Yes. Islam is always a religion, not a race. But my point is that if someone hates Muslims because of an underlying hatred for dark skinned people, then that's racism.
Your three questions feature words such as always and only. The thing is, in sociology, nothing is always true. This context isn't math, it's people. People hold fuzzy ideas about the world around them -- sometimes self-contradictory ones. You can't make sense of it using a kind of logic that looks for mathematical type answers. To find a trend in human behavior, you'll never find anything that is true all of the time for everyone, you'll find things that seem to be true a lot of the time for a lot of people.
Religion and race are ideas that are mixed up in the minds of a lot of people. Therefore, an anti-Islam group could be a racist group.
Your argument is based on a idea of racism that works within clearly defined boundaries in easy to understand ways. O that real life were only so easy to explain!
Calling an anti-Islam group in the U.S. racist might have a lot of credibility. Here's why. Ask yourself: Why is the group against Islam? Christians and Jews commit just as many terrorist acts. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Why then, the bias against Islam, when other religions are just as violent, if not more so?
Possibly because Islam is predominantly a religion of dark skinned people.
Eh, it sounds like you have a lot to be crabby about. All I'm saying is (and it sound like you agree) put the blame where it belongs. Blame the people who are making the stupid decisions, not the smart people like the ones who put together Ubuntu who simply don't care to be sheep herders and babysitters.
OK. Good point. Now the question is: Why should the Ubuntu organization put any effort whatsoever into convincing irrational people to use their operating system? They're not selling anything. Advertising is for a company that wants to convince irrational people to buy their product so that they can make lots of money. Ubuntu doesn't want to make lots of money. Based on Ubuntu's actions, I'm guessing it's enough for them to make a great system and then let the people who are smart enough to appreciate it enjoy it.
Likewise, if a company organizes itself to allow people with no expertize in IT to make critical IT decisions, they're setting themselves up to be fucked, hard.
Now try and actually change the power systems in the U.S. which arrange it so that.25% of the population controls half of the wealth. Did you succeed? Are you still free?
Which is stupid because the explosion of online poker got more people into the hobby and got people like me going to B&M casinos who never would have otherwise.
"I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."
I say, "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole entertainment industry for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."
Exactly. New Coke was actually better. Blind testing proved that people loved it. It failed because people were terrified and resentful of change. They didn't hate the soda. They hated the change. The very idea of change made a delicious beverage taste bad.
There might be a lesson for those who long for large scale Linux adoption in that story.
Notice how Linux and Windows seem to be mirror images of each other in this respect:
Windows costs money and the users are free from legal risk in ordinary day-to-day usage. Meanwhile the company itself is illegal -- convicted a few times actually.
Linux is free and the users break the law in ordinary day-to-day usage. Meanwhile Linux itself as a development entity is totally legal.
Or look at it this way:
Windows assumes liability and you pay cash for it.
Linux assumes no liability and you end up breaking the law for it.
This almost seems like the purchasing of indulgences in the old Catholic church.
Slashdot Mirror
"Western Australia banned the plant as invasive and highly toxic to people and animals."
Huh. It's invasive and highly toxic to people and animals, kind of like the oil industry.
"20 per cent of seedlings planted will not survive"
That's really a reasonable survival rate for plants.
"needs two to three years to develop into a cash crop."
How long does it take to build an oilfield and an oil refinery? I bet it takes a couple years too.
Yes. Islam is always a religion, not a race. But my point is that if someone hates Muslims because of an underlying hatred for dark skinned people, then that's racism.
Your three questions feature words such as always and only. The thing is, in sociology, nothing is always true. This context isn't math, it's people. People hold fuzzy ideas about the world around them -- sometimes self-contradictory ones. You can't make sense of it using a kind of logic that looks for mathematical type answers. To find a trend in human behavior, you'll never find anything that is true all of the time for everyone, you'll find things that seem to be true a lot of the time for a lot of people. Religion and race are ideas that are mixed up in the minds of a lot of people. Therefore, an anti-Islam group could be a racist group.
Your argument is based on a idea of racism that works within clearly defined boundaries in easy to understand ways. O that real life were only so easy to explain!
Calling an anti-Islam group in the U.S. racist might have a lot of credibility. Here's why. Ask yourself: Why is the group against Islam? Christians and Jews commit just as many terrorist acts. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Why then, the bias against Islam, when other religions are just as violent, if not more so?
Possibly because Islam is predominantly a religion of dark skinned people.
I would buy Cockblocker Deluxe, based on the name alone.
Eh, it sounds like you have a lot to be crabby about. All I'm saying is (and it sound like you agree) put the blame where it belongs. Blame the people who are making the stupid decisions, not the smart people like the ones who put together Ubuntu who simply don't care to be sheep herders and babysitters.
OK. Good point. Now the question is: Why should the Ubuntu organization put any effort whatsoever into convincing irrational people to use their operating system? They're not selling anything. Advertising is for a company that wants to convince irrational people to buy their product so that they can make lots of money. Ubuntu doesn't want to make lots of money. Based on Ubuntu's actions, I'm guessing it's enough for them to make a great system and then let the people who are smart enough to appreciate it enjoy it.
Likewise, if a company organizes itself to allow people with no expertize in IT to make critical IT decisions, they're setting themselves up to be fucked, hard.
Now try and actually change the power systems in the U.S. which arrange it so that .25% of the population controls half of the wealth. Did you succeed? Are you still free?
If a "professional" IT department is going to choose software based on who has the best name, they're already fucked.
We're talking about poker, not copying software. Poker is a hobby.
Which is stupid because the explosion of online poker got more people into the hobby and got people like me going to B&M casinos who never would have otherwise.
Should we apply a technological band-aid to a civic problem?
"When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won." - Linus Torvalds
Elton John says:
I say, "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole entertainment industry for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."
Brain and brain! What is brain?!
The first one is always free.
Exactly. New Coke was actually better. Blind testing proved that people loved it. It failed because people were terrified and resentful of change. They didn't hate the soda. They hated the change. The very idea of change made a delicious beverage taste bad.
There might be a lesson for those who long for large scale Linux adoption in that story.
"The Wii is great in social conditions, but just for sitting around by yourself, the 360 and PS3 shine far brighter."
That's true. The 360 shines really brightly when it spontaneously catches on fire.
In a fair world, yes, the casino deserves to pay for their stupidity. But this is not a fair world we're talking about here. This is our world.
Of course they never give away something for nothing. In the case of Hotmail, they were selling users to advertisers.
What you thought you were the one receiving the service? Ha! You are the product!
Or look at it this way:
This almost seems like the purchasing of indulgences in the old Catholic church.
You know, you're right. I have those codecs on my Ubuntu box. I should take them off. Mp3s be damned. I'll just have to do without them.
The title has a minor grammatical error. It reads, "Retailers Leak New TiVo HD Specs and Price"
It should read "Retailers Get Websites To Do Their Advertising For Them For Free"
You mean that when people give power to other people that the powerful might use their power to get more power even if they promised not to?