Why not? There are warez FTPs and Hotlines and stuff that offer to sell you downloads... people post tons of crap on the internet... why isn't the FBI tracking down on people who buy domains and use them for kiddie porn? Look, this guy didn't do/anything/ ! This is completely ridiculous!
Using an tag in HTML is invalid HTML; did apple do things wrong with quicktime? Obviously that is irrelevant, but why don't you take a look at this HTML validation:
I think that these web standards are excellent, but the errors you pointed out are completely trivial. Now, if Apple were pulling a Microsoft and trying to add extra javascript variables that were Safari exclusive, we would have a huge problem.
Everyone refresh: http://www.cityofcanton.com/
I have a perfectly reasonable excuse for refreshing the page 100 000 000 000 000 000 times; I want some live updates from the city of Canton.
I know this is perhaps a little too extreme or radical but I am sort of hoping that people will slowly back off of the hypercontrolling pop media culture and embrace the independent artists and film makers that will be able to sell their products directly through the internet. I know that Magnatune [Magnatune.com] is a wonderful model for independent internet labels. I see video podcasts as becoming extremely popular ways of broadcasting independent films and shorts in the future.
Targeting an asteroid would be no different than targeting any other free-falling body in space. I think maybe you have some idea that the asteroid might be accelerating randomly. As a matter of fact, the asteroid's path is just as predictable as any other free falling body in space. The asteroid is in free fall (toward the Sun I'm assuming). In fact, according to Einstein's theory of GR, the free falling object isn't really accelerating at all; the asteroid itself is in an inertial frame of reference. It's relative acceleration is simply due to the asteroid staying in space that has been warped by the Sun's mass. Here on Earth we are in non-inertial frames of reference; the ground is accelerating us outward from our free-falling state, space is warped away from us.
Now, if you were to have given the fact that the asteroid is relatively small compared to Mars or the Moon, you might have had a good point, but I'm no NASA physicist.
While the truck is not accelerating, the engine is still running and expending much more energy than the truck needs to keep rolling. Remember, the truck has a lot of inertia. Read this article for an idea of what is going on:
Good point. Some of these new stereoscopic screens need no glasses.
I don't like how everything is oversimplified.
on
Best of What's New 2005
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This article seems poorly written to me. These pop science magazines used to be appealing to me but now I'd rather read real research or go to colloquiums even if I don't completely understand everything.
From the article on the "Emissions Neutral Vehicle..."
"It breaks down hydrogen into electrons, which power the electric motor, and protons, which interact with oxygen taken in through the ENV's nosecone and are released as Earthfriendly water vapor and heat."
They make it sound like fuel cells actually rip the proton from neutron, or like the electrons get "used up," or that the electrons are actually flowing through the motor like water flows through a straw. Something about the way these articles are written makes me feel uncomfortable. It's like they are saying "well, you and I will never completely understand, but at least someone out there does..."
The worst thing is that explanations of more complex ideas might be botched even greater and I would never know if I trusted this magazine. I think this kind of writing promotes dogmatic science. Potential is hyped but details are not; existence of great ideas is mentioned but the ideas themselves are completely ignored.
The link won't open for me anymore... has ZDNet been hindered from being slashdotted? This is Slashdot's way of taking out the other tech news sources... pwn3d n00bs!!!!!
I think maybe part of the underlying "meh" to the ISS is the fact that it is so fragile. People think of space stations as self sustaining settlements in space and the fact that people are staying over night in space is not enough to fulfill that image. If you are feeling down, just realize that the ISS is a necessary step to that dream of the self-sustained space city.
One show that I don't really like is the Infidel Guy. It seems quite dogmatic. The Infidel Guy acts like he knows why he has made up his mind but some of his questions show his varied ignorance at times. I am not saying that I am less ignorant, but I don't really like ignorant dogmatism very much.
Just because the term "social justice" is sometimes abused, it doesn't take away from its idealistic objective meaning. Obviously people have messed up in the name of social justice but many people have succeeded in truly promoting social justice. Martin Luther King Junior or Rosa Parks are two examples that immediately come to mind. Antiapartheid movements around the world have recently started to succeed in their attempts toward social justice.
You are very right that some have given the term "social justice" a subjective twist, but that doesn't take away from the positive ideal meaning of the term.
While "right" and "wrong" might be quite subjective, I think social injustice is much less vague. Let me lay it out in the open:
There is a group of people acting upon another group of people. We would call this a social interaction. The actions of the active group on the passive group are based on certain beliefs of an objective truth that the active group has about the passive group. If what the active group believes is true, then maybe their actions on the passive group are justified. However, if the ideas of truth about the passive group are completely untrue (objectively), you can be pretty sure in calling the action on the passive group "unjust." Since the interaction between these groups is social, we call this a social injustice.
