So you go ahead and tell me how this whole controversy arose because of people like me. Because I would love to hear it.
People overreact (IMHO, the claims of racism in the Sony ad are an overreaction) when they see a certain state in society that they feel needs overcorrection. People like you, who see NO racism on a national level because laws say it is so, are part of that state. People like you, who don't see both sides of the affirmative action debate, are part of that state.
I'm sorry, but in the United States, slavery and apartheid of black people ended on a national level a long time ago. Of course there will be individuals who are still racist; that will always be the case, I'm sure.
I'm going to start with an ad hominem remark: it's interesting to see how the subject of racism brings all the idiots out. Slavery and apartheid might have LEGALLY ended on a national level, but you are grossly naive to think that it only exists on the individual level now. I'm not saying that the reaction to the Sony ad is justified or that there are no problems with affirmative action, but your ranting reaction to the reaction adds nothing to the argument. In fact, its because of blind people like you that such a reaction surfaces.
Let me put it like this: You should be wary of an unsubstantiated article by a newbie foreign journalist with no legitimate affiliation written in a political atmosphere where the liberals have an axe to grind.
Let ME put it like this: it is equally important to validate a claim in post, especially when you've proven that you have your own ax to grind as displayed in your post AND reply. Hopefully, the moderating system here will prove its worth.
Did people mod this parent up without checking the validity of the parent's claim? I'm not saying I know who the hell ANJAN SUNDARAM is, but I couldn't find any rabble-rousing stuff 'quickly.' But then again, maybe my definition of rabble-rousing is different from the parent's...
I thought the idea behind nonproliferation was that the old ones would eventually stop working and then we'd be nuke free.
If thats not true then why would any country except the US agree to nonproliferation?
While I agree with the spirit of your comment (the first sentence), there are LOADS of reasons why countries would agree to 'non-proliferation' regardless of the United States' actions. Economic incentives are the first to come to mind...
What, you mean like this text in the second paragraph? "...the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code."
No, I mean in the headline--of course they need to mention it in the body of the text. Don't you think that "SGI Takes Action to Reduce Debt" is a bit euphemistic for what's happening?
Yes, we all have driver's licenses. Yes we all have Social Security cards. And, yes, a lot of us have passports. But it's important to take a step back and re-examine ALL of these things when something like a national ID card card comes into play for another country, region, etc., because how it is implemented, what information is put on it, and how it is being used is very important. You'll get no argument from me about its potential convenience, but to shut your eyes to the potential abuse of power and the slowly-turning-up-the-heat-to-boil-a-frog scenario (yeah, yeah, I know it's an urban myth) by saying, "So what?" is not helpful.
While I agree with the above post, IMHO, Google should have the courtesy of asking permission from the controlling body. If that body is stupid enough to reject Google's request (including asking for royalties), Google should just move on to a body that will accept the request--I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly accept the free publicity. So we don't get a Miro-Google--BFD. There are others that we will be able to see in the future.
Is it just me going insane, or does that actually seem like reasonable legislation?
Both.
As parent, the thought of such a regulation gave me pause--I consider myself responsible, I want my 11-year-old to have access to the Internet, and I don't want to have to sit there with her ALL the time.
But then, I came to my senses and thought, "it IS my responsibility to monitor her Internet access." The silver lining to such a regulation proposal is that it has made me rethink of my parental priorities...
Wow, I was too embarrassed to bring up the Pike thing first, but now that you've spilt the beans:
My first reaction was to ask Abrams whether he knew who Christopher Pike was. My second reaction was that the Trek franchise thinks that the hardcore fans have either died off already or won't make a big stink (because they've become so disillusioned about the whole franchise) about the fact that Tiberius and Spock could in no way have overlapped at the Academy.
What a crock this movie will be--built on a premise inconsistent with the origins. But since when did that stop anyone...
>>To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance
>And even if it is....it is not the PC makers responsibility!
Actually, it is. Just like hardware stores put their spray paint under lock-and-key. They need to mitigate the situation as best they can, like install a default 'free' OS if the user specifically does NOT want Windows...
What I find interesting is that I have three kids, the eldest being four. They're going to grow up in a house where it's not considered unusual to have a robot pootling about the place doing domestic chores, whereas to my generation (I'm 34) that's still a "hey, cool!" thing. Nobody says "hey cool, you've got a washing machine!" anymore, at least no-one in the developed world (I'm in the UK).
Methinks your "washing machine" analogy is waaaaaaaaay off. These robots will become part of the family in a way that your current-day washing machine will envy: a buddy of mine's Roomba was "allowed" to write the family's Christmas card last year. It was very, very funny.
... it's only because our society's attitude toward sexuality is morbid and ridiculous.
