Not all creationists are antisemitic, but there is a causal link between these beliefs. The bible is the absolute truth to these people, and the bible says the jews killed their Saviour. It's not even a stretch.
Of course jews killed Christ. Christ *was* a jew.... that's the part that they keep forgetting. So were his disciples. So was pretty well everybody else in the bible, until after Christ's death.
Sorry - but even if you believe in literal interpretation, choosing one passage or event to justify something and ignoring other other passages and events IS a stretch.
The Jews are also "God's Chosen People"..... shouldn't that come into it somewhere?
Christ knew that he was going to die, and why.... so you're going to hate Jews now for playing the role they were ordained to play according to prophecy?
Your snark aside, he didn't make that up. Opened in 2001, Dinosaur Adventure Land sprung from Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism ministry, which began to evolve in the late '80s. CSE sells videos and audiotapes of Hovind's lectures and his debates with evolutionary scientists, along with books on "Evolution and the New World Order." (At least one of them, Fourth Reich of the Rich, alleges a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.)
I call strawman.
There are anti-semite creationists.... there are anti-semite catholics... anti-semite (your favorite group here)
I'll be some of them smell funny, too... but I doubt that you can then safely claim that poor hygiene is a defining characteristic of creationism
I *think* that this is directed at me, but I'm not sure - if I'm wrong, apologies in advance.
On a related note, I also work with a fair number of Canadians, and most of them never met a piece of erroneous US-bashing misinformation they didn't like. Even things demonstrably false. I can never really figure this out because, I mean, and I say this as an American, it's not like you need to make things up to bash the US. We've done enough real stuff to complain about without resorting to fabrication. I suspect the problem is that the majority of crappy things we've done has also done a lot to help our neighbors to the north, so they don't really like to mention them.
Nowhere, in any of my posts, did I bash Americans - I criticized one particular General.
I pointed out contributions that Aussies & Brits DID make, and as you can see in subsequent posts I made in this thread, you'll see that I freely acknowledge that the Americans did most of the heavy lifting.
Criticising the proclivities on one American general doesn't constitute anti-americanism, any more than critiquing Churchill for Gallipoli or Lord Mountbatten for Dieppe means I'm anti-english.
Nowadays we don't need to capture your territory for you and the Brits to kowtow to us. Hell, what little military you have is fighting *for* us. Why would we want to screw that up?
And just where, pray tell, are we fighting for the Americans?
The only combat the Canadian Forces are involved in right now is Afghanistan... which is a NATO mission. And we're fighting there for the Afghanis, not for Americans.
If you're going to troll, please at least try to come up with something that's *reasonably* close to accurate, so you have a better chance of getting a rise out of somebody?
interestingly enough, if it is egotism, the veterans in OZ perpetuate it. When I was down under for two years, all the old diggers could say to me was "if it weren't for you yanks, we would be speaking Japanese. You came when England abandoned us, just in time."
What they said doesn't contradict what I said. I never said the Aussies & Brits did everything themselves - they didn't, not by a long shot.
Fact of the matter is, the US was the driving force behind keeping the UK, USSR, AUS, and anyone else against Hitler and the Japanese in the war. They would have all lost to Hitler very quickly if the US had not shipped all the guns, ammo, food, clothing, aircraft, tanks, trucks, etc... for them to fight with, long before Pearl Harbor or the Pacific Theater.
Again, that's not the point I was arguing, and as a matter of fact I agree with you.
Did the Aussies have a navy? Yes - and they had a damned good one, too. And let's not forget the contributions made by the Aussie coastwatchers during the entire Pacific campaign. If not for them and the intelligence they supplied before and during the Island-hopping campaign, most of the American island landings would have been MUCH more costly than they already were. And you could certainly make a strong argument that without those intelligence assets, the campaign costs, in both men and materiel, could have been prohibitive.
Did the American navy make a difference? HELL, yes. They did the vast majority of the work - there's no argument there from anybody sane, as far as I know.
MY point was that even though the American military did most of the work, the contributions from the Australian forces was a long way from being negligible.
The aussies had one hellova good navy - and also a good army & air force, too. But americans tend not to be aware of it, because a certain egomanicial general by the name of McArthur had this nasty tendency to ignore allies and claim that everything was done by the Americans.
Whhhaaaaa? Aussies had a Navy?
Do you really think it was the American forces that kept the japs from taking Port Morrisby and the Northern Territories? Try the Australian & British navies, who were out there fighting and doing their best to slow the Japanese down while you were recovering from Perl harbor.