Obviously this isn't so clear when dealing with more complex problems that aren't so objective, but for killing based solely on skin color, I think it's fair to say we have an injustice.
Getting back to your original post, here are the answers to your questions:
1. The holocaust was unjust. Whether or not you think there is right or wrong you cannot argue that the holocaust or any sort of genocide is just. If something is not just, it is unjust. If a social event is unjust we call it a social injustice. Genocide is an extreme example but there are other injustices such as racial profiling that exist as well. Assuming some inherent quality of a person simply based on their skin color and then acting differently toward them because of this assumption is not just.
2. I think these injustices need to be fixed because if I have human empathy, maybe even sympathy, for people placed in situations where they are treated unjustly simply based on attributes their existence that they had no control over.
3. I didn't say you had to do shit. If you don't want to promote fairness that's fine. But please don't get in the way because you like the feeling of being an depressed existentialist. Please go sit in a chair and mope. I feel that injustice needs to be dealt with universally, so I will advocate it. When I say "we" I don't mean you. You aren't included.
Right now you are advocating that there is no right or wrong, and when you say something is not acceptable, you are saying it is wrong. I am not a left or right leaning idiot, in fact I don't think you are quite sure where to label me. You however are clearly some kind of universalist or relativist with no clear sense of the fact that there are absolutes mixed in with those relatives.
It is right to mistreat people based on false truths. Are you advocating things like the holocaust, Rwanda genocide, and ethnic cleansing? Would you say these things are perfectly right? I hear you arguing that there is not one bit of common human morality, but I don't think you have any basis for that. Of course some people think things like ethnic cleansing are right, but have you looked at all of the brainwashing people go through (media, dogma, religious propaganda, public misconceptions, etc.)? There are people that think Saddam Hussein was responsible for the world trade center attacks and this is how they justify the Iraq war. This alone is an utterly unfounded justification. You would argue that it is perfectly acceptable because there is no right or wrong? Have you seen where people get presumptions like this? People don't just "know" stuff, it comes from somewhere, like FOX or their superstitious tendency to fabricate information they do not have.
When I say social justice, I mean that there are people getting treated based on unjust assumptions and that it is not right. I am not pulling this from some dogma in my ass or trying to make myself look "majestic."
Slashdot Mirror
I know they can, but that doesn't make it OK...
Why not? There are warez FTPs and Hotlines and stuff that offer to sell you downloads... people post tons of crap on the internet... why isn't the FBI tracking down on people who buy domains and use them for kiddie porn? Look, this guy didn't do /anything/ ! This is completely ridiculous!
I don't think you understand... no, they are wrong. You don't put a random dude in jail for two years just because you can.
I just read the blog and it almost made me cry.
...deserves to get donkey punched
Using an tag in HTML is invalid HTML; did apple do things wrong with quicktime? Obviously that is irrelevant, but why don't you take a look at this HTML validation:
w .apple.com
w .mac.com
d n.microsoft.com%2F
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fww
or how about this one?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fww
or maybe even Microsoft?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fms
I think that these web standards are excellent, but the errors you pointed out are completely trivial. Now, if Apple were pulling a Microsoft and trying to add extra javascript variables that were Safari exclusive, we would have a huge problem.
Everyone refresh: http://www.cityofcanton.com/ I have a perfectly reasonable excuse for refreshing the page 100 000 000 000 000 000 times; I want some live updates from the city of Canton.
I HATE CLEAR CHANNEL!!!
Targeting an asteroid would be no different than targeting any other free-falling body in space. I think maybe you have some idea that the asteroid might be accelerating randomly. As a matter of fact, the asteroid's path is just as predictable as any other free falling body in space. The asteroid is in free fall (toward the Sun I'm assuming). In fact, according to Einstein's theory of GR, the free falling object isn't really accelerating at all; the asteroid itself is in an inertial frame of reference. It's relative acceleration is simply due to the asteroid staying in space that has been warped by the Sun's mass. Here on Earth we are in non-inertial frames of reference; the ground is accelerating us outward from our free-falling state, space is warped away from us.
Now, if you were to have given the fact that the asteroid is relatively small compared to Mars or the Moon, you might have had a good point, but I'm no NASA physicist.
While the truck is not accelerating, the engine is still running and expending much more energy than the truck needs to keep rolling. Remember, the truck has a lot of inertia. Read this article for an idea of what is going on:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question262.htm
Good point. Some of these new stereoscopic screens need no glasses.
This article seems poorly written to me. These pop science magazines used to be appealing to me but now I'd rather read real research or go to colloquiums even if I don't completely understand everything.
From the article on the "Emissions Neutral Vehicle..."
"It breaks down hydrogen into electrons, which power the electric motor, and protons, which interact with oxygen taken in through the ENV's nosecone and are released as Earthfriendly water vapor and heat."
