The idea of a natural order where the 'least fit' are weeding out - that's bad. About finding scientific, working solutions - that's good. The perspectives of tycoons and starving kids being equally valid - that's bad. The frogurt is also cursed.
The problem with your perspective is that the ones dying are not 'unfit'. Most of them are under 5 years of age and thus have had zero opportunity to demonstrate their fitness or otherwise. The only thing they've done to qualify for an early malnourished death is to pop out of the wrong womb. Privileged upbringings aren't allotted on the basis of the worth of the child, but on the circumstances of the parent.
So the keystone of your position is the idea that you can determine worth by parentage - that is social darwinism, and social darwinism is unscientific and dangerous, as history has shown.
Its the only internet radio station I listen to, because it offers up music I haven't heard before but is based on my previous preferences. I'm worried my taste will stagnate without it.
Nerds have to be, in order to be nerds, independent thinkers. To have any serious problem solving skills requires a mind free to explore options, and thus good problem solvers tend to reject authority.
Unfortunately, the American political discourse shapes how American nerds express this rejection of authority. For a start, Americans have the idea of socialism=big government constantly drilled into them. Most modern socialists want to [i]reduce[/i] the scope of government. We were actually paying attention in 1989, you know, and the horrors of the USSR and its satellites have had a great effect on socialist thinking.
I consider myself a libertarian socialist - a term that has been around for about 150 years, but to most Americans would sound like an absurd oxymoron (Like Fascist Anarchist or something). This is a position that most of you will simply not have heard of or considered, because the political discourse in your media suggests to you that capitalism is an synonym for freedom. This idea is so ingrained in your culture, many of you think George Orwell was opposed to socialism! As an anti-authoritarian in America, right-libertarianism is the only option presented to you.
So why have I (and many others) expressed our anti-authoritarian tenancies to the left instead of the right? Simply put: Capitalism doesn't work. No, seriously. Capitalism is a system of allocating resources - and in this world there is enough food produced to give everyone 3000 calories per day, but according to UN figures 9 million day a year from starvation and most of those are small children. I think such a system of allocating resources really, really sucks. Lets find an alternative.
By the way, this website may be informative for going beyond traditional left/right stereotypes.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
And another one falls into the fallacy of "moral=legal". Something being illegal is no ethical reason not to do it. Sometimes the law is just wrong, as it is in this case.
And there IS a god-given right to download music - its the right of free speech, and its generally considered quite important.
No chance. The record company is crushing somebody, destroying their life just because they can and they think it will scare people into paying their information tax. They are terrorising people. Sooner or later, someone is going to start bombing these companies.
Us plebs would be scoffing down crappy cloned meat which will probably kill us, whilst execs in their skyscrapers will be licking real organic gravy off the tits of $3000 call girls.
Once again, an alliance of big business and government conspires to strange the last remnants of freedom on the internet. The end of free expression is night. In a few years...
8% of the Suns mass is still about 100 times the mass of Jupiter. So all that crap about turning Jupiter into a star in "2010" was a load of bollocks. Like, well, pretty much everything in that shite film.
Whatever has caused you to have an irrational phobia of this project, I'm sick of hearing you all bitch about it. I don't care if you lost an edit war. I don't care if someone thought your prayer group wasn't notable enough for an entry. And I certainly don't care that wikipedia doesn't agree with your favourite news channel/conspiracy nut.
Its a good project that does what it sets out to do, and does it well. The fact its resisted what is effectively a DDoS attack from a major celebrity with millions of "zombies" at his disposal should testify to that.
No, it isn't perfectly accurate. But if people were to fact check the news as anally as wikipedia is checked, they would find it much, much worse. People find one or two inaccurate articles and hold them up as examples of why wikipedia "doesn't work" whilst failing to mention the thousands of articles that are accurate.
Re:South Americans? Arabs? Whats the difference
on
Cyberwar on NASA Websites
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I find the term 'cyberterrorism' offensive. Get some fucking perspective.