And just in case you think this a matter of me being a rampant Aussie nationalist..... I'm a Canuck.
Then why is it that (as of right now) all the up-modded posts are laid out sequentially down the comment tree?
Because one of the things TFM neglects to mention is that parallel programming, like any other programming method, is suitable for some things and not for others.... and the hard reality is, is that most application programmes you see on the desktop are basically serial, simply because of the way PEOPLE process tasks & information
There is a very real limit as to how much you can parallelize standard office tasks.
Ya, I'm real sure the journalism of a totalitarian state that is responsible for the deaths of 3000+ people(then reporting only a handful were injured) will be real accurate.
The important thing to know about a news service - ANY news service - is it's institutional bias. And yes, they all have them.
Once you know the bias, you can use that and some critical reasoning skills to parse through the stories - and you'd be amazed at just how much good information you CAN get that way, regardless of the bias.
There's a damned good reason why everybody - and I mean absolutly EVERYBODY - in the intelligence community read pravda and izvestia during the cold war. Because it was a wonderful source of information.
It more bugs me how many sites in google news are exact copies of the same thing. Makes finding more than one story somewhat of a bitch.
What's even worse, as far as I'm concerned, is clicking on wildly different headlines in different major newspapers.... and finding the exact same AP (or other wireservice) story.
Kinda makes you wonder about the "journalism is hard" comment in the article.
I'm still amazed at how much corporations can brainwash american couch potatoes.
I'm amazed at how much people think that others who disagree with them can only possibly do so on the basis of either idiocy or brainwashing. (I'm not critiquing the parent, per se - I'm making a comment on the general tone of the comments I've seen in this thread so far.
I'm not American, either - I'm Canadian. But there wasn't one single story on that list that I haven't come across at least once in the last year or so.
Yes, I have a TV..... but it's only use for the last 2 years or so has been by my daughter for her video games.
I don't have a radio.
So - if I'm living in such a cave, how have *I* heard of these stories, when they've been censored?
Not reporting what you don't think your readers aren't interested in isn't censorship - it's an editorial decision based on the (relative) scarcity of column-inches or airtime.
It should be noted that the FBI has surpassed the wildest dreams of the KGB. The FBI stamps out the spark of rebellion before it gets anywhere near starting a fire.
I hope the hell I'm not the only one here who finds that comparison odious in the extreme.
The KGB - and it's precursors, the NKVD, and the Cheka before that - is directly responsible for the deaths over the years of over 20 MILLION people by most estimates - over 10 million during the Stalin purges alone.
They were responsible for the extreme torture of hundreds of thousands on the basis of nothing more than the say-so of a neighbour.
They were responsible for the forced movements of entire peoples from one part of the Soviet Union to distant parts of Siberia and the Far East.
They ran forced labour camps, all across the country.
How you can compare that to even the worst excesses of the FBI, even under Hoover, is beyond me.
How long can they maintain this status quo? Not much longer at all...America is rotting from the inside very quickly.
The only thing "rotting" here is your knowledge of history - even on a surface level.
Those errors do not exist to make, and the code is shorter. That means easier to read and debug.
Shorter does NOT mean - nor does it even IMPLY - easier to read and/or debug
Never used, or even *heard* of APL, have you?
Sorry, but I think that succinctness is one of the most highly overrated code qualities I've ever come across - which, coincidently, is one of the main reasons I find pearl so disgusting. Think can be - and quite often *are* - written in such a compact form that they are virtually unreadable to any but an expert..... and the code *is* often written that way, simply because it's l33t.
I really don't give a rat's ass if my code is a page, and yours in only 10 lines..... which one is written in the clearest, most logical way? Which one is easier for a newbie to pick up and understand?
People need to write code to be CLEAR - concise should be at best of secondary importance.
"I can write a programme that will do a matrix inversion, create a visualization of it, compute the prime of a 300-digit number AND order my groceries in one line with language XXX, where it takes you 500 in C"
Wonderful, and I'm happy for you.. but which one do you honestly think will be more maintainable?
I can go to my libraries right now, and go through some of the old, crusty code (some of which was written as far back as 1982), underst *and* maintain it, in 10-15 minutes - after just a quick glance. Can you say the same for code you've written yourself, even just a year ago?
Umm, sorry, ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for breaking the law. He either did or didn't.
