the world's human population was only 100 million in 500 BC. and this was approximately 9 millennia after the agricultural revolution(world population estimated to be between 1 and 10 million). and in 1000 BC the world population was only 50 million.
now, between the years of 1958 and 1969 approximately 49 million people died as a direct result of the communist revolution in china. between 1934 and 1939 13 million people died in soviet russia. between 1939 and 1945 12 million people died in nazi germany. now, these statistics only include civilian deaths. if you want to include the deaths of soldiers, then world war ii alone claimed 55 million lives from 1937 to 1945.
now, i'm no expert in anthropology or natural history, but i'd venture to say that i don't think that it is possible that chimpanzees could have killed much more than 1 in 50 human beings before advanced human civilizations developed. and even a 1 in 50 figure is ridiculously high i would think. so, i think it's pretty obvious that chimpanzees haven't killed more human beings than humans have.
the second half of your post is a little elliptical, i think, and has little to do with what i've posted. i don't think that human beings are horrible or vicious creatures either. i just think some human beings are a bit full of themselves when they think that all wild animals are so much more vicious and savagely than human beings are, or that human beings are above animal-nature--we are animals. i mean, we share like ~96% of the same genetic information as chimps.
however, i do agree with you that most of the social problems that plague our society do arrise from the failure to communicate and empathize with each other, and much of it could probably be solved through education and better dialog between different peoples.
"They have a licensing agreement with the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems which allows them to sell these songs in bulk; the same kind of agreement Russian radio stations have. By Russian standards, these prices are not unusual -- with much less disposable income available to the public, the only way to make money with music is to charge much less than elsewhere." http://www.infoanarchy.org/story/2004/4/30/2549/ 26021>
"I'll start with my most definitive proof of the site's legality: the RIAA itself. For those who do not know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) does not like file sharing. As was splayed on the front page of The New York Post , this is the organization that sued a 12-year-old girl living in public housing in New York City. Yet, when the RIAA cracked down on Spanish site PureTunes.com, which was also offering very discounted price for songs, they themselves acknowledged the legality of ALLOFMP3. PureTunes was targeted because they were reselling songs from ALLOFMP3, which was legally selling them for personal use."
http://www.fadmine.com/allofmp3-legal-cheap-mp3s.h tml>
However, upon further research, it does seem like the IFPI did try to shut them down before so you're probably right.
it has nothing to do with russian laws. the RIAA simply offers russian download sites a different rate for the music. they have regional pricing because people in a lot of countries can't afford to pay $0.99 for a song, or $24 for an album.
i never claimed that chimps are completely harmless, but how many human beings do u think have been killed by chimps in the history of man? now, how many human beings have been killed by the actions of another human being in, say, the last 6 months?
sure, chimps can kill a human being, so can a rotweiller. but more people each year probably die from eating cheese burgers than they do being attacked by these animals. even animals people percieve as being vicious and predatory like alligators or bears rarely attack human beings unprovoked. sure, there may be instances where they do attack people unprovoked, but that hardly makes their entire species vicious killing machines, especially considering the atrocities that human beings are responsible for on a daily basis.
i was just trying to give you a little perspective as i think your pecieved threat of chimpanzees seems to be a bit overexaggerated just as some people's percieved harmlessness of certain wildlife species may be overexaggerated as well.
wait, we're the ones who are destroying their habitats, keeping them in captivity, performing vivisections on them, etc., yet chimps are the vicious ones? from the page that you linked to:
"Chimps can be violent at times just as humans can be."
so maybe they can exhibit patterns of aggression, but probably no more so than human beings do. in fact, bonobo chimps are some of the most peaceful and socially advanced animal species known to man, and have remarkably advanced conflict resolution skills that probably surpass those possessed by a large segment of human society.
It's not the stapler joke or a couple of lines that make the movie great. Office Space is a satire about the typical corporate work environment. I'd imagine a lot of slashdotters have experienced the same frustrations as the main character and share his disdain for the--in many ways backwards--corporate culture immanent in most IT work places. If you think Office Space is primarily a Romance, then you missed about 80% of the plot.
that's a questionable source. also, it's quite possible that most applicants to reality tv shows are aspiring actors or people who are trying to make there way into the entertainment industry. and being an actor doesn't necessarily make you smart, or not stupid.