They make it sound like fuel cells actually rip the proton from neutron, or like the electrons get "used up," or that the electrons are actually flowing through the motor like water flows through a straw. Something about the way these articles are written makes me feel uncomfortable. It's like they are saying "well, you and I will never completely understand, but at least someone out there does..."
The worst thing is that explanations of more complex ideas might be botched even greater and I would never know if I trusted this magazine. I think this kind of writing promotes dogmatic science. Potential is hyped but details are not; existence of great ideas is mentioned but the ideas themselves are completely ignored.
The link won't open for me anymore... has ZDNet been hindered from being slashdotted? This is Slashdot's way of taking out the other tech news sources... pwn3d n00bs!!!!!
This is a sign that Mac OS X has a large enough userbase for Sony to worry about Mac users stealing music.
I think it's time for all of the Mac users used to niché platforms to switch to Linux. Mac OS X is so pop.
Every other country was also a "poor farming country" for a while as well.
I think maybe part of the underlying "meh" to the ISS is the fact that it is so fragile. People think of space stations as self sustaining settlements in space and the fact that people are staying over night in space is not enough to fulfill that image. If you are feeling down, just realize that the ISS is a necessary step to that dream of the self-sustained space city.
There is a better chance that people on the space station are having sex than people on slashdot.
One show that I don't really like is the Infidel Guy. It seems quite dogmatic. The Infidel Guy acts like he knows why he has made up his mind but some of his questions show his varied ignorance at times. I am not saying that I am less ignorant, but I don't really like ignorant dogmatism very much.
Just because the term "social justice" is sometimes abused, it doesn't take away from its idealistic objective meaning. Obviously people have messed up in the name of social justice but many people have succeeded in truly promoting social justice. Martin Luther King Junior or Rosa Parks are two examples that immediately come to mind. Antiapartheid movements around the world have recently started to succeed in their attempts toward social justice. You are very right that some have given the term "social justice" a subjective twist, but that doesn't take away from the positive ideal meaning of the term.
While "right" and "wrong" might be quite subjective, I think social injustice is much less vague. Let me lay it out in the open:
There is a group of people acting upon another group of people. We would call this a social interaction. The actions of the active group on the passive group are based on certain beliefs of an objective truth that the active group has about the passive group. If what the active group believes is true, then maybe their actions on the passive group are justified. However, if the ideas of truth about the passive group are completely untrue (objectively), you can be pretty sure in calling the action on the passive group "unjust." Since the interaction between these groups is social, we call this a social injustice.
Obviously this isn't so clear when dealing with more complex problems that aren't so objective, but for killing based solely on skin color, I think it's fair to say we have an injustice.
Getting back to your original post, here are the answers to your questions: 1. The holocaust was unjust. Whether or not you think there is right or wrong you cannot argue that the holocaust or any sort of genocide is just. If something is not just, it is unjust. If a social event is unjust we call it a social injustice. Genocide is an extreme example but there are other injustices such as racial profiling that exist as well. Assuming some inherent quality of a person simply based on their skin color and then acting differently toward them because of this assumption is not just. 2. I think these injustices need to be fixed because if I have human empathy, maybe even sympathy, for people placed in situations where they are treated unjustly simply based on attributes their existence that they had no control over. 3. I didn't say you had to do shit. If you don't want to promote fairness that's fine. But please don't get in the way because you like the feeling of being an depressed existentialist. Please go sit in a chair and mope. I feel that injustice needs to be dealt with universally, so I will advocate it. When I say "we" I don't mean you. You aren't included.
Right now you are advocating that there is no right or wrong, and when you say something is not acceptable, you are saying it is wrong. I am not a left or right leaning idiot, in fact I don't think you are quite sure where to label me. You however are clearly some kind of universalist or relativist with no clear sense of the fact that there are absolutes mixed in with those relatives.
It is right to mistreat people based on false truths. Are you advocating things like the holocaust, Rwanda genocide, and ethnic cleansing? Would you say these things are perfectly right? I hear you arguing that there is not one bit of common human morality, but I don't think you have any basis for that. Of course some people think things like ethnic cleansing are right, but have you looked at all of the brainwashing people go through (media, dogma, religious propaganda, public misconceptions, etc.)? There are people that think Saddam Hussein was responsible for the world trade center attacks and this is how they justify the Iraq war. This alone is an utterly unfounded justification. You would argue that it is perfectly acceptable because there is no right or wrong? Have you seen where people get presumptions like this? People don't just "know" stuff, it comes from somewhere, like FOX or their superstitious tendency to fabricate information they do not have.
When I say social justice, I mean that there are people getting treated based on unjust assumptions and that it is not right. I am not pulling this from some dogma in my ass or trying to make myself look "majestic."
You can call it "modding" but I think the we are supposed to try and fix social injustices.