You're right... but that's also besides the point. You can also be charged for licking an ice cream cone on Sundays in some jurisdictions, thanks to laws that were passed in the 1800s..... but how far do you think the local DA would get if he actually tried to prosecute it?
Here, we have a specific case where neither the perp, the cop, NOR the store owner were aware of the existence of the law - it seems to me that "justice" would have been much better served by just *informing* everybody about the law, so that it wouldn't happen again.
The point of law is NOT to prosecute people, or put them in jail - it's an agreed-upon set of rules that we agree to follow when we join a society, so that society can function smoothly. Prosecution - and subsequent punishments - are intended to be coercive measures to enforce compliance with these rules.
If ever there was a case of "This time, I'll let you off with a warning", this is it.
He didn't know he was breaking the law
The COP didn't know he was breaking the law
The STORE OWNER didn't know he was breaking the law
So how exactly did he wind up getting a $400 fine, community service, and a diversion sentence out of it?
Common sence tells me that there's nothing for him to "divert" - I suspect if you had just TOLD him he was breaking the law, he'd have said "oops - sorry - I won't do it again"
2) Pirated OS + Pirated SW = No guilt way to get even for 400 years of colonization. Didn't the Brits pirate away the crown jewels from India? Add up the Billions stolen from India, China and the rest of the former imperialist colonies and it doesn't amount to a fraction of the money supposedly lost to piracy (what's the price of the Kohinoor diamond compared to a few bits of data ?).
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. First, Microsoft is American, not British.
Second... I seriously doubt that Rajib is using his pirated copy of windows to make a historical or philosophical statement about their old colonial masters.
Surely. Unfortunately, none of that insight is brought to bear on the issue at hand. Read the article. He says what everyone else has been saying for the last two days.
Some people's opinions *are* more important than others. Who do you think the PHB making the decisions is going to listen to - Linux, or FatherBusa?
He makes a big stink out of anything that appears racist, which means people who like to pretend racism is a thing of the past find him really vexing. He tends to make it harder to hang on to their rationalizations for how anyone accused of racism is innocent.
Where, pray tell, did I say racism is a thing of the past? It's not - but that does NOT mean, nor does it even imply, that anything bad that happens between white & black is a function of racism. There are assholes in ALL races.
The key word in the above quote is "appears". There is the old saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything else begins to look more and more like a nail". That's Sharpton in a nutshell - the only tool he has is racism. If I'm white and you're black, and I call you an asshole, there are only two possibilities, one (or both) of which may be true. A) I think you're an asshole (I'm using the "royal" you, so don't go on about ad hominims again), or B) I'm a racist. You *cannot* assume that just because we have different skin colour that the reason is racism. Unless, of course, you're Sharpton.
One of these things is not like the other.
Actually, they are - they're both delusions that ignore reality.
That you can compare believing Elvis is alive (a case where there's plenty of evidence of Elvis' death) to the Tawana Brawley incident (which hinges entirely on he said/she said, and is now dismissed because of what she said) speaks volumes about your attitude and biases.
Well, let's look at the facts, shall we?
Girl claims she was raped by 6 white men. Grand jury is convened. After over 6 months of examining police records, medical evidence, and interview, the jury comes to the conclusion that the story was made up.... later confirmed by the girl herself.
What does Sharpton do? Accuse the prosecutor of racist himself, and being one of the men involved! (He was then successfully sued for slander, btw).
The fact remains, he stood up for the girl when nobody else would. That you want to twist that into something akin to invading China makes you look like a vicious little man.
Not at all.... the comparison compares motives. Genghis Khan did not invade China, or anywhere else, because he wanted to export carpets - he did it for conquest.
Sharpton did not come to the aid of a poor little black girl because he wanted to help - he used a girl who needed support and some serious help as a political football to be used for his own aggrandizement.
Now - to go back to my "asshole" example from earlier.
Substitue "asshole" for "racist, opportunistic media whore of the worst sort", and the royal "you" for Al Sharpton.
There are large swaths of black America that think maybe Tawana Brawley was telling the truth the first time and just gave in and decided to say whatever would make it all go away
And their white equivalents believe that Elvis is still alive.
When white folks see a "huckster" who "inserted himself" into the Brawley incident, black folks see a guy who stood up for a black girl when nobody else would.
Calling Al Sharpton a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress is like saying Genghis Khan exported rugs.
Telephone: Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell, Americans both.