I mostly watch animated shows(South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, Simpsons, ATHF, etc.) but I mostly download these off the internet. When I used to have cable and watch TV, I'd watch the IFC or sundance channel or other movie channels. I think I'd still much prefer these programs over tv commercials.
well, if you're gonna be a tool, people are going to call you out on it. if you accept money to write mindless drivel, you can't really blame people for criticizing your actions. there are plenty of people out there who choose not to sacrifice their professional integrity in order to make an extra buck. so why should people have any sympathy for those who choose money over professional integrity.
are you kidding me? would you really wanna live in a world where every tv show or movie is just a fluffed up advertisement? what would be the point of watching movies/shows if they were all cheesy and crappy because they were desigend to sell sponsored products or services and no longer have any integrity as an art form. it's bad enough that we have kids shows these days that are blatantly designed just to sell toys to kids.
it'll be a sad state of affairs when film students have to minor in advertising and marketing in order to pursue a career in film/entertainment.
i think the ratio of truly funny commercials to complete crap ones is pretty low. wouldn't you rather be watching the actual programming that had you watching that channel in the first place?
it's kinda like, yea, once in a while you might see something entertaining while sitting in traffic, but do you really wanna sit in traffic all day long just so you can catch those rare moments?
Not sure how clear you are on your world history, but they did try this about 60 years back. Didn't work out for them.
Pretty much every major human civilization has gone through an imperialistic period at some point or another, but that is neither here nor there. We're talking about the present.
Oh, by the way, they happen to have a lot of spare cash since their security has been subsidized heavily by the US taxpayer for the last half-century. You know, that same taxpayer whose funding of US military programs has also funded some useful discoveries as well? Or is it only bad if the US discovers something?
How much of Japan's defense is the U.S. currently subsidizing? And have you got any sources?
I love dimwits that throw in that irrelevant political jab at the end of comments...it's so politically correct. It just warms my cockles.
We live in a democracy. It's our democratic perogative to be critical of our own government's national policies and compare it with other nations. What's wrong with that?
protectionist economic policies make sense when you have a local economy that is still developing, but using protectionist policies for price-fixing is completely unethical. that's the hypocrisy of the U.S. government and the IMF and World Bank though. We expect 3rd world nations with newly developed local industries to drop any protectionist policies so our multinationals can steamroll right over them and take over their markets as well as buy-up/privatize all of their local resources, while at the same time the same corporations who run the IMF/World Bank lobby for protectionist policies for themselves at the consumers' expense.
heh, i totally missed that earlier. i guess sleep-deprivation will do that to one's reading comprehension skills. reading your post again now, it's clearly dripping with sarcasm. i don't know how i didn't pick up on it earlier. meh.
I dunno, when I used to be addicted to Counter-Strike, I could play quite well while talking on the phone or performing other tasks that didn't require the use of my eyes or hands. Perhaps certain gamers grow accustomed to multi-tasking performing two separate tasks that require discrete mental resources--such as a task that mostly requires hand-eye coordination and another that simply requires speach and communication. And perhaps the way some gamers are able to maintain their performance while multi-tasking as such is because they focus intensely on the two tasks and zone everything out. So if you're talking on the phone and playing a game, maybe you ignore everything that's not relevant to those two tasks (time, other people who are trying to get your attention, smoke alarm, etc.).
Well, I think that sentiment is very much in line with the basis of most modern scientific thought. However, just as important as the act of making empirical observations is the act of making meaningful extrapolations of knowledge from those observations--not just assuming that any single observation is a valid reason for making categorical deductions about any related subject.
In other words, anecdotal evidence is so-called precisely because it often doesn't reflect the general case.
i think you're bringing in emotions from a completely separate matter (between you and your physician) into this argument. while it's understandable that your personal experiences shape your perception and attitudes, you really shouldn't let your experiences with a single phsyician dictate your perception of the entire scientific/medical establishment. it just sems like you're looking too hard to come up with wide-sweeping criticisms of the scientific community in order to create more fodder to justify to yourself your resentment towards conventional science and medicine, when all you really need to do is take a more objective look at the situation and separate your personal politics from unrelated matters.
maybe your psychologist is a douchebag--god knows i've had my share of bad experiences with the mental health community--but your attempt at construing one mainstream publication's report on this discovery to reinforce your personal grudge against your physician can only turn up specious arguments that are unconvincing to others.
