Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:republicrats (Score 0) 209

by theArtificial (#49532577) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

Thing is, I suspect you are right on the first part but thats the thing...its insignificant to the point.

Irregardless, it's just a hunch ;)

Just because online comments are a crapshoot....offline ones are too btw... doesn't say anything about any individual one

??? I'm unclear on this, comments don't say anything about an individual? Disagree strongly, if so. What people joke about, what they focus on subject wise, and how they discuss it speaks volumes about themselves and how they perceive the world. Example, all women are referred to as bitches. Or, They should just get a job! Or, they're all fucking faggots etc.

and....frankly....Ive known some otherwise intelligent people who don't speak well or have trouble speaking/typing.

Intelligence is expressed in many capacities including communication. If we can't speak, read or write well it is counterproductive. Cutting to the chase since these are considered trivial subjects by the STEM crowd (boo hiss to liberal arts!) as witnessed here and elsewhere, does this make the intelligent-but-unable-to-communicate person simply lazy? They're intelligent after all! What are people called, intelligent or not, who make mistakes? Willfully making mistakes? If they're a politician, they're stupid. Why wouldn't this apply here?

Its simply bigotry to read someone words and focus only on how they speak while ignoring their message. This whole "you don't speak exactly to my standards so fuck your opinion" really doesn't deserve to be acceptable.

There are responsibilities shared by both the audience and speaker, classically anyway, if you respect that then that means that every point is valid, including the AC comment which started this. Bigotry is such an emotionally charged word concerning intolerance to others opinions, key being opinions. We're entitled to our own opinions, after all (ex: In my opinion, towing the line is correct!) but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's about a phrase, a fact. We document reality with facts.

I agree with your sentiment regarding entitled people, it comes down to being persuasive and knowing you'll never persuade someone. The AC in a very unpersuasive way dew attention to an unfortunately common mangled phrase. Full stop. Reading too deeply into something results in projection. We have to agree on some things otherwise communication goes downhill quickly. Without standards like you mention we wouldn't be able to use the internet :)

Comment: Re:republicrats (Score -1, Offtopic) 209

by theArtificial (#49531975) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

Are you really trying to justify being irritatingly pedantic in order to somehow enhance the discussion? All it has accomplished is this timewasting derail.

How am I being pedantic? Let's recap shall we? Some guy online uses a phrase that he's never used before and manages to mangle it up. Someone calls him on it. Someone else doesn't like that someone else calls people out on things. I reply to this person to the effect that I suspect it's a phrase heard before and that using phrases improperly makes you look foolish. You reply to me with a response that I'm pedantic. If you'll notice I'm not the one who brought this up so your suggestion is better directed elsewhere.

Keeping that in mind, maybe it's just better to let this minor meaningless slip-up go?

And yet, you're commenting on it, too. By your logic does this make you pedantic or just self loathing? :)

Comment: Re:republicrats (Score 4, Insightful) 209

by theArtificial (#49531411) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.

It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.

Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.

Comment: Re:Trafficking huge. (Score 1) 306

by theArtificial (#49408035) Attached to: Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"
You've moved the goal posts from images uploaded somewhere to human trafficking and prostitution. This is the type of slip weaselly people use when discussing illegal immigration, not to mention there is no such thing as illegal immigration, and flip over immigration issues. They're separate issues.

Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."

"It's a really big problem, I watched Netflix and heard some stories." A similar thing occurred with D&D and a fear campaign around satanic crap. Do you have anything better than a "trust me it's a big problem"?

Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that

"There are people in an industry that I don't work in, but that I have watched some completely unbiased shows on (trust me), and they don't know what they're talking about!"

and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

This comes off much like a "think of the children". You used girl elsewhere, however, young women are by their very definition a woman, for woman to apply that would mean at least 18 (an adult). This continues the line of thinking that women are children and cannot make decisions on their own behalf. Let's not forget that girls mature faster than boys, and they're taught about people touching them - something boys aren't. Not to mention there are "a lot" (another weasel word, see how that works?) of 18yo males who enlist and deploy and are maimed or meet an untimely end. Take a story in the paper if it was about a young man, they'd drop the young part and just refer to him as a man. There's an effort here to paint this in a particular light. Why would that be?

More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

Is it so, or could it be that it's easier to share things nowadays? Look at all the (disproportionately female) teachers raping students, is this a new phenomenon? Or is it something that's occurring with the same frequency and just broadcast further and faster? Another example is how people are worried about sending their children outside when crime is following a 40 year trend downwards.

