"The image of him swooping in and saving the day could be seen as a direct symbolic justification for American imperialism and foreign interventionism."
"American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years."
Excellent observations, and they'd be relevant if Superman weren't created by a Canadian.
Nice anti-us troll though, way to try to slide it in there.
Superman's best stories, to me, have always been the "end of the universe, so let's call Superman" type. That is, Superman is such a powerhouse, that it takes an exceptional situation to bring out his best.
If you need Superman, it means that everyone else failed to get the job done.
Give me that story (death of Superman for example) and you'll get my money. What I absolutely DO NOT want is another "evil bald guy outsmarts Superman" story, mostly because the idea of Lex Luthor as Superman's arch nemesis has always been laughable.
"widescale culling should take place without very careful consideration of the possible knock-on effects."
That's idotic. That process only invites ignorant criticism like yours, and allows people with a lot to say, but little of substance to roadblock the process.
No thanks, I'll let nature sort it out. What makes you think any kind of consideration will come to a correct conclusion anyway? It seems you think people can predict the effects of something like this.
I am so fucking tired of you idiot enviro-weenies screeching about shit like this.
YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
Do you understand that? Your entire point is that this could be bad for the balance, well apart from the well rehearsed meme you spew every time you see stories like this, what evidence do you have to suggest that?
None, so stop karma whoring, and spreading crap like this.
Lastly, I wish you assholes would realize nature will balance itself.
The arrogance of you people is amazing, thinking you know what's best for the environment before it happens.
"Is it just me, or does this seem a little extreme...?"
No, it's just you. The resto of us choose to think for ourselves.
"This is certainly NOT normal for the console industry."
That's just wrong.
Evey industry that involves electronics has failures. ALL of them.
The fact that you even attempt to suggest otherwise calls your knowledge of the subject into question.
That being said, several other consoles have had problems at launch as well, so I would say that is most certainly IS normale for the console industry, and the facts back me up.
"Maybe I'm being harsh, Maybe Jack Thompson has a point, Maybe SCO has a case, Maybe Netcraft is right and I should upgrade to living distro. Or maybe, just maybe you could take the time to consider the source."
Yeah, and maybe none of those things represent themselves as research, so maybe thay aren't relevant.
You can rationalize your flawed thinking all you want. It's still flawed, and you're still rationalizing.
"will want them to start their school days in a religious ceremony of devotion to a starred and striped rag."
Listen, I can tell what you really are, so I'm prepared for it, but why would you refer to the flag that way?
Is it really so hard to refrain from insulting something which can't fight back, and is genrerally regarded as representing the sacrifices of people who died protecting the ideals of freedom?
So you hate the US, fine, you're allowed to misrepresent reality.
But what does insulting the symbol of the US do to help you? Do you think you're getting anywhere doing something which has no purpose other than to incite?
Ok, that's all great, but maybe you could answer my question.
"Yet you want to just hand this over to the people in charge without any thought to what they'll do with it."
Please post the quote where I make that statement, if you could.
You'll be looking for a while, because I never said anything even remotely close to that. You completely made up a straw man to argue with.
And since that kind of irrational, fucked up fourth grade thinking is exactly what I see from people who advocate think like you do, I can say with certainty that your opinion is worthless.
Until you can actually comprehend what you're reading, you'd be better off keeping your overly paranoid mouth shut.
Seriously, why would you lie about what I think, when I can easily disprove your pathetic lie?
So, you're hammering blacks because they haven't gotten over that whole "slavery" thing too right?
And Jews too, that whole "trying to wipe us off the map" thing is getting tiresome.
Yeah, right.
How about this, you can STOP making fun of southerners, and people won't think you're an insecure little man who has to denigrate others to make himself feel special.
"In this case, MS funded "independent" findings from reports should be filed alongside the rest of the junk mail you get everyday."
Why? Because you said so? What evidence about THIS STUDY leads you to this conclusion? EVIDENCE please, not your opinion, which admittedly can be colored by past experience.
You see the point you and every other anti-MS troll misses is that YOU DO NO GET TO DISMISS A STUDY JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE FUNDER. Yes, it can raise questions, but the way you discredit any study is the same, regardless of funder. Why don't you people get this?
"How many MS Funded "Facts" have you been spoonfed that are completely false or carefully fabricated"
It doesn't matter. Do you understand, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The credibilty of a study is a function of it's design, NOT its funder. No part of this study should be influenced by the funding source. If it IS, then that's evidence. But where, oh where is said evidence in ANY of the dozens of copycat posts about MS funding this?
