These days, though, our tube has a network connection out the back.
Isn't that a little redundant?;)
Re:Scientific consensus not quite there yet...
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 1
Hey mods, I'm having a hard time following this discussion over the sound of your grinding axes. Could you lay of the rediculous bias for a little bit? Thanks.
How is it 'extremely condescending and arrogant'? The author used the term 'these people' to refer to a group of people. Again, what would you have preferred they say instead? What term would not be arrogant and condescending to you? I mean, you might have a case if this was someone actually speaking instead of writing; you can pick those sorts of implications from body language and tone. But this is a writer who used two innocuous words to reference a group of people. I'm just not seeing the arrogance.
Neocons and ultra-Libertarians that I've heard speak of their views are generally not racist. This is, they just don't like anything they view as a 'hand-out', whether that be food for starving Africans, or welfare, or sports scholarships, or any number of things. I'm not saying this view is 'right', I'm saying it's not 'racist'.
And you're right, maybe I am being pretty sensative. But I've seen too many people throw around the term 'racism' just becaue they don't get their own way, or someone displeases them, or [minority group] thinks it hasn't got its fair share. The KKK are racist. The Nazis were racist. The Confederated South was racist. Many nations, governments, organizations, and people today are racist. But one author using two words to describe a group of people without even any racist context is not. I just don't see it.
From TFA:
But Zachary has a more profound point: "The fact that these people need electricity more than they need a laptop is only part of the problem," he says. "The real problem is lost mind share. The people are harmed because these sorts of schemes are sopping up mind-share time of the people who might be doing something actually useful."
Yeah, the article is FUD. Yeah, it's wrong on most of its points. But racist? It's advocating giving food and electricity to starving black people (albeit with ulterior motives, no doubt. It is Dvorak, after all.), for chrissakes.
Yeah, the article has a lot of FUD in it, and you're right on the 'feeding a village for $100' idiocy. (Maybe if their villages numbered about 5 people each and they ate nothing but bread and water for a year... And sometimes skipped the bread.) But assuming that the article is racist on the basis of the term 'these people'? How is that racist? Would you have preferred "Africans"? "Black people"? What? I'm willing to bet that if this whole subject was shifted to helping impovrished, starving (white) people in 3rd world Soviet Bloc countries, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash. And who is assuming that the 3rd world is sitting on their starving asses waiting for philanthropic 1st world handouts?
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but much of the 3rd world is starving, and not from any lack of effort on their part. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "Well, if those goddamned Africans would just get off their lazy butts and make some food, there wouldn't even be a problem!" No, most people say, "Well, maybe if we gave them some food (and some medical aid too, since half their continent is dying of AIDS), they would have more chance to devote time and energy to other things. Like education, sanitation, and infrastructure." We in the 1st world are not just throwing money at the place and giving ourselves a pat on the back for good charity (though certainly there are many who do that [see: famous rich people]). There are groups and people who use their money and help out with food (and not just handing them some foodstuffs and hoping for the best. Actually teaching them to farm and giving them the impliments needed to do so). Groups and people who help out with medical aid, with the building of schools and hospitals and sanitation facilities, et cetera. And generally, it seems to be working.
It sounds to me like you're some hyper-PC, ultrasensative bozo who leaps at any opportunity to shout "Racism!" from the highest peak.
If you need an example of why we're not ready for a paperless society (or even an example of why it may just be completely unworkable altogether), look no further than Diebold.
You're right. Who needs to make their own opinions on things when they can all just believe what you believe. And if they don't subscribe to your worldview, they are obviously a 'fag' or 'queer' or 'virgin'. Or any number of other 16-year-old insults. I mean, are you 16? Because I know I kinda grew out of that whole "if you don't believe what I do, you are somehow lesser than me and deserving of scorn" mentality around that time.
Why in the hell would you assume the average users are thinking about that? XP is here now. It works. People are comfortable with it. Why would they spend tons of money upgrading their OS (and probably having to upgrade their systems too) to switch out of a comfortable piece of software and into an untested, unknown one?
And before you reply to this with tired "M$ will force them to!!"... How exactly would they do that? I havn't seen any evidence to support this claim. And short of revoking everyone's working XP and Office licenses as soon as Vista hits the shelves, I don't see how they could accomplish this.
You know, I really have a hard time taking posts like yours seriously. When you use terms like "M$", and have a sig like yours, you just come off sounding like a tool no matter how valid your points may be.
What hostile environments on earth do you think we should be terraforming? The Sahara? Nope, animals live there. Can't destory their habitats, even if it would mean thousands of acres of farmland to feed a starving continent. Gobi? Nope, animals live there too.
I never understood people who say we should "terraform" places on our planet. By the very definition, that's impossible. Our planet is already formed like terra.
Seems like a perfectly operational misdirection campaign to me. Why worry about people maybe getting sent to prison for saying something the government doesn't like when, look! we can all have as many puppies as we want now! The government can allow meaningless protests like this one to go on unopposed to take the spotlight off of other, more nefarious things they may be up to.
I feel like you just posted an apples to oranges argument. Nice try though (to you and every other moron in this thread who thinks that tracking finances is 100% analagous to tracking votes).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you know about as much about Christianity as you do about most of the things you touched on in your post.
Isn't that a little redundant?
Hey mods, I'm having a hard time following this discussion over the sound of your grinding axes. Could you lay of the rediculous bias for a little bit? Thanks.
