...On the main page, there were nine stories dealing with internet crime, and two about the MPAA lawsuit against the CSS crack, and none covering what I would expect from a "true" Hacker (tm) site; namely, programming tips, new compilers, clever tricks and solutions, Linux news...
...no-one would ever believe that such a site is about harmless "hacking".
No. They'd probably believe that, like Slashdot, this site concerns itself with issues important to prgrammers, like privacy and software patents. How many such stories have been posted here? It's a NEWS site, not a tips/howto site.
If you're going to criticize the site, try to provide some valid criticism. They have a "Defaced Pages Archive". I think its a far better indicator of the mentality of those behind HNN than the stories they post.
As Star Wars seems (inexplicably, from my viewpoint) to stir the emotions of so many millions of people, doesn't George have a responsibility to represent all of us?
Why should Lucas have to cast actors based on their ethnic/social backgrounds as opposed to their acting ability? Even better, why should he have to change his storylines so that his fantasy world falls right in line with what you think it should be?
The real point is this: a story is a story. It focuses on a set of characters and events. That the characters in a particular story happen not to be gay, or, as in the case of Star Wars, that the sexuality of the characters is of little relevence to the plot, doesn't mean that the author of the story has a bias against gays. It just means that the author didn't write a story about them.
If a story about homosexuality is what you're looking for, turn your TV on. Watch one of the many many shows with gay characters. Or buy a book or rent a movie with gay characters. There are literally thousands of stories dealing with the subject.
The points about race might be valid, but not in the way you describe. There's no reason Lucas should specifically seek out a diverse cast. What he should do instead is seek a talented cast.
However, since many roles don't specifically call for white actors, you'd think that more minorities would get big roles, just due to talent. This doesn't strike me as one of the world's most important problems though...
And why are there no female Jedi's?
Who cares why there are no female jedi? There are women playing prominent roles in ALL of the Star Wars movies.
Plain text good, HTML bad...this should be easier to read, if anyone cares.
Ok, the subject here is a little harsh, but this really is an important point. The very people calling Singer a Nazi are, in fact, acting more like Nazis than Singer ever has. I find this quote extremely disturbing:
"He provides a convenient ethical framework for bigotry and cost-saving measures that cut lives," said Stephen Drake of the Forest Park, Ill., disability group Not Dead Yet. "I really don't think there's room for this kind of discussion."
There's no room for DISCUSSION??? That's ridiculous. Discussion is how we communicate ideas and change each other's minds. Political correctness strikes again. When will the burning of all of Singer's written work begin? When will the secret P.C. police, dedicated to wiping out any discourse deemed (even mildly) offensive by anyone begin targetting all of us here who've weighed in on this topic?
So on the one hand, we have the ethicist, trying to find ways to alleviate the suffering of human beings in general, who believes strongly in animal rights and helping the poor, and on the other, outraged people who, having no conception of what Singer is really arguing for, wish to prevent him from even discussing his views.
I know, I know...I'm being drastic. But the irony really strikes me, and political correctness really, REALLY annoys me. All we see nowadays, it seems, are knee-jerk emotional reactions to everything. Even opinions and free expression are becoming victims of this new "offensive material free" culture of ours.
Another question: Why now? Singer's Practical Ethics has been around for 20 years, so why all the fuss now? Another case of the media making something out of nothing? Another case of uninformed idiots trying to force their ideas of what is and isn't offensive on everyone else? I think its both.
Ok, the subject here is a little harsh, but this really is an important point. The very people calling Singer a Nazi are, in fact, acting more like Nazis than Singer ever has. I find this quote extremely disturbing: "He provides a convenient ethical framework for bigotry and cost-saving measures that cut lives," said Stephen Drake of the Forest Park, Ill., disability group Not Dead Yet. "I really don't think there's room for this kind of discussion." There's no room for DISCUSSION??? That's ridiculous. Discussion is how we communicate ideas and change each other's minds. Political correctness strikes again. When will the burning of all of Singer's written work begin? When will the secret P.C. police, dedicated to wiping out any discourse deemed (even mildly) offensive by anyone begin targetting all of us here who've weighed in on this topic? So on the one hand, we have the ethicist, trying to find ways to alleviate the suffering of human beings in general, who believes strongly in animal rights and helping the poor, and on the other, outraged people who, having no conception of what Singer is really arguing for, wish to prevent him from even discussing his views. I know, I know...I'm being drastic. But the irony really strikes me, and political correctness really, REALLY annoys me. All we see nowadays, it seems, are knee-jerk emotional reactions to everything. Even opinions and free expression are becoming victims of this new "offensive material free" culture of ours. Another question: Why now? Singer's Practical Ethics has been around for 20 years, so why all the fuss now? Another case of the media making something out of nothing? Another case of uninformed idiots trying to force their ideas of what is and isn't offensive on everyone else? I think its both.
