To tell you the truth, it wasn't an exhaustive list I was writing, just a list of examples. A better fourth example would be letting Sikhs take daggers on flights.
But anyway, one could argue that getting high should be legal for anyone, instead of bending laws every time that someone uses their religion or culture to try an ignore.
I have a feeling he won't reply, so I've anticipated his response: "Love man, love is the answer. If we could all just get along there'd be no war and stuff."
There'd still be a large number of people on Slashdot blaming society for the rapist's existence, arguing that his sentence was too long, and declaring him innocent.
What I was doing is generalising themes that often pervade Slashdot - I meant Slashdot as a whole. If you read here for any (greater than zero) length of time, you'll constantly hear nasty stuff being said about marketers, about "the 1%", about the cops, about business. And in the parent's comment, you hear that the other students were "inferior" to him!
We is a shorter way of saying "many people on Slashdot", I'm sure it wasn't too cryptic. And no, I wasn't referring specifically to you, or even to a group including you. Just/. as a whole.
"for reasons of basic privacy and conflicts with her belief system"
I agree with half of her case.
But someone's "belief system" shouldn't exempt them from following the rules and laws of the land. Otherwise pedo Mormons could marry 13 year-olds, hardcore Muslims could keep their female children out of schools, and fundie Christians could stalk those who are having abortions.
You should oppose a rule because it is wrong for the population, not because it conflicts with your belief system.
If you basically know the whole of the science syllabus (because you're interested in it and read about it at home), it's not fair to try and put your hand up to answer every single question. What is the point of doing it? Why not let someone else try to guess for a change?
If asked, you can tell the teacher, but you don't always have to be the one who puts his hand straight up. It just looks like you're after approval from the teacher (and this might in fact be the case).
Again, the problem isn't that you know the facts and can figure out the questions, it's that by being "Mr I-know-I-know" you're acting socially inappropriate. People like people who share, and don't like those who hog. Even if you are good at something, sometimes it's polite to let others have a turn.
The more socially aware "jocks" would let less talented sports people take easy catches (not running in at pushing the other guy away to take the catch themselves), or let others take an important role in a team sport (such as letting a struggling player bat first). It's common courtesy and kindness. The same should apply in maths and science.
Are you bullied because of your 98% score in the maths quiz? Or because you're a weirdo who picks his nose, and stands way too close when trying to have a conversation?
In my experience at school, the most bullied people weren't smart. One was smelly (he must have had constipation and some faecal leakage I guess, and his home didn't have a shower, only a bath) and would have only been about average academically - he turned out okay as an adult I remember. Another kid I remember used to insult someone randomly, then run away because he knew he'd get the bash. I remember at a school concert him sitting on his mother's knee, he would have been 15.
I remember being punched in the stomach once for no reason, but that was by an older kid who would have had no idea about my grades. Probably because I was weak looking and he didn't like my hair or something.
Sure my friends/classmates might have said something like "geek", or "schoooolaaaaar [said sarcastically]" or whatever we said in 90s, but no-one was actually bullied for being smart - just occasionally for the baggage that can come with being academically smart. Being smart was a good thing, because at least that could explain some of the weirdness and was a valued skill.
My thought is that "bullying" now means "said something mean to me once". Whereas I think of it as the daily harassment of someone with constant verbal barrage, destruction of property, deliberate ostracism, demeaning and devaluing comments about the victim, and physical violence and irritation.
Those that bullied us bullied us because they felt inferior. They INSTINCTIVELY KNEW that they are inferior, but their ego just won't that happened.
That explains Slashdot's constant attacks on people who are rich, or companies that make money.
Just like we were called nerds because we did well in maths, so we will call those with charisma "douchebags" and those successful in business "greedy corporates". At Slashdot we call the police "stupid", call MS users "sheep", and we call others who didn't do as well academically in school "inferior".
Who's guilty of bullying? And whose narcissistic nature is incapable of realising the irony in declaring superiority because of a higher physics score in junior high?
I usually have quite high karma in Slashdot, but I've started playing my comments down to avoid bullies. (At least that's what I tell people, am actually really pretty stupid and lazy, but I like the bullying excuse more.)