Since you're fond of think of the children angle how about a present scandal occurring at this very moment. Human trafficking involving Chinese citizens coming over and having anchor babies. I've seen this with my own eyes, too. People who pay tens of thousands of dollars to come here and have a child on our dime by claiming to be destitute when at the Hospital. Getting back to the original issue, as far as these picture websites, your stance is that there isn't enough laws on the books to address these sites? That's rich.

Comment: Re:Great article. (Score 2) 215

by theArtificial (#49399067) Attached to: The Dystopian Lake Filled By the World's Tech Sludge

I buy a new phone about every 3 years, when my previous one is worn out. Most people do this every year or two. What a waste...This article shows what you're missing when you sign that lease, or buy that new iPhone.

I replace mine with about the same frequency. Not to toot Apple's horn but they have trade in programs which reduce the cost of the new phone and they refurbish or recycle the old one. Many people will hand their phones down, too. Often the only thing that the handsets really need is a battery.

The motors and battery (which needs to be replaced every X years) for your new Prius are not so great for the environment. Sure, it makes you feel good to not fill up at the gas pump, but what is the true environmental cost of that car?

One argument that can be made is efficiency, is it more efficient to tap the grid vs generating energy at home? Is less fuel consumption beneficial? Here's a Forbes article about Prius, having a battery replaced with a refurbished one from a 3rd party.

The reality is that there are 28 separate cells in the hybrid battery pack. When the unit starts to fail, only a handful of the individual cells are bad. What Prius Battery Repair of Houston does, and Toyota could do if it wanted to, is replace the bad hybrid battery pack with a reconditioned one to get the customer back on the road. Then, determine which cells are bad, and simply replace the bad battery cells, recondition the battery, and sell it to the next customer.

Same goes for windmills, etc. Are they really better for the environment than, say, nuclear power?

Better is so subjective. Replace windmills with $anyitem (minifridge, dams, coal power plants). Does it make it more or less profound?

I'm glad someone out there is forcing us to look at the downside of all of the technology we use. Kudos to them for doing it.

Forcing? Hardly. This is the byproduct of cheap.


I'd say this article just focuses on an admittedly bad area where stuff is done cheaply because that's what many people want world wide. A rare earth mine is ramping up production in California. Compare how it's done. It lowered capacity because of cost, a re-occuring theme with a lot of American industry.

Comment: Re:Very simple answer (Score 1) 394

by theArtificial (#49395489) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?
Just because you appreciate someone or something doesn't mean you're doing it in an acceptable way, not to mention they feel the same way about you, take stalkers for example. Talking to someone you like is good, talking over them isn't so good. Many people don't know that this isn't good, otherwise we wouldn't encounter it, it's something your parents should teach you and not everyone has good parents.

Anybody telling you to 'be sincere and do what I say' is saying 'fake sincerity, copy me'.

They could have Aspergers and don't know how. Copying people is how we learn, just the format that changes.

Comment: Re:yes and no (Score 2) 394

by theArtificial (#49395419) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?

There is a resurgence of the anti-intellectualism culture in this country, and it's being elected into positions where it can do unimaginable damage to our country.

Resurgence? It's been going on longer than we've been alive. "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" - Isaac Asimov, 1980

Stupid people make stupid decisions, and when those stupid people are in public office, they make stupid decisions that fuck up everyone's life.

Where to begin? Unfortunately stupid people do not hold a monopoly on stupid decisions. Ever tried ordering lunch for an entire company? Scale that up to 300 million people and you may begin to appreciate the scope of the issue. Politicians don't magically slither into office, they're voted in. Ultimately it sounds like you don't want a politician but a leader, one who cannot make poor decisions meaning no compromising is allowed, since that results in stupidity, nor any dissent since only stupid people would go against the smart leader. Sounds like a good fit for a totalitarian. Who do you recommend take the helm?

You have state representatives who don't have a basic understanding of the female anatomy trying to regulate women's medical treatments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

There are minions of the state involved in falsifying test scores for financial gain, spanning over a decade, see the huge scandal in Georgia which affects tens of thousands of students.

I couldn't help but notice the source and targets for both of those links, HuffPo isn't exactly center, as tempting as it may be this is be to frame this as such it is by no means a partisan issue. There is a sustained and concerted effort by powerful monied interests spanning decades working on both sides of the aisle to undo this country and they successfully have us fighting one another. Only by working together will we get things done.