Bell was born in Scotland in 1847, immigrated to Canada and didn't move the the USA until 1871. He never became a citizen until 1882 - the telephone was invented in 1874, so the telephone was NOT invented by "two americans".
That's not the point I was trying to address - I didn't say I was in favour of non-annon voting, and in fact, I think it's a stupid idea.
There is a difference between having to establish that you have the right to vote, and connecting this vote with that person.
Take my case, though... I'm 48, and haven't had a drivers license for over 20 years - I've lived downtown and worked at home - I haven't *needed* a car, and without one, I forgot to renew it - and I haven't bothered since.
You would be amazed at how many things you *can't* to if you don't have a driver's license for ID - and none of them are related to driving in any way.
The idea of having a valid picture ID that proves that you are who you say you are to my mind is a good thing.... I've been using a passport for just that purpose for years, even though I've only been out of the country a few times in my life.
Here's the kicker, though... in order for me to get my passport in the first place, I needed a birth certificate and.... (drumroll).... a valid picture ID.
Honestly something as simple as connecting a drivers license number and name to each ballot would vastly increase accountability and how reviewable an election would be.
Wonderful.... yesterday, I read way too many comments here on slashdot about people railing against the idea of a federal, government-mandated ID..... and now you're thinking that somebody should need a driver's license to vote?
What the bloody hell does the ability to operate a car legally have to do with somebody's right to vote?
to Harpo to "harmonize" Canadian copyright laws with the U.S. This is part of his "deep integration" hidden agenda he's going to implement the second he gets a majority government.
People have been talking about the Tory's "hidden agenda" for years..... I'm just wondering how "hidden" it can be if so many people know what it is.
He's already sold the tar sands to the oil barons lock, stock and barrel.
That was Ralph Klein, not "Harpo". Resources are provincial, not federal.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry - but even if you believe in literal interpretation, choosing one passage or event to justify something and ignoring other other passages and events IS a stretch.
The Jews are also "God's Chosen People"
Christ knew that he was going to die, and why
Let's have some consistency here.
There are anti-semite creationists
I'll be some of them smell funny, too
I pointed out contributions that Aussies & Brits DID make, and as you can see in subsequent posts I made in this thread, you'll see that I freely acknowledge that the Americans did most of the heavy lifting.
Criticising the proclivities on one American general doesn't constitute anti-americanism, any more than critiquing Churchill for Gallipoli or Lord Mountbatten for Dieppe means I'm anti-english.
The only combat the Canadian Forces are involved in right now is Afghanistan
If you're going to troll, please at least try to come up with something that's *reasonably* close to accurate, so you have a better chance of getting a rise out of somebody?
Again, that's not the point I was arguing, and as a matter of fact I agree with you.
Did the Aussies have a navy? Yes - and they had a damned good one, too. And let's not forget the contributions made by the Aussie coastwatchers during the entire Pacific campaign. If not for them and the intelligence they supplied before and during the Island-hopping campaign, most of the American island landings would have been MUCH more costly than they already were. And you could certainly make a strong argument that without those intelligence assets, the campaign costs, in both men and materiel, could have been prohibitive.
Did the American navy make a difference? HELL, yes. They did the vast majority of the work - there's no argument there from anybody sane, as far as I know.
MY point was that even though the American military did most of the work, the contributions from the Australian forces was a long way from being negligible.
You tried that in 1812, and it didn't work.
There is a very real limit as to how much you can parallelize standard office tasks.
Kinda makes you wonder about the "journalism is hard" comment in the article.
I'm not American, either - I'm Canadian. But there wasn't one single story on that list that I haven't come across at least once in the last year or so.
Yes, I have a TV
I don't have a radio.
So - if I'm living in such a cave, how have *I* heard of these stories, when they've been censored?
Not reporting what you don't think your readers aren't interested in isn't censorship - it's an editorial decision based on the (relative) scarcity of column-inches or airtime.
The KGB - and it's precursors, the NKVD, and the Cheka before that - is directly responsible for the deaths over the years of over 20 MILLION people by most estimates - over 10 million during the Stalin purges alone.
They were responsible for the extreme torture of hundreds of thousands on the basis of nothing more than the say-so of a neighbour.
They were responsible for the forced movements of entire peoples from one part of the Soviet Union to distant parts of Siberia and the Far East.
They ran forced labour camps, all across the country.
How you can compare that to even the worst excesses of the FBI, even under Hoover, is beyond me.