Wow...this response really doesn't make sense. Singer is a PHILOSOPHER. It is his job to think about ETHICS. He doesn't "pick on people," he thinks through moral notions to come to a conclusion, then argues for his conclusion. That's what philosophers do. It's based on LOGIC, not a desire to hurt disabled people.
Why babies? Because, if you READ THE ARTICLE, you'll see that Singer believes that extremely young infants don't yet posess human consciousness. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person."
Now, I don't necessarilly agree w/ his views, but I certainly don't agree with your ad hominem argument against some person whom you don't even know. Singer's character is utterly irrelevent to the position he is arguing (besides, if you read about his position on aiding the poor, you'd probably think very differently of him).
Also, if you read more carefully (and this goes for all those demonstrators in wheelchairs as well), you'd see that Singer "has written that children less than a month old have no human consciousness and that parents should be allowed to kill a severely disabled infant to end its suffering and to increase the family's happiness."
Do you think being paralyzed qualifies as SEVERLY disabled? If so, then what do you consider being born with, for example, a severe malformation of the spine which would cause aganizing pain to a child for his entire life, as well as paralyzing him almost completely, so that he would have to live his life in a bed, connected to a respirator and fed by an IV. What if that life would be only a few pain-filled years? Maybe months. What about days? Do you still hold the same position? Would you want your child to suffer like this? Would you? Think about it.
-- LordSpam (who is currently writing a 1000 word paper on why Singer is wrong about our obligations to help the poor:)
There are way too many people here bashing The Immortal God of Rock n Roll... I offer up the following quote in defense of my personal favorite artist:
see this article ------------------------------------------------ -- As for his theory on the controversial MP3 format, Bowie said that although you won't find any MP3 files of Bowie songs on his site, he does support the idea of free musical downloads. "MP3s?" he said. "Oh, the more the merrier. I think MP3's are great. No plans to do any yet, but it's down the road."
Just because he isn't providing them himself doesn't mean he thinks they're evil...
Just because he isn't doing it today doesn't mean he never will.
Also worth mentioning is DB's excellent track record wrt independent fan sites (unlike some artists we've read about here recently, DB actually seems to care about his online fan base), and the fact that Bowie has already made music freely available from his website (Telling Lies single in mp2 format about 2 years ago).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should have clicked on the "license" link :)
http://opentracker.org/license.html
Basically the BSD license. Do anything. Go nuts. Include the copyright. No warranties.
...On the main page, there were nine stories dealing with internet crime, and two about the MPAA lawsuit against the CSS crack, and none covering what I would expect from a "true" Hacker (tm) site; namely, programming tips, new compilers, clever tricks and solutions, Linux news...
...no-one would ever believe that such a site is about harmless "hacking".
No. They'd probably believe that, like Slashdot, this site concerns itself with issues important to prgrammers, like privacy and software patents. How many such stories have been posted here? It's a NEWS site, not a tips/howto site.
If you're going to criticize the site, try to provide some valid criticism. They have a "Defaced Pages Archive". I think its a far better indicator of the mentality of those behind HNN than the stories they post.
Hmm... Apparently that whole Star Wars casting thing wasn't enough to teach us not to trust Variety. Hopefully they're right this time.
Now if they'd just bring the cartoon back...
This is not my signature.
As Star Wars seems (inexplicably, from my viewpoint) to stir the emotions of so many millions of people, doesn't George have a responsibility to represent all of us?
Why should Lucas have to cast actors based on their ethnic/social backgrounds as opposed to their acting ability? Even better, why should he have to change his storylines so that his fantasy world falls right in line with what you think it should be?
The real point is this: a story is a story. It focuses on a set of characters and events. That the characters in a particular story happen not to be gay, or, as in the case of Star Wars, that the sexuality of the characters is of little relevence to the plot, doesn't mean that the author of the story has a bias against gays. It just means that the author didn't write a story about them.
If a story about homosexuality is what you're looking for, turn your TV on. Watch one of the many many shows with gay characters. Or buy a book or rent a movie with gay characters. There are literally thousands of stories dealing with the subject.
The points about race might be valid, but not in the way you describe. There's no reason Lucas should specifically seek out a diverse cast. What he should do instead is seek a talented cast.
However, since many roles don't specifically call for white actors, you'd think that more minorities would get big roles, just due to talent. This doesn't strike me as one of the world's most important problems though...
And why are there no female Jedi's?
Who cares why there are no female jedi? There are women playing prominent roles in ALL of the Star Wars movies.
David Bowie's concert from Vienna, Austria will be webcast today using RealAudio. I think it starts at 2pm est.
Oh yea, the website is here.
Plain text good, HTML bad...this should be easier to read, if anyone cares.
Ok, the subject here is a little harsh, but this really is an important point. The very people calling Singer a Nazi are, in fact, acting more like Nazis than Singer ever has. I find this quote extremely disturbing:
"He provides a convenient ethical framework for bigotry and cost-saving measures that cut lives," said Stephen Drake of the Forest Park, Ill., disability group Not Dead Yet. "I really don't think there's room for this kind of discussion."