For some people it's easier and preferable to fix something as simple as that themselves. As mentioned by the GP, a lot of companies would have just ignored a minor manufacturing error like that, and he also never said that Slim Devices refused to fix the hardware themselves--but they have that option, just like with open source software, you have the option to fix a bug yourself rather than to wait for the next update or patch. You assume that just because they give their customer's the information/hardware specs. and usage-leeway to fix the problem themselves without voiding the warranty that they are forcing all of their customers to fix any such hardware faults themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
192.168.0.2?
the world's human population was only 100 million in 500 BC. and this was approximately 9 millennia after the agricultural revolution(world population estimated to be between 1 and 10 million). and in 1000 BC the world population was only 50 million.
now, between the years of 1958 and 1969 approximately 49 million people died as a direct result of the communist revolution in china. between 1934 and 1939 13 million people died in soviet russia. between 1939 and 1945 12 million people died in nazi germany. now, these statistics only include civilian deaths. if you want to include the deaths of soldiers, then world war ii alone claimed 55 million lives from 1937 to 1945.
now, i'm no expert in anthropology or natural history, but i'd venture to say that i don't think that it is possible that chimpanzees could have killed much more than 1 in 50 human beings before advanced human civilizations developed. and even a 1 in 50 figure is ridiculously high i would think. so, i think it's pretty obvious that chimpanzees haven't killed more human beings than humans have.
the second half of your post is a little elliptical, i think, and has little to do with what i've posted. i don't think that human beings are horrible or vicious creatures either. i just think some human beings are a bit full of themselves when they think that all wild animals are so much more vicious and savagely than human beings are, or that human beings are above animal-nature--we are animals. i mean, we share like ~96% of the same genetic information as chimps.
however, i do agree with you that most of the social problems that plague our society do arrise from the failure to communicate and empathize with each other, and much of it could probably be solved through education and better dialog between different peoples.
Meh, these pages controvert your claim:
"They have a licensing agreement with the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems which allows them to sell these songs in bulk; the same kind of agreement Russian radio stations have. By Russian standards, these prices are not unusual -- with much less disposable income available to the public, the only way to make money with music is to charge much less than elsewhere."/ 26021>
http://www.infoanarchy.org/story/2004/4/30/2549
"I'll start with my most definitive proof of the site's legality: the RIAA itself. For those who do not know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) does not like file sharing. As was splayed on the front page of The New York Post , this is the organization that sued a 12-year-old girl living in public housing in New York City. Yet, when the RIAA cracked down on Spanish site PureTunes.com, which was also offering very discounted price for songs, they themselves acknowledged the legality of ALLOFMP3. PureTunes was targeted because they were reselling songs from ALLOFMP3, which was legally selling them for personal use."h tml>
http://www.fadmine.com/allofmp3-legal-cheap-mp3s.
However, upon further research, it does seem like the IFPI did try to shut them down before so you're probably right.
it has nothing to do with russian laws. the RIAA simply offers russian download sites a different rate for the music. they have regional pricing because people in a lot of countries can't afford to pay $0.99 for a song, or $24 for an album.
did you suddenly feel an urge to vomit as well?
i never claimed that chimps are completely harmless, but how many human beings do u think have been killed by chimps in the history of man? now, how many human beings have been killed by the actions of another human being in, say, the last 6 months?
sure, chimps can kill a human being, so can a rotweiller. but more people each year probably die from eating cheese burgers than they do being attacked by these animals. even animals people percieve as being vicious and predatory like alligators or bears rarely attack human beings unprovoked. sure, there may be instances where they do attack people unprovoked, but that hardly makes their entire species vicious killing machines, especially considering the atrocities that human beings are responsible for on a daily basis.
i was just trying to give you a little perspective as i think your pecieved threat of chimpanzees seems to be a bit overexaggerated just as some people's percieved harmlessness of certain wildlife species may be overexaggerated as well.
wait, we're the ones who are destroying their habitats, keeping them in captivity, performing vivisections on them, etc., yet chimps are the vicious ones? from the page that you linked to:
"Chimps can be violent at times just as humans can be."so maybe they can exhibit patterns of aggression, but probably no more so than human beings do. in fact, bonobo chimps are some of the most peaceful and socially advanced animal species known to man, and have remarkably advanced conflict resolution skills that probably surpass those possessed by a large segment of human society.
Well, maybe if they buy you flowers afterwards?
It's not the stapler joke or a couple of lines that make the movie great. Office Space is a satire about the typical corporate work environment. I'd imagine a lot of slashdotters have experienced the same frustrations as the main character and share his disdain for the--in many ways backwards--corporate culture immanent in most IT work places. If you think Office Space is primarily a Romance, then you missed about 80% of the plot.
that's a questionable source. also, it's quite possible that most applicants to reality tv shows are aspiring actors or people who are trying to make there way into the entertainment industry. and being an actor doesn't necessarily make you smart, or not stupid.
I mostly watch animated shows(South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, Simpsons, ATHF, etc.) but I mostly download these off the internet. When I used to have cable and watch TV, I'd watch the IFC or sundance channel or other movie channels. I think I'd still much prefer these programs over tv commercials.
well, if you're gonna be a tool, people are going to call you out on it. if you accept money to write mindless drivel, you can't really blame people for criticizing your actions. there are plenty of people out there who choose not to sacrifice their professional integrity in order to make an extra buck. so why should people have any sympathy for those who choose money over professional integrity.