Wrong. Come out from whatever rock your living under and look at some other points of view. Here's a quotation from an SF Weekly article:
"In order to accept prostitution, pornography, and stripping as part of mainstream sexuality, you have to not know how violent and exploitive it is, the emotional damage it does, how profoundly racist it is, how many of the acts meet the legal definition for torture," says Prostitution Research & Education's Melissa Farley. "And you have to not know that many people in it really want to get out."
I might not agree with what Farley says 100%, but for you to dismiss the dangers of pornography out of hand is naive
Do you know anyone who uses hotmail as a serious personal email-account? I don't.
Oh, I guess that settles that argument. Give me an f'ing break. There are LOADS of people that use Hotmail as their personal account. Granted I'm not one of them, but so what? Now that I've ranted, I'm thinking the above post is a troll...
Just a question, do you think that all private companies should be required to publicly disclose their financials, like publicly traded companies are, in the interests of "ethical behaviour"?
Okay, maybe I'm making too big an assumption--I hold Mozilla in much higher esteem than some given group of private companies that I don't care whether or not they operate transparently. Thus, I wish that Mozilla operated MORE transparently than said private companies.
I'm disappointed that Mozilla doesn't make their 'business model' transparent, and that I have to learn about it on/. But perhaps I'm naive, and I'm asking for too much...
I'm not convinced that transparency is vital to maintain ethical behaviour within an organisation.
Okay, maybe I was generalizing, but given this particular example, I think transparency does serve as a check and balance. I think it's possible that Mozilla might act differently in certain situations depending on whether the knowledge of their relationship with Google is secret or public knowledge.
Your argument misses the point. Nobody begrudges an organization's efforts to stay financially solvent, but transparency is crucial to ethical behavior, and I would like to know that Mozilla is making money from its search partners. IMHO, that knowledge is critical in understanding where and why an organization makes certain decisions.
I don't see mention of Mozilla's "business model" anywhere on their site, and that disappoints me...
...how can they connect to foreign suppliers, distributors, and customers?
You should be asking the question the other way around:
How can foreign suppliers, distributors, and customers connect to them?
Clearly, China has made a calculated decision that these parties need China more than China needs them, and that steps will be taken to accommodate the problem...
Slashdot Mirror
So you go ahead and tell me how this whole controversy arose because of people like me. Because I would love to hear it.
People overreact (IMHO, the claims of racism in the Sony ad are an overreaction) when they see a certain state in society that they feel needs overcorrection. People like you, who see NO racism on a national level because laws say it is so, are part of that state. People like you, who don't see both sides of the affirmative action debate, are part of that state.
I'm sorry, but in the United States, slavery and apartheid of black people ended on a national level a long time ago. Of course there will be individuals who are still racist; that will always be the case, I'm sure.
I'm going to start with an ad hominem remark: it's interesting to see how the subject of racism brings all the idiots out. Slavery and apartheid might have LEGALLY ended on a national level, but you are grossly naive to think that it only exists on the individual level now. I'm not saying that the reaction to the Sony ad is justified or that there are no problems with affirmative action, but your ranting reaction to the reaction adds nothing to the argument. In fact, its because of blind people like you that such a reaction surfaces.
Let me put it like this: You should be wary of an unsubstantiated article by a newbie foreign journalist with no legitimate affiliation written in a political atmosphere where the liberals have an axe to grind.
Let ME put it like this: it is equally important to validate a claim in post, especially when you've proven that you have your own ax to grind as displayed in your post AND reply. Hopefully, the moderating system here will prove its worth.
Did people mod this parent up without checking the validity of the parent's claim? I'm not saying I know who the hell ANJAN SUNDARAM is, but I couldn't find any rabble-rousing stuff 'quickly.' But then again, maybe my definition of rabble-rousing is different from the parent's...
I thought the idea behind nonproliferation was that the old ones would eventually stop working and then we'd be nuke free.
If thats not true then why would any country except the US agree to nonproliferation?
While I agree with the spirit of your comment (the first sentence), there are LOADS of reasons why countries would agree to 'non-proliferation' regardless of the United States' actions. Economic incentives are the first to come to mind...
Green on Black? That was the whole point of my entry ;-)
e x.html
i cle.html
http://idisk.mac.com/andyacad/Public/Slashdot/ind
http://idisk.mac.com/andyacad/Public/Slashdot/art
What, you mean like this text in the second paragraph? "...the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code."
No, I mean in the headline--of course they need to mention it in the body of the text. Don't you think that "SGI Takes Action to Reduce Debt" is a bit euphemistic for what's happening?
Well, there's a link on the SGI homepage now. I like the way they avoid the wording "Chapter 11" like the plague...
Yes, we all have driver's licenses. Yes we all have Social Security cards. And, yes, a lot of us have passports. But it's important to take a step back and re-examine ALL of these things when something like a national ID card card comes into play for another country, region, etc., because how it is implemented, what information is put on it, and how it is being used is very important. You'll get no argument from me about its potential convenience, but to shut your eyes to the potential abuse of power and the slowly-turning-up-the-heat-to-boil-a-frog scenario (yeah, yeah, I know it's an urban myth) by saying, "So what?" is not helpful.