You discredit this study by providing credible counter evidence. The funder is NOT credible counter evidence. Saying it was a single data point, or not rigorously controlled, IS credible evidence.
That's just you restating the same moronic fallacy I showed you. Why are you trying so hard to be allowed to do so?
Seriously, it amazes me how many people here claim to know about science, but make the same simple mistakes that you do.
"Regardless, you've committed a logical fallacy in your argument, and tried to bring personal attacks into it"
Show me where this personal attack is. By the way, don't bother, you won't find a single reference to any one person, much less an attack. How you come to this conclusion is beyond me, but I suspect it has to do with your reading comprehension (or lack thereof).
Why? Well, parse this sentence for me, and you'll see why I call your ability to reason and comprehend text into question
"Just because it's a logical fallacy doesn't mean the claim isn't false."
You know what the funniest thing is though, you're trying to support the use of logical fallacies.
Why are you so adamant about rejecting logic and reason? Why are you trying so hard to get away with relying on logical fallacies to make your point?
"So, using your logic, experience counts for nothing."
Show me where I said that. More importantly, NO experience counts for something.
If this guy was demonstrably an MS shill, that would be one thing. Show me evidence of that, and I'm behind you.
BUT YOU DIDN'T SHOW ANY EVIDENCE. So you don't get to make claims that disparage this guy. Or rather you can't have any credibility when doing so.
"I am inherently suspicious when I hear "facts" being spouted by spokespeople/companies/foundations that receive funding from the company/organization they are evaluating."
You should be, but that's not the same as dismissing outright, which is what is actually happening. You can't claim the research os bad, because you have no FACTS to back you up. If you do, then post them, and this will be an entirely different conversation.
"And if you're going to take those facts at face value simply because you've applied a rule of logic then I suspect you will soon find yourself out of a job."
Where did I ever suggest that either? I didn't, in fact I suggested the opposite, the close examination of the facts, and genuine critical review.
So, for your reply if you choose to make one, DO NOT paraphrase my post. Respond to what I say without adding straw men (as you did here) don't make claims that I said something when I didn't, and don't assume my denunciation of the moronic use of fallacies is an endorsement of MS. It is not.
Now, a question for you. Why is being asked to maintain a consistent, logical pattern of examination such a problem for you? Why are you trying to get away with relying on fallacies to make your argument?
Find a single historian that will tell you the Allies had any chance of winning the war without the US.
You won't be able to. It was specifically the US intervening in BOTH wars that turned the tide, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism and ignorance.
"Many of us will stand up against racism, regardless of who it's against."
Great, what does that have to do with the French? France is a COUNTRY, you do know what that is right? And you do realize that the French are NOT a race right? And you also realize that claiming they are like you did is inexcusably ignorant right? What is wrong with you?
So apart from making claims that are historically inaccurate, and calling a criticism of France "racism" (which is the catch all phrase of those who want to claim persecution, regardless of whether they are actually a race or not) what did your post add to the discussion?
Why would anyone take you seriously when you can't even figure out what racism is?
Slashdot Mirror
"The image of him swooping in and saving the day could be seen as a direct symbolic justification for American imperialism and foreign interventionism."
"American nationalism has always been something which the rest of the world has largely considered ugly...but that has become more true than ever before in the last three years."
Excellent observations, and they'd be relevant if Superman weren't created by a Canadian.
Nice anti-us troll though, way to try to slide it in there.
I was discussing this with a friend recently.
Superman's best stories, to me, have always been the "end of the universe, so let's call Superman" type. That is, Superman is such a powerhouse, that it takes an exceptional situation to bring out his best.
If you need Superman, it means that everyone else failed to get the job done.
Give me that story (death of Superman for example) and you'll get my money. What I absolutely DO NOT want is another "evil bald guy outsmarts Superman" story, mostly because the idea of Lex Luthor as Superman's arch nemesis has always been laughable.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
OOOH! Cliche for the win!
And what about the OTHER disease mosquitos spread?
Right. Let the adults talk about this for a while.
"widescale culling should take place without very careful consideration of the possible knock-on effects."
That's idotic. That process only invites ignorant criticism like yours, and allows people with a lot to say, but little of substance to roadblock the process.