I think it's that they know that the ass fucking is coming, they'd prefer to get compensated for it.
are you kidding me? would you really wanna live in a world where every tv show or movie is just a fluffed up advertisement? what would be the point of watching movies/shows if they were all cheesy and crappy because they were desigend to sell sponsored products or services and no longer have any integrity as an art form. it's bad enough that we have kids shows these days that are blatantly designed just to sell toys to kids.
it'll be a sad state of affairs when film students have to minor in advertising and marketing in order to pursue a career in film/entertainment.
i think the ratio of truly funny commercials to complete crap ones is pretty low. wouldn't you rather be watching the actual programming that had you watching that channel in the first place?
it's kinda like, yea, once in a while you might see something entertaining while sitting in traffic, but do you really wanna sit in traffic all day long just so you can catch those rare moments?
Not sure how clear you are on your world history, but they did try this about 60 years back. Didn't work out for them.
Pretty much every major human civilization has gone through an imperialistic period at some point or another, but that is neither here nor there. We're talking about the present.Oh, by the way, they happen to have a lot of spare cash since their security has been subsidized heavily by the US taxpayer for the last half-century. You know, that same taxpayer whose funding of US military programs has also funded some useful discoveries as well? Or is it only bad if the US discovers something?
How much of Japan's defense is the U.S. currently subsidizing? And have you got any sources?I love dimwits that throw in that irrelevant political jab at the end of comments...it's so politically correct. It just warms my cockles.
We live in a democracy. It's our democratic perogative to be critical of our own government's national policies and compare it with other nations. What's wrong with that?protectionist economic policies make sense when you have a local economy that is still developing, but using protectionist policies for price-fixing is completely unethical. that's the hypocrisy of the U.S. government and the IMF and World Bank though. We expect 3rd world nations with newly developed local industries to drop any protectionist policies so our multinationals can steamroll right over them and take over their markets as well as buy-up/privatize all of their local resources, while at the same time the same corporations who run the IMF/World Bank lobby for protectionist policies for themselves at the consumers' expense.
heh, i totally missed that earlier. i guess sleep-deprivation will do that to one's reading comprehension skills. reading your post again now, it's clearly dripping with sarcasm. i don't know how i didn't pick up on it earlier. meh.
I dunno, when I used to be addicted to Counter-Strike, I could play quite well while talking on the phone or performing other tasks that didn't require the use of my eyes or hands. Perhaps certain gamers grow accustomed to multi-tasking performing two separate tasks that require discrete mental resources--such as a task that mostly requires hand-eye coordination and another that simply requires speach and communication. And perhaps the way some gamers are able to maintain their performance while multi-tasking as such is because they focus intensely on the two tasks and zone everything out. So if you're talking on the phone and playing a game, maybe you ignore everything that's not relevant to those two tasks (time, other people who are trying to get your attention, smoke alarm, etc.).
Well, I think that sentiment is very much in line with the basis of most modern scientific thought. However, just as important as the act of making empirical observations is the act of making meaningful extrapolations of knowledge from those observations--not just assuming that any single observation is a valid reason for making categorical deductions about any related subject.
In other words, anecdotal evidence is so-called precisely because it often doesn't reflect the general case.
OMG, call the tabloids! There are aliens in Africa!
i think you're bringing in emotions from a completely separate matter (between you and your physician) into this argument. while it's understandable that your personal experiences shape your perception and attitudes, you really shouldn't let your experiences with a single phsyician dictate your perception of the entire scientific/medical establishment. it just sems like you're looking too hard to come up with wide-sweeping criticisms of the scientific community in order to create more fodder to justify to yourself your resentment towards conventional science and medicine, when all you really need to do is take a more objective look at the situation and separate your personal politics from unrelated matters.
maybe your psychologist is a douchebag--god knows i've had my share of bad experiences with the mental health community--but your attempt at construing one mainstream publication's report on this discovery to reinforce your personal grudge against your physician can only turn up specious arguments that are unconvincing to others.
your penis is a gland, not a muscle.
For some people it's easier and preferable to fix something as simple as that themselves. As mentioned by the GP, a lot of companies would have just ignored a minor manufacturing error like that, and he also never said that Slim Devices refused to fix the hardware themselves--but they have that option, just like with open source software, you have the option to fix a bug yourself rather than to wait for the next update or patch. You assume that just because they give their customer's the information/hardware specs. and usage-leeway to fix the problem themselves without voiding the warranty that they are forcing all of their customers to fix any such hardware faults themselves.
Right. And how many electronics producers out there have NEVER released faulty hardware?