Someone sets off nail bombs in pubs just because the occupants happen to be gay, thats terrorism.
A guy gets on a bus with a dynamite waistcoat and wipes out a load of commuters, thats terrorism.
Some prick hijacks a jet and flies in into a skyscraper full of people, thats terrorism.
It makes perfect sense that the hackers came from south america and not an arab country. My own government (the UK) is way ahead in removing that particular distinction
Seriously though, the reason they hit NASA was because they could. They almost certainly scanned through all US government sites for a vunerability they could exploit, and NASA just happened to have one.
Also, you should be thanking them for this. This form of protest hurts exactly nobody. A sysadmin gets some extra overtime, thats all. If you guys didn't have contempt for peaceful forms of protest like this, perhaps people wouldn't feel the need to murder thousands of you just to get your attention.
The polls you cite indicate a dissatisfaction with the current haircut. Yes, Bush has an approval rating in the 30s, but those Americans who do not approve of him, approve of alternatives who would have had indistinguishable foreign policy since 2001 anyway. The rest of the world doesn't care about your domestic politics, only your international politics. And in that respect, America appears unanimously arrogant from the outside.
How does this apply to ICANN? The author of the article is expressing his skepticism that the American public would agree to the US giving up control of anything, least of all anything as important as the Internet. You guys aren't exactly known for playing well with other countries.
Me and the old ball-and-chain spotted this one in Woolworths about 3 weeks ago and bought it on the spot.
Without paper money the game feels a lot faster. Also the houses are apartments that can be stacked up, so unlike the old houses they *actually fit* on your properties.
She has commented that the card makes it more tempting to spend money, but thats probably just a biological reaction to small plastic cards.
One downside - its much harder to play the old house rule off all money paid to the bank going into the middle, and then being won by whoever lands on free parking.
"Actually I'm kind of pissed at the new Doctor Who. Not having any Daleks or any Time Lords (besides the Doctor of course) pretty much kills my two favorite races. I'm informed they can't really not have any more Dalek episodes though, after all, the man does travel through time and the Daleks are his greatest enemy. He's bound to run into Daleks in the past."
I think some people have a romanticised image of Babylon 5.
Bear in mind that, at the time, the only other Sci-Fi on Tv was Star Trek: The Next Generation. That was not a good show. So B5 didn't exactly have to work much to stand out as the best thing on TV.
It performed a function of breaking the Star Trek stranglehold. It showed people sci-fi could have more depth. But compared to some of what came after (Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, new Dr. Who) it is nothing special.
Its like people saying Citizen Kane was the best movie ever. It was certainly better than anything that came out at the time - but since then others have taken its ideas and improved upon them. Same for B5
The sole purpose of this is, I think, to protect wikipedia from having every page with even vaguely political themes being torn apart by edit wars during elections.
Its sacrificial protection, but it won't work, because political trolls need attention and won't willingly walk into an area designed to make them easier to ignore.
"I fear we may very well get a "fourth to remember", and NOT in a good way! It is all very well for a bottlerocket to explode in flight, NOT A MANNED SHIP!"
Perhaps sending up a rocket on a day when Americans traditionally launch fireworks is tempting fate a little.
Oh, that and the engineer thing as well. Well said.
If the shuttle needs to have its heatshield repaired, Astronauts must spend longer in orbit. They require a stimulating game to stop themselves going space crazy - and NASA have decided that must be DNF.
And, of course, DNF was designed from the outset to take advantage of the new features of Vista...
"But the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) says the Roms licence is not legitimate and it would not cover consumers in other countries even if it was."
So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?
This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of a natural order where the 'least fit' are weeding out - that's bad. About finding scientific, working solutions - that's good. The perspectives of tycoons and starving kids being equally valid - that's bad. The frogurt is also cursed.