No thanks, I'll let nature sort it out. What makes you think any kind of consideration will come to a correct conclusion anyway? It seems you think people can predict the effects of something like this.
And what about the OTHER diseases that mosquitos spread?
Right, that's why you leave the commentary to more intelligent, less ignorant people.
"Killing all mosquitoes WILL cause enviornmental problems"
Really? REALLY? How do you know this? How can you say it "will" as though you know this to be true?
You can't, so stop acting like you know what will happen.
Seriously, people like you ruin discussions about these things with your arrogance and self importance.
Dude, seriously, shut up.
I am so fucking tired of you idiot enviro-weenies screeching about shit like this.
YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
Do you understand that? Your entire point is that this could be bad for the balance, well apart from the well rehearsed meme you spew every time you see stories like this, what evidence do you have to suggest that?
None, so stop karma whoring, and spreading crap like this.
Lastly, I wish you assholes would realize nature will balance itself.
The arrogance of you people is amazing, thinking you know what's best for the environment before it happens.
"Is it just me, or does this seem a little extreme...?"
No, it's just you. The resto of us choose to think for ourselves.
No, they're not a vital part of the ecosystem, they eat algae.
One does not necessarily lead to the other.
So defects in electronics aren't normal?
Of course they are, so why claim otherwise?
Right, you're another anti-MS troll, ok. Never mind then, reason and facts never get through to you guys.
"This is certainly NOT normal for the console industry."
That's just wrong.
Evey industry that involves electronics has failures. ALL of them.
The fact that you even attempt to suggest otherwise calls your knowledge of the subject into question.
That being said, several other consoles have had problems at launch as well, so I would say that is most certainly IS normale for the console industry, and the facts back me up.
"And seriously, how many console models have you seen in your life that had this kind of failure after the initial launch?"
Several. Did you even bother checking this out before you trolled?
"This is about as easy as QA testing gets so there is absolutely no excuse for crashes of any kind on the release lineup."
One way to spot anti-MS trolls is to watch for statements like yours.
If you had bothered to actually THINK for a second, you'd realize there are many reasons for crashes.
Nice troll though.
"It is called "experience", which Microsoft has plenty of."
For software. How does that relate to console production, of which they have exactly one generation of experience?
"Maybe I'm being harsh, Maybe Jack Thompson has a point, Maybe SCO has a case, Maybe Netcraft is right and I should upgrade to living distro. Or maybe, just maybe you could take the time to consider the source."
Yeah, and maybe none of those things represent themselves as research, so maybe thay aren't relevant.
You can rationalize your flawed thinking all you want. It's still flawed, and you're still rationalizing.
"will want them to start their school days in a religious ceremony of devotion to a starred and striped rag."
Listen, I can tell what you really are, so I'm prepared for it, but why would you refer to the flag that way?
Is it really so hard to refrain from insulting something which can't fight back, and is genrerally regarded as representing the sacrifices of people who died protecting the ideals of freedom?
So you hate the US, fine, you're allowed to misrepresent reality.
But what does insulting the symbol of the US do to help you? Do you think you're getting anywhere doing something which has no purpose other than to incite?
Ok, that's all great, but maybe you could answer my question.
"Yet you want to just hand this over to the people in charge without any thought to what they'll do with it."
Please post the quote where I make that statement, if you could.
You'll be looking for a while, because I never said anything even remotely close to that. You completely made up a straw man to argue with.
And since that kind of irrational, fucked up fourth grade thinking is exactly what I see from people who advocate think like you do, I can say with certainty that your opinion is worthless.
Until you can actually comprehend what you're reading, you'd be better off keeping your overly paranoid mouth shut.
Seriously, why would you lie about what I think, when I can easily disprove your pathetic lie?
Why would you misuse your mods points like that?
It's jerks like you who have turned the mods system into the farce that it is.
And the nyud comment? Priceless, you really don't know what that's for do you?
Do us all a favor, don't mod anyone anymore.
Awesome, I've never seen anyone admit to being an ignorant bigot before. I'm glad you got that off your chest.
One thing
"Do you suppose that could be that no-one ever enslaved Alabamans"
So there are no blacks in Alabama? Hmm, maybe they were just visiting then, because I saw quite a few...
OH WAIT!!! You're just showing off your ignorance agian, haha I get it now. Funny joke.
And Bush isn't a Baptist.
So, you're hammering blacks because they haven't gotten over that whole "slavery" thing too right?