Oxford has these stupid press releases with "new words" and "words of the year". It's just to encourage publicity for their flaccid sales. Seriously, who buys a dictionary nowadays?
I had a look at the Nickelback article. Someone removed half of it in 2010 because there was too much criticism. This section was well referenced.
So rather than add something positive about Nickelback themselves, they tried to fix the problem by deleting the criticism.
I've had photos deleted "because they contain a trademark". Yep, a picture of chapstick, deleted, because on an article about chapstick, we can't have a photo of it.
No, but a person who accepts and publishes your anonymous submission without checking that you are in fact the author of the work is putting himself in a dodgy legal position.
The problem isn't really the lazy AC who submitted the copypasta (it's better than the 99% spam that clogs the firehose) - it's the lazy editor who didn't bother to check for originality and authenticity.
From their site: "The decline in new contributor growth is the single most serious challenge facing the Wikimedia movement in the year 2011. Removing the avoidable technical impediments associated with Wikimedia's editing interface is a necessary pre-condition for increasing the number of Wikimedia contributors."
I'm not sure that the editing is the main problem with dropping contributors. The problem is that most of what you write will be deleted, any image you upload will be deleted, and nearly edit you make will be undone.
Slashdot Mirror
you forgot rastafarians legally getting high
To tell you the truth, it wasn't an exhaustive list I was writing, just a list of examples. A better fourth example would be letting Sikhs take daggers on flights.
But anyway, one could argue that getting high should be legal for anyone, instead of bending laws every time that someone uses their religion or culture to try an ignore.
Who's benefiting?
Radical Muslims who want to wipe out the Zionist state and force Israel into bombing Gaza in self-defence.
Israel sure as hell ain't!
Kidnapping? You mean jail? How is that even violence?!
I have a feeling he won't reply, so I've anticipated his response:
"Love man, love is the answer. If we could all just get along there'd be no war and stuff."
I cannot remember when GWB launched rockets into Sydney targeting your citizens.
There'd still be a large number of people on Slashdot blaming society for the rapist's existence, arguing that his sentence was too long, and declaring him innocent.
The solution would be for Israel to clear the Gaza strip of religious zealots - but they'd receive much condemnation for that.
If some streetkid stabs your wife, are you responsible because you're richer and more organised?
It's called a royal "we". (Maybe not.)
What I was doing is generalising themes that often pervade Slashdot - I meant Slashdot as a whole. If you read here for any (greater than zero) length of time, you'll constantly hear nasty stuff being said about marketers, about "the 1%", about the cops, about business. And in the parent's comment, you hear that the other students were "inferior" to him!
We is a shorter way of saying "many people on Slashdot", I'm sure it wasn't too cryptic. And no, I wasn't referring specifically to you, or even to a group including you. Just /. as a whole.
"for reasons of basic privacy and conflicts with her belief system"
I agree with half of her case.
But someone's "belief system" shouldn't exempt them from following the rules and laws of the land. Otherwise pedo Mormons could marry 13 year-olds, hardcore Muslims could keep their female children out of schools, and fundie Christians could stalk those who are having abortions.
You should oppose a rule because it is wrong for the population, not because it conflicts with your belief system.
That might be part of the problem.
If you basically know the whole of the science syllabus (because you're interested in it and read about it at home), it's not fair to try and put your hand up to answer every single question. What is the point of doing it? Why not let someone else try to guess for a change?
If asked, you can tell the teacher, but you don't always have to be the one who puts his hand straight up. It just looks like you're after approval from the teacher (and this might in fact be the case).
Again, the problem isn't that you know the facts and can figure out the questions, it's that by being "Mr I-know-I-know" you're acting socially inappropriate. People like people who share, and don't like those who hog. Even if you are good at something, sometimes it's polite to let others have a turn.
The more socially aware "jocks" would let less talented sports people take easy catches (not running in at pushing the other guy away to take the catch themselves), or let others take an important role in a team sport (such as letting a struggling player bat first). It's common courtesy and kindness. The same should apply in maths and science.
So what if we've attacked? Do we do nothing?
What if a dictator is committing genocide and slaughtering civilians? Do we do nothing?