The problem with your perspective is that the ones dying are not 'unfit'. Most of them are under 5 years of age and thus have had zero opportunity to demonstrate their fitness or otherwise. The only thing they've done to qualify for an early malnourished death is to pop out of the wrong womb. Privileged upbringings aren't allotted on the basis of the worth of the child, but on the circumstances of the parent.
So the keystone of your position is the idea that you can determine worth by parentage - that is social darwinism, and social darwinism is unscientific and dangerous, as history has shown.
I really hope Pandora isn't affected by this.
Its the only internet radio station I listen to, because it offers up music I haven't heard before but is based on my previous preferences. I'm worried my taste will stagnate without it.
Nerds have to be, in order to be nerds, independent thinkers. To have any serious problem solving skills requires a mind free to explore options, and thus good problem solvers tend to reject authority. Unfortunately, the American political discourse shapes how American nerds express this rejection of authority. For a start, Americans have the idea of socialism=big government constantly drilled into them. Most modern socialists want to [i]reduce[/i] the scope of government. We were actually paying attention in 1989, you know, and the horrors of the USSR and its satellites have had a great effect on socialist thinking. I consider myself a libertarian socialist - a term that has been around for about 150 years, but to most Americans would sound like an absurd oxymoron (Like Fascist Anarchist or something). This is a position that most of you will simply not have heard of or considered, because the political discourse in your media suggests to you that capitalism is an synonym for freedom. This idea is so ingrained in your culture, many of you think George Orwell was opposed to socialism! As an anti-authoritarian in America, right-libertarianism is the only option presented to you. So why have I (and many others) expressed our anti-authoritarian tenancies to the left instead of the right? Simply put: Capitalism doesn't work. No, seriously. Capitalism is a system of allocating resources - and in this world there is enough food produced to give everyone 3000 calories per day, but according to UN figures 9 million day a year from starvation and most of those are small children. I think such a system of allocating resources really, really sucks. Lets find an alternative. By the way, this website may be informative for going beyond traditional left/right stereotypes. http://www.politicalcompass.org/
And another one falls into the fallacy of "moral=legal". Something being illegal is no ethical reason not to do it. Sometimes the law is just wrong, as it is in this case. And there IS a god-given right to download music - its the right of free speech, and its generally considered quite important.
Anyone else get the nice google ad?
Visiting Mars? Find Deals & Read Hotel Reviews!
Having the members of a community reduce a persons presence on an website? Slashdotters would never stand for such a thing, surely.
(PS pls mod me up!)
No chance. The record company is crushing somebody, destroying their life just because they can and they think it will scare people into paying their information tax. They are terrorising people. Sooner or later, someone is going to start bombing these companies.
Us plebs would be scoffing down crappy cloned meat which will probably kill us, whilst execs in their skyscrapers will be licking real organic gravy off the tits of $3000 call girls.
Maybe I'm thinking too cyberpunk here.
Some kind of orbital resonance means they can't collide unless their orbits change at some point in the future.
Once again, an alliance of big business and government conspires to strange the last remnants of freedom on the internet. The end of free expression is night. In a few years...
Oh, hold on a minute.
Did we win this one!?
8% of the Suns mass is still about 100 times the mass of Jupiter. So all that crap about turning Jupiter into a star in "2010" was a load of bollocks. Like, well, pretty much everything in that shite film.
Whatever has caused you to have an irrational phobia of this project, I'm sick of hearing you all bitch about it. I don't care if you lost an edit war. I don't care if someone thought your prayer group wasn't notable enough for an entry. And I certainly don't care that wikipedia doesn't agree with your favourite news channel/conspiracy nut.
Its a good project that does what it sets out to do, and does it well. The fact its resisted what is effectively a DDoS attack from a major celebrity with millions of "zombies" at his disposal should testify to that.
No, it isn't perfectly accurate. But if people were to fact check the news as anally as wikipedia is checked, they would find it much, much worse. People find one or two inaccurate articles and hold them up as examples of why wikipedia "doesn't work" whilst failing to mention the thousands of articles that are accurate.