And Jews too, that whole "trying to wipe us off the map" thing is getting tiresome.
Yeah, right.
How about this, you can STOP making fun of southerners, and people won't think you're an insecure little man who has to denigrate others to make himself feel special.
"In this case, MS funded "independent" findings from reports should be filed alongside the rest of the junk mail you get everyday."
Why? Because you said so? What evidence about THIS STUDY leads you to this conclusion? EVIDENCE please, not your opinion, which admittedly can be colored by past experience.
You see the point you and every other anti-MS troll misses is that YOU DO NO GET TO DISMISS A STUDY JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE FUNDER. Yes, it can raise questions, but the way you discredit any study is the same, regardless of funder. Why don't you people get this?
"How many MS Funded "Facts" have you been spoonfed that are completely false or carefully fabricated"
It doesn't matter. Do you understand, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The credibilty of a study is a function of it's design, NOT its funder. No part of this study should be influenced by the funding source. If it IS, then that's evidence. But where, oh where is said evidence in ANY of the dozens of copycat posts about MS funding this?
You discredit this study by providing credible counter evidence. The funder is NOT credible counter evidence. Saying it was a single data point, or not rigorously controlled, IS credible evidence.
That's just you restating the same moronic fallacy I showed you. Why are you trying so hard to be allowed to do so?
Seriously, it amazes me how many people here claim to know about science, but make the same simple mistakes that you do.
"Regardless, you've committed a logical fallacy in your argument, and tried to bring personal attacks into it"
Show me where this personal attack is. By the way, don't bother, you won't find a single reference to any one person, much less an attack. How you come to this conclusion is beyond me, but I suspect it has to do with your reading comprehension (or lack thereof).
Why? Well, parse this sentence for me, and you'll see why I call your ability to reason and comprehend text into question
"Just because it's a logical fallacy doesn't mean the claim isn't false."
You know what the funniest thing is though, you're trying to support the use of logical fallacies.
Why are you so adamant about rejecting logic and reason? Why are you trying so hard to get away with relying on logical fallacies to make your point?
"So, using your logic, experience counts for nothing."
Show me where I said that. More importantly, NO experience counts for something.
If this guy was demonstrably an MS shill, that would be one thing. Show me evidence of that, and I'm behind you.
BUT YOU DIDN'T SHOW ANY EVIDENCE. So you don't get to make claims that disparage this guy. Or rather you can't have any credibility when doing so.
"I am inherently suspicious when I hear "facts" being spouted by spokespeople/companies/foundations that receive funding from the company/organization they are evaluating."
You should be, but that's not the same as dismissing outright, which is what is actually happening. You can't claim the research os bad, because you have no FACTS to back you up. If you do, then post them, and this will be an entirely different conversation.
"And if you're going to take those facts at face value simply because you've applied a rule of logic then I suspect you will soon find yourself out of a job."
Where did I ever suggest that either? I didn't, in fact I suggested the opposite, the close examination of the facts, and genuine critical review.
So, for your reply if you choose to make one, DO NOT paraphrase my post. Respond to what I say without adding straw men (as you did here) don't make claims that I said something when I didn't, and don't assume my denunciation of the moronic use of fallacies is an endorsement of MS. It is not.
Now, a question for you. Why is being asked to maintain a consistent, logical pattern of examination such a problem for you? Why are you trying to get away with relying on fallacies to make your argument?
"Plus "The US" is way wrong,"
Find a single historian that will tell you the Allies had any chance of winning the war without the US.
You won't be able to. It was specifically the US intervening in BOTH wars that turned the tide, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism and ignorance.
"Many of us will stand up against racism, regardless of who it's against."
Great, what does that have to do with the French? France is a COUNTRY, you do know what that is right? And you do realize that the French are NOT a race right? And you also realize that claiming they are like you did is inexcusably ignorant right? What is wrong with you?
So apart from making claims that are historically inaccurate, and calling a criticism of France "racism" (which is the catch all phrase of those who want to claim persecution, regardless of whether they are actually a race or not) what did your post add to the discussion?
Why would anyone take you seriously when you can't even figure out what racism is?
"See? Microsoft has a bias, and so do the people they pay"
No.
This is where you're completely ignoring the post.
Yes, it can be safely assumed from past experience that MS has a bias, but why does that automatically indicate a bias in people they fund?
It doesn't, and the burden of proof is on you people to prove otherwise.