There's no room for DISCUSSION??? That's ridiculous. Discussion is how we communicate ideas and change each other's minds. Political correctness strikes again. When will the burning of all of Singer's written work begin? When will the secret P.C. police, dedicated to wiping out any discourse deemed (even mildly) offensive by anyone begin targetting all of us here who've weighed in on this topic?
So on the one hand, we have the ethicist, trying to find ways to alleviate the suffering of human beings in general, who believes strongly in animal rights and helping the poor, and on the other, outraged people who, having no conception of what Singer is really arguing for, wish to prevent him from even discussing his views.
I know, I know...I'm being drastic. But the irony really strikes me, and political correctness really, REALLY annoys me. All we see nowadays, it seems, are knee-jerk emotional reactions to everything. Even opinions and free expression are becoming victims of this new "offensive material free" culture of ours.
Another question: Why now? Singer's Practical Ethics has been around for 20 years, so why all the fuss now? Another case of the media making something out of nothing? Another case of uninformed idiots trying to force their ideas of what is and isn't offensive on everyone else? I think its both.
Ok, the subject here is a little harsh, but this really is an important point. The very people calling Singer a Nazi are, in fact, acting more like Nazis than Singer ever has. I find this quote extremely disturbing: "He provides a convenient ethical framework for bigotry and cost-saving measures that cut lives," said Stephen Drake of the Forest Park, Ill., disability group Not Dead Yet. "I really don't think there's room for this kind of discussion." There's no room for DISCUSSION??? That's ridiculous. Discussion is how we communicate ideas and change each other's minds. Political correctness strikes again. When will the burning of all of Singer's written work begin? When will the secret P.C. police, dedicated to wiping out any discourse deemed (even mildly) offensive by anyone begin targetting all of us here who've weighed in on this topic? So on the one hand, we have the ethicist, trying to find ways to alleviate the suffering of human beings in general, who believes strongly in animal rights and helping the poor, and on the other, outraged people who, having no conception of what Singer is really arguing for, wish to prevent him from even discussing his views. I know, I know...I'm being drastic. But the irony really strikes me, and political correctness really, REALLY annoys me. All we see nowadays, it seems, are knee-jerk emotional reactions to everything. Even opinions and free expression are becoming victims of this new "offensive material free" culture of ours. Another question: Why now? Singer's Practical Ethics has been around for 20 years, so why all the fuss now? Another case of the media making something out of nothing? Another case of uninformed idiots trying to force their ideas of what is and isn't offensive on everyone else? I think its both.
Wow...this response really doesn't make sense. Singer is a PHILOSOPHER. It is his job to think about ETHICS. He doesn't "pick on people," he thinks through moral notions to come to a conclusion, then argues for his conclusion. That's what philosophers do. It's based on LOGIC, not a desire to hurt disabled people.
:)
Why babies? Because, if you READ THE ARTICLE, you'll see that Singer believes that extremely young infants don't yet posess human consciousness. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person."
Now, I don't necessarilly agree w/ his views, but I certainly don't agree with your ad hominem argument against some person whom you don't even know. Singer's character is utterly irrelevent to the position he is arguing (besides, if you read about his position on aiding the poor, you'd probably think very differently of him).
Also, if you read more carefully (and this goes for all those demonstrators in wheelchairs as well), you'd see that Singer "has written that children less than a month old have no human consciousness and that parents should be allowed to kill a severely disabled infant to end its suffering and to increase the family's happiness."
Do you think being paralyzed qualifies as SEVERLY disabled? If so, then what do you consider being born with, for example, a severe malformation of the spine which would cause aganizing pain to a child for his entire life, as well as paralyzing him almost completely, so that he would have to live his life in a bed, connected to a respirator and fed by an IV. What if that life would be only a few pain-filled years? Maybe months. What about days? Do you still hold the same position? Would you want your child to suffer like this? Would you? Think about it.
-- LordSpam
(who is currently writing a 1000 word paper on why Singer is wrong about our obligations to help the poor
There are way too many people here bashing The Immortal God of Rock n Roll... I offer up the following quote in defense of my personal favorite artist:
- --
- --
see this article
-----------------------------------------------
As for his theory on the controversial MP3 format, Bowie said that although you won't find any MP3 files of Bowie songs on his site, he does support the idea of free musical downloads. "MP3s?" he said. "Oh, the more the merrier. I think MP3's are great. No plans to do any yet, but it's down the road."
-----------------------------------------------
Just because he isn't providing them himself doesn't mean he thinks they're evil...
Just because he isn't doing it today doesn't mean he never will.
Also worth mentioning is DB's excellent track record wrt independent fan sites (unlike some artists we've read about here recently, DB actually seems to care about his online fan base), and the fact that Bowie has already made music freely available from his website (Telling Lies single in mp2 format about 2 years ago).