I guess they could have named it Kratos instead, but then most people wouldn't get it.
Neocons and ultra-Libertarians that I've heard speak of their views are generally not racist. This is, they just don't like anything they view as a 'hand-out', whether that be food for starving Africans, or welfare, or sports scholarships, or any number of things. I'm not saying this view is 'right', I'm saying it's not 'racist'.
And you're right, maybe I am being pretty sensative. But I've seen too many people throw around the term 'racism' just becaue they don't get their own way, or someone displeases them, or [minority group] thinks it hasn't got its fair share. The KKK are racist. The Nazis were racist. The Confederated South was racist. Many nations, governments, organizations, and people today are racist. But one author using two words to describe a group of people without even any racist context is not. I just don't see it.
From TFA:
Yeah, the article is FUD. Yeah, it's wrong on most of its points. But racist? It's advocating giving food and electricity to starving black people (albeit with ulterior motives, no doubt. It is Dvorak, after all.), for chrissakes.
It was a hypothetical. I probably didn't make that clear enough :)
My friends ridiculed me for getting an iPod instead of another brand of mp3 player.
;)
Little did they know, I own Apple stock
Yeah, the article has a lot of FUD in it, and you're right on the 'feeding a village for $100' idiocy. (Maybe if their villages numbered about 5 people each and they ate nothing but bread and water for a year... And sometimes skipped the bread.) But assuming that the article is racist on the basis of the term 'these people'? How is that racist? Would you have preferred "Africans"? "Black people"? What? I'm willing to bet that if this whole subject was shifted to helping impovrished, starving (white) people in 3rd world Soviet Bloc countries, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash. And who is assuming that the 3rd world is sitting on their starving asses waiting for philanthropic 1st world handouts?
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but much of the 3rd world is starving, and not from any lack of effort on their part. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "Well, if those goddamned Africans would just get off their lazy butts and make some food, there wouldn't even be a problem!" No, most people say, "Well, maybe if we gave them some food (and some medical aid too, since half their continent is dying of AIDS), they would have more chance to devote time and energy to other things. Like education, sanitation, and infrastructure." We in the 1st world are not just throwing money at the place and giving ourselves a pat on the back for good charity (though certainly there are many who do that [see: famous rich people]). There are groups and people who use their money and help out with food (and not just handing them some foodstuffs and hoping for the best. Actually teaching them to farm and giving them the impliments needed to do so). Groups and people who help out with medical aid, with the building of schools and hospitals and sanitation facilities, et cetera. And generally, it seems to be working.
It sounds to me like you're some hyper-PC, ultrasensative bozo who leaps at any opportunity to shout "Racism!" from the highest peak.
If you need an example of why we're not ready for a paperless society (or even an example of why it may just be completely unworkable altogether), look no further than Diebold.
Don't forget to inject political messages in there someplace, too!
You're right. Who needs to make their own opinions on things when they can all just believe what you believe. And if they don't subscribe to your worldview, they are obviously a 'fag' or 'queer' or 'virgin'. Or any number of other 16-year-old insults. I mean, are you 16? Because I know I kinda grew out of that whole "if you don't believe what I do, you are somehow lesser than me and deserving of scorn" mentality around that time.
That is a good point; I didn't think of that. Stopping the encroachment of desert land would indeed be admirable.
Why? There are pieces of hardware and software that are incompatible with kernels for weeks after they are released.
Why in the hell would you assume the average users are thinking about that? XP is here now. It works. People are comfortable with it. Why would they spend tons of money upgrading their OS (and probably having to upgrade their systems too) to switch out of a comfortable piece of software and into an untested, unknown one?
And before you reply to this with tired "M$ will force them to!!"... How exactly would they do that? I havn't seen any evidence to support this claim. And short of revoking everyone's working XP and Office licenses as soon as Vista hits the shelves, I don't see how they could accomplish this.
You know, I really have a hard time taking posts like yours seriously. When you use terms like "M$", and have a sig like yours, you just come off sounding like a tool no matter how valid your points may be.
What hostile environments on earth do you think we should be terraforming? The Sahara? Nope, animals live there. Can't destory their habitats, even if it would mean thousands of acres of farmland to feed a starving continent. Gobi? Nope, animals live there too.
I never understood people who say we should "terraform" places on our planet. By the very definition, that's impossible. Our planet is already formed like terra.
Seems like a perfectly operational misdirection campaign to me. Why worry about people maybe getting sent to prison for saying something the government doesn't like when, look! we can all have as many puppies as we want now! The government can allow meaningless protests like this one to go on unopposed to take the spotlight off of other, more nefarious things they may be up to.
How would that be good? Not feeling like someone just shot me in the kneecaps is why I play videogames instead of joining the Army.
How rediculously sentimental of you.
Duh. Didn't you watch Frankenstien?
It's a good thing I opted out of having those plugs installed in the back of my neck.
I said something about the Patriot Act so I am obviously either interesting or insightful. Or something like that.
I feel like you just posted an apples to oranges argument. Nice try though (to you and every other moron in this thread who thinks that tracking finances is 100% analagous to tracking votes).
Since when?
Here's some more rediculously stupid headlines:
Man wakes up, runs three miles, reports fatigue afterwards
Clam chowder eaten in Maine. Witnesses report "extremely tasty!"
American tourist in London says "These people have a funny accent."
Birds all over planet still flying.
I mean, come on guys. This is Singapore. Their legal system is so draconian it makes the Patriot Act look spectacular.