The only thing "rotting" here is your knowledge of history - even on a surface level.
Never used, or even *heard* of APL, have you?
Sorry, but I think that succinctness is one of the most highly overrated code qualities I've ever come across - which, coincidently, is one of the main reasons I find pearl so disgusting. Think can be - and quite often *are* - written in such a compact form that they are virtually unreadable to any but an expert
I really don't give a rat's ass if my code is a page, and yours in only 10 lines
People need to write code to be CLEAR - concise should be at best of secondary importance.
"I can write a programme that will do a matrix inversion, create a visualization of it, compute the prime of a 300-digit number AND order my groceries in one line with language XXX, where it takes you 500 in C"
Wonderful, and I'm happy for you
I can go to my libraries right now, and go through some of the old, crusty code (some of which was written as far back as 1982), underst *and* maintain it, in 10-15 minutes - after just a quick glance. Can you say the same for code you've written yourself, even just a year ago?
Here, we have a specific case where neither the perp, the cop, NOR the store owner were aware of the existence of the law - it seems to me that "justice" would have been much better served by just *informing* everybody about the law, so that it wouldn't happen again.
The point of law is NOT to prosecute people, or put them in jail - it's an agreed-upon set of rules that we agree to follow when we join a society, so that society can function smoothly. Prosecution - and subsequent punishments - are intended to be coercive measures to enforce compliance with these rules.
If ever there was a case of "This time, I'll let you off with a warning", this is it.
Ok - let me get this straight.
He didn't know he was breaking the law
The COP didn't know he was breaking the law
The STORE OWNER didn't know he was breaking the law
So how exactly did he wind up getting a $400 fine, community service, and a diversion sentence out of it?
Common sence tells me that there's nothing for him to "divert" - I suspect if you had just TOLD him he was breaking the law, he'd have said "oops - sorry - I won't do it again"
What a waste of resources.
Second
Gotta love rationalizations
The key word in the above quote is "appears". There is the old saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything else begins to look more and more like a nail". That's Sharpton in a nutshell - the only tool he has is racism. If I'm white and you're black, and I call you an asshole, there are only two possibilities, one (or both) of which may be true. A) I think you're an asshole (I'm using the "royal" you, so don't go on about ad hominims again), or B) I'm a racist. You *cannot* assume that just because we have different skin colour that the reason is racism. Unless, of course, you're Sharpton.
Actually, they are - they're both delusions that ignore reality.
Well, let's look at the facts, shall we?
Girl claims she was raped by 6 white men. Grand jury is convened. After over 6 months of examining police records, medical evidence, and interview, the jury comes to the conclusion that the story was made up
What does Sharpton do? Accuse the prosecutor of racist himself, and being one of the men involved! (He was then successfully sued for slander, btw). Not at all
Sharpton did not come to the aid of a poor little black girl because he wanted to help - he used a girl who needed support and some serious help as a political football to be used for his own aggrandizement.
Now - to go back to my "asshole" example from earlier.
Substitue "asshole" for "racist, opportunistic media whore of the worst sort", and the royal "you" for Al Sharpton.
You can now pick A) or B), as you see fit.
What I said makes fun of his statements, not the person making the statement.
Of course, you could make the case that what YOU said was ad hominem
Calling Al Sharpton a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress is like saying Genghis Khan exported rugs.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
That's not the point I was trying to address - I didn't say I was in favour of non-annon voting, and in fact, I think it's a stupid idea.
... I'm 48, and haven't had a drivers license for over 20 years - I've lived downtown and worked at home - I haven't *needed* a car, and without one, I forgot to renew it - and I haven't bothered since.
.... I've been using a passport for just that purpose for years, even though I've only been out of the country a few times in my life.
... in order for me to get my passport in the first place, I needed a birth certificate and .... (drumroll) .... a valid picture ID.
There is a difference between having to establish that you have the right to vote, and connecting this vote with that person.
Take my case, though
You would be amazed at how many things you *can't* to if you don't have a driver's license for ID - and none of them are related to driving in any way.
The idea of having a valid picture ID that proves that you are who you say you are to my mind is a good thing
Here's the kicker, though
What the bloody hell does the ability to operate a car legally have to do with somebody's right to vote?
That was Ralph Klein, not "Harpo". Resources are provincial, not federal.
This time around, we gave you Celine Dion.
DON'T MESS WITH CANADA! pffffffffffffffffh!