While I agree with the above post, IMHO, Google should have the courtesy of asking permission from the controlling body. If that body is stupid enough to reject Google's request (including asking for royalties), Google should just move on to a body that will accept the request--I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly accept the free publicity. So we don't get a Miro-Google--BFD. There are others that we will be able to see in the future.
Dude, you're right--what was I thinking???
Is it just me going insane, or does that actually seem like reasonable legislation?
Both.
As parent, the thought of such a regulation gave me pause--I consider myself responsible, I want my 11-year-old to have access to the Internet, and I don't want to have to sit there with her ALL the time.
But then, I came to my senses and thought, "it IS my responsibility to monitor her Internet access." The silver lining to such a regulation proposal is that it has made me rethink of my parental priorities...
Wow, I was too embarrassed to bring up the Pike thing first, but now that you've spilt the beans:
My first reaction was to ask Abrams whether he knew who Christopher Pike was. My second reaction was that the Trek franchise thinks that the hardcore fans have either died off already or won't make a big stink (because they've become so disillusioned about the whole franchise) about the fact that Tiberius and Spock could in no way have overlapped at the Academy.
What a crock this movie will be--built on a premise inconsistent with the origins. But since when did that stop anyone...
All my laptop POs for my company from now on will be MacBooks--I need to run WinXP, but for 10,000 reasons, I want an Apple laptop...
Well, T'loin folks just need to be tight with da Mayor like Larry and Sergey are...
>>To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance
>And even if it is....it is not the PC makers responsibility!
Actually, it is. Just like hardware stores put their spray paint under lock-and-key. They need to mitigate the situation as best they can, like install a default 'free' OS if the user specifically does NOT want Windows...
What I find interesting is that I have three kids, the eldest being four. They're going to grow up in a house where it's not considered unusual to have a robot pootling about the place doing domestic chores, whereas to my generation (I'm 34) that's still a "hey, cool!" thing. Nobody says "hey cool, you've got a washing machine!" anymore, at least no-one in the developed world (I'm in the UK).
Methinks your "washing machine" analogy is waaaaaaaaay off. These robots will become part of the family in a way that your current-day washing machine will envy: a buddy of mine's Roomba was "allowed" to write the family's Christmas card last year. It was very, very funny.
Wrong. Come out from whatever rock your living under and look at some other points of view. Here's a quotation from an SF Weekly article:
"In order to accept prostitution, pornography, and stripping as part of mainstream sexuality, you have to not know how violent and exploitive it is, the emotional damage it does, how profoundly racist it is, how many of the acts meet the legal definition for torture," says Prostitution Research & Education's Melissa Farley. "And you have to not know that many people in it really want to get out."
I might not agree with what Farley says 100%, but for you to dismiss the dangers of pornography out of hand is naive
Do you know anyone who uses hotmail as a serious personal email-account? I don't.
Oh, I guess that settles that argument. Give me an f'ing break. There are LOADS of people that use Hotmail as their personal account. Granted I'm not one of them, but so what? Now that I've ranted, I'm thinking the above post is a troll...
No, it's not you that's slow--/. was deciding whether to post your comment to this article since the link is, uh, the same. I luv dupes...
Earlier this month Professor Entman sent an email warning to her students to bring paper and pens to take notes and leave the laptops at home.
;-)
And how are they supposed to get this email if they don't have their laptops?
Oh, thanks for nothing. You're probably that kid that told everyone that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Just a question, do you think that all private companies should be required to publicly disclose their financials, like publicly traded companies are, in the interests of "ethical behaviour"?
/. But perhaps I'm naive, and I'm asking for too much...
Okay, maybe I'm making too big an assumption--I hold Mozilla in much higher esteem than some given group of private companies that I don't care whether or not they operate transparently. Thus, I wish that Mozilla operated MORE transparently than said private companies.
I'm disappointed that Mozilla doesn't make their 'business model' transparent, and that I have to learn about it on
I'm not convinced that transparency is vital to maintain ethical behaviour within an organisation.
Okay, maybe I was generalizing, but given this particular example, I think transparency does serve as a check and balance. I think it's possible that Mozilla might act differently in certain situations depending on whether the knowledge of their relationship with Google is secret or public knowledge.
Your argument misses the point. Nobody begrudges an organization's efforts to stay financially solvent, but transparency is crucial to ethical behavior, and I would like to know that Mozilla is making money from its search partners. IMHO, that knowledge is critical in understanding where and why an organization makes certain decisions.
I don't see mention of Mozilla's "business model" anywhere on their site, and that disappoints me...
...how can they connect to foreign suppliers, distributors, and customers?
You should be asking the question the other way around:
How can foreign suppliers, distributors, and customers connect to them?
Clearly, China has made a calculated decision that these parties need China more than China needs them, and that steps will be taken to accommodate the problem...