Every grade after first grade you under-performed? And you're blaming your first grade teacher? Because you were too smart?
Forgive my scepticism.
Fortunately every nerd who has ever been bullied is secretly a martial arts expert with years of experience in street fighting.
Exactly.
Are you bullied because of your 98% score in the maths quiz? Or because you're a weirdo who picks his nose, and stands way too close when trying to have a conversation?
In my experience at school, the most bullied people weren't smart. One was smelly (he must have had constipation and some faecal leakage I guess, and his home didn't have a shower, only a bath) and would have only been about average academically - he turned out okay as an adult I remember. Another kid I remember used to insult someone randomly, then run away because he knew he'd get the bash. I remember at a school concert him sitting on his mother's knee, he would have been 15.
I remember being punched in the stomach once for no reason, but that was by an older kid who would have had no idea about my grades. Probably because I was weak looking and he didn't like my hair or something.
Sure my friends/classmates might have said something like "geek", or "schoooolaaaaar [said sarcastically]" or whatever we said in 90s, but no-one was actually bullied for being smart - just occasionally for the baggage that can come with being academically smart. Being smart was a good thing, because at least that could explain some of the weirdness and was a valued skill.
My thought is that "bullying" now means "said something mean to me once". Whereas I think of it as the daily harassment of someone with constant verbal barrage, destruction of property, deliberate ostracism, demeaning and devaluing comments about the victim, and physical violence and irritation.
Those that bullied us bullied us because they felt inferior. They INSTINCTIVELY KNEW that they are inferior, but their ego just won't that happened.
That explains Slashdot's constant attacks on people who are rich, or companies that make money.
Just like we were called nerds because we did well in maths, so we will call those with charisma "douchebags" and those successful in business "greedy corporates". At Slashdot we call the police "stupid", call MS users "sheep", and we call others who didn't do as well academically in school "inferior".
Who's guilty of bullying? And whose narcissistic nature is incapable of realising the irony in declaring superiority because of a higher physics score in junior high?
I usually have quite high karma in Slashdot, but I've started playing my comments down to avoid bullies. (At least that's what I tell people, am actually really pretty stupid and lazy, but I like the bullying excuse more.)
School is where you learn submission to authority, to muscle and to bullies.
It's where you learn to deal with authority, muscle and bullies. These things don't go away after high school (or home school) graduation.
Actually it's a rapist and murderer hunt.
Most people in the world aren't backward, DNA is evil, conspiracy theorists, like Slashdot is full of.
Only a nerd would want a rapist to go free because "it's DNA" and "that's bad because of the insurance things".
This place makes me sick some times.
Yeah, sounds plausible.
Oxford has these stupid press releases with "new words" and "words of the year". It's just to encourage publicity for their flaccid sales. Seriously, who buys a dictionary nowadays?
Sorry to take a while to reply.
I had a look at the Nickelback article. Someone removed half of it in 2010 because there was too much criticism. This section was well referenced.
So rather than add something positive about Nickelback themselves, they tried to fix the problem by deleting the criticism.
I've had photos deleted "because they contain a trademark". Yep, a picture of chapstick, deleted, because on an article about chapstick, we can't have a photo of it.
No, but a person who accepts and publishes your anonymous submission without checking that you are in fact the author of the work is putting himself in a dodgy legal position.
The problem isn't really the lazy AC who submitted the copypasta (it's better than the 99% spam that clogs the firehose) - it's the lazy editor who didn't bother to check for originality and authenticity.
Are losers still on about this 1% crap? Woz has got to be 0.0001%
You don't see 1 in 100 people being able to walk through without scrutiny.
From their site:
"The decline in new contributor growth is the single most serious challenge facing the Wikimedia movement in the year 2011. Removing the avoidable technical impediments associated with Wikimedia's editing interface is a necessary pre-condition for increasing the number of Wikimedia contributors."
I'm not sure that the editing is the main problem with dropping contributors. The problem is that most of what you write will be deleted, any image you upload will be deleted, and nearly edit you make will be undone.
And to deny others exactly what he spent his life doing (studying to learn) is rather rude to be honest. People remember the man, not his organs.
John Holmes's fans shed a tear.