and what's more in most other respects, Aborigine skull structure is within the general confines of Modern skulls.
Boy, there's a lot of pure rubbish by some incredibly ignorant fucktards being posted tonight.
Huh? No, they are morphologically modern humans. Anyone the least bit familiar with Neandertal and Modern skeletal structures can see where Aborigines fall.
There's at least some limited evidence of modern behaviors in Africa something around 70,000 years ago. You're a few decades out of date here. In particular see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klasies_River_Caves
I think timelines are still fuzzy enough to suggest that modern behaviors evolved in Africa itself.
I hope you get a particularly slow painful and incurable cancer.
Actually it was about 45-50k years of isolation before other moderns got into Asia and you start to see an inflow of genes from other modern populations.
Sounds great. So your wife can read posts like "Just opened gaybuttfucksex.avi in wmplayer.exe" "Rewound to 18:55 of gaybuttfucksex.avi" "Rewound to 18:55 of gaybuttfucksex.avi" "Enlarged 18:55 of gaybuttfucksex.avi to 250%"
In other words utterly fucking pointless.
This has to be wrong, because it suggests that there is another group of people out there who think the board does, and I thought it was pretty much universally recognized now that HP has probably the most retarded, moronic, intellectually challenged, half-witted, cretinistic, sheer-fuckingly-stupid board in the industrialized world.
I'm afraid you'll have to wait the obligatory week for your chance. The HP board is trying as hard as it can to match the CEO replacement cycle with the Mozilla release cycle, so give them a chance.
Figure out how to make a profit off of manufacturing Touchpads at a $100 and flood the friggin' market.
We're looking at dumping satellite. We can download the movies we want, and there are quite a few shows available on the net. Some of it isn't legit, but for the amount we watch TV, it's insane to be paying the better part of $80 or $90 a month, particularly as with satellite they just pump out a lot of affiliate stations so you end up with fifteen of the same episode of House or whatever within a few hours of each other.
It's a pity Netflix sucks, it would be nice to have a decent affordable movie streaming service. I'm not going to torrents because I want to rob the entertainment industry blind, but because I want to have a decent selection of movies I can watch when I want.
And let me underscore that not only did he break Italian law, but he also attempted to use his political position to deny an Italian prosecutors the right to pursue the charges against him. So, seeing as he violated laws regarding age of sexual consent AND abused his power to try to evade the legal consequences of that, please spell out for me clearly how he still could be a good Prime Minister.
But surely not trying to abuse his position as the head of government to get around potential prosecution over sexual relations with an underage prostitute is an abuse of power and abuse of process, which, so far as I can tell, would mean he would be unfit to be Prime Minister. You have this odd sort of angle where he can wantonly violate Italian law, but that's okay if he's a good Prime Minister. By definition, a head of government who violates legislation that said government is bound to uphold is not a good head of government.
That's not even talking about clear conflicts of interest in pushing through legislation clearly designed for his own benefit. I'm talking about Italian criminal law here. Italians, like most other people in the industrialized world, are not allowed to have sex with minors. Yes, the precise age at which one ceases to be a minor varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but Italian law has set the age at 18, and he was paying and having sex with someone below the age at which Italian law recognizes the two parties can have consent.
"Oh, they've printed him in carbonite! That should preserve him, if he can survive the rollers."
Yes, sadly it ran into hard times in the 1930s and had to hire itself out as a beer fountain.
"We're going to see what it's like to drive it to Norway!"
I'm trying to get this straight. He's violating Italian law (maybe even European law, considering the alleged origins of some of the girls), but that's okay? What you're saying is that the Italian Prime Minister is above the law.
You mean showing disapproval of the Italian PM hiring underage hookers is "injecting my sexual politics"?