I find the term 'cyberterrorism' offensive. Get some fucking perspective.
Someone sets off nail bombs in pubs just because the occupants happen to be gay, thats terrorism.
A guy gets on a bus with a dynamite waistcoat and wipes out a load of commuters, thats terrorism.
Some prick hijacks a jet and flies in into a skyscraper full of people, thats terrorism.
Fucking up somebodies webserver? Not even close.
It makes perfect sense that the hackers came from south america and not an arab country. My own government (the UK) is way ahead in removing that particular distinction
Seriously though, the reason they hit NASA was because they could. They almost certainly scanned through all US government sites for a vunerability they could exploit, and NASA just happened to have one.
Also, you should be thanking them for this. This form of protest hurts exactly nobody. A sysadmin gets some extra overtime, thats all. If you guys didn't have contempt for peaceful forms of protest like this, perhaps people wouldn't feel the need to murder thousands of you just to get your attention.
It's *the register*
Its always been opinionated.
The polls you cite indicate a dissatisfaction with the current haircut. Yes, Bush has an approval rating in the 30s, but those Americans who do not approve of him, approve of alternatives who would have had indistinguishable foreign policy since 2001 anyway. The rest of the world doesn't care about your domestic politics, only your international politics. And in that respect, America appears unanimously arrogant from the outside.
How does this apply to ICANN? The author of the article is expressing his skepticism that the American public would agree to the US giving up control of anything, least of all anything as important as the Internet. You guys aren't exactly known for playing well with other countries.
Me and the old ball-and-chain spotted this one in Woolworths about 3 weeks ago and bought it on the spot.
Without paper money the game feels a lot faster. Also the houses are apartments that can be stacked up, so unlike the old houses they *actually fit* on your properties.
She has commented that the card makes it more tempting to spend money, but thats probably just a biological reaction to small plastic cards.
One downside - its much harder to play the old house rule off all money paid to the bank going into the middle, and then being won by whoever lands on free parking.
"Actually I'm kind of pissed at the new Doctor Who. Not having any Daleks or any Time Lords (besides the Doctor of course) pretty much kills my two favorite races. I'm informed they can't really not have any more Dalek episodes though, after all, the man does travel through time and the Daleks are his greatest enemy. He's bound to run into Daleks in the past."
*cough*
I'm saying nothing :)
I think some people have a romanticised image of Babylon 5.
Bear in mind that, at the time, the only other Sci-Fi on Tv was Star Trek: The Next Generation. That was not a good show. So B5 didn't exactly have to work much to stand out as the best thing on TV.
It performed a function of breaking the Star Trek stranglehold. It showed people sci-fi could have more depth. But compared to some of what came after (Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, new Dr. Who) it is nothing special.
Its like people saying Citizen Kane was the best movie ever. It was certainly better than anything that came out at the time - but since then others have taken its ideas and improved upon them. Same for B5
Vostok was launched vertically on a rocket, and landed vertically by falling.
So is a VTOL spacecraft newsworthy?
The sole purpose of this is, I think, to protect wikipedia from having every page with even vaguely political themes being torn apart by edit wars during elections.
Its sacrificial protection, but it won't work, because political trolls need attention and won't willingly walk into an area designed to make them easier to ignore.
PS Vote out Busholini!
"I fear we may very well get a "fourth to remember", and NOT in a good way! It is all very well for a bottlerocket to explode in flight, NOT A MANNED SHIP!"
Perhaps sending up a rocket on a day when Americans traditionally launch fireworks is tempting fate a little.
Oh, that and the engineer thing as well. Well said.
You are assuming they are unrelated.
If the shuttle needs to have its heatshield repaired, Astronauts must spend longer in orbit. They require a stimulating game to stop themselves going space crazy - and NASA have decided that must be DNF.
And, of course, DNF was designed from the outset to take advantage of the new features of Vista...
Look at the 'Latest' news on the right
Surely they should just get the thing working before they add extra features like that?
So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?
This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.