Comment: Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S (Score 1) 365

Gandhi refused to let British doctors give his wife a life-saving shot of penicillin, on the grounds that she should not have alien substances injected in her body. This was a death sentence for her. And yet he was willing to accept quinine when he himself later contracted malaria. He also let British doctors perform an appendectomy on him, another alien intrusion to be sure.

Anti-Western, or post-colonial, intellectuals and activists bring up the West's rap sheet not because we were uniquely complicit in slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, but because we are uniquely vulnerable to such guilt mongering. "I think it would be a good idea," Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi famously replied when asked what he thought of Western civilization, as if Indian civilization was without sin. To this day, left-wing poseurs have this line stuck to their refrigerators or use it for yearbook quotes as if it is a brilliantly insightful and humorous bon mot, when in reality the joke is on them.

Gandhi was in many respects the pioneer of exploiting Western self-loathing. For many pacifists, "What Would Gandhi Do?" is a more important question than "What would Jesus Do?" and for good reason. Jesus did believe that violent self-defense was sometimes justified (that's why he instructed his followers to carry swords). Gandhi did not.

Undoubtedly one of the most idiosyncratic world leaders in modern memory. Particularly given the prevalence of New Age pieties these days, he has become a saint of sorts. A true ascetic, Gandhi voluntarily eschewed luxurious pleasures. He found satisfaction in more humble pastimes. Indeed, among his greatest joys and fascinations was the successful bowel movement.

Paul Johnson notes that the first question he asked of his female attendants every morning was "Did you have a good bowel movement?" One of his favorite books, which e reread often, was Constipation and Our Civilization. Deprived of a sense of smell, which no doubt impaired his sense of taste his vegetarian diet was centered around the goal of a successful digestive cycle.

His advice on both personal diet and public agriculture was not merely impractical and gloomy. Had his ideas been translated into public policy they would have subjected millions of Indians to even worse starvation and even more pervasive poverty than they were already enduring. Gandhi's social and economic vision was perhaps best described as Tolkienesque. Technology was the enemy of decency, the perfect political unit was the Arcadian village, a subcontinental Shire where, instead of hobbits, Hindus would work individually on their tiny looms.

Of course, you would not know this from the film that helped cement the Gandhian legend. For instance, in Gandhi the movie, audiences are led to believe that his first hunger strike was to protest the British police's horrific slaughter of a crowd of peaceful Indian protesters. But Gandhi's first hunger strike was devoted to protesting a British effort to grand the Untouchables-India's lowest and most oppressed caste-greater rights and freedoms, including providing them with access to a form of affirmative action. That wouldn't play as well on the big screen, alas.

The filmmakers were merely picking up on a practice begun by the British foreign office. Simply put, Gandhi was a creature of the system he sought to overthrow. For years the British Empire used Gandhi as the most convenient nationalist. Unlike other anti-colonial activists, Gandhi worked assiduously to prevent violence. "The true oddity," writes Richard Grenier, "is that Gandhi, this holy man, having drawn from British sources his notions of nationalism and democracy, also absorbed from the British his model of virtue in public life. He was a historical original, a Hindu holy man that a British model of public service and dazzling advances in mass communications thrust out into the world, to become a great moral leader and the 'father of his country'."

Gandhi's accomplishments were great, but absent the context of a liberal empire, he would have accomplished little or nothing. He was "not a liberator, but a political exotic," writes Paul Johnson, "who could have flourished only in the protected environment provided by British liberalism." (Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (New York: Harper Collins, 2001, p. 471) The reason there was never a German Gandhi to stare down the Nazi regime is that the Nazi regime was immune to such appeals. Orwell observed that "it is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? (George Orwell, Reflections on Gandhi," Partisan Review (January 1949)

Hence, Gandhi's brand of nonviolence was not a universal standard for all of humanity but was instead an exceedingly parochial, even backwater, idea. The Gandhian conception that violence never solves anything worked because nonviolence was an effective tool against the British conscience and a country exhausted by war with Germany. Violence wasn't the answer for colonials in India. But, suffice it to say, violence was the answer for American colonists dealing with the same British Empire a century and a half earlier.

Gandhi's commitment to nonviolence led him to what can only be described as an incandescently dumb positions. The Mahatma implored the British to surrender to the Nazis (and not the other way around). "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity," he told the British. "Let [the Nazis] take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds." (Mohandas Gandhi, "To Every Briton," Radio Address, New Delphi (July 2, 1940))

Fortunately there were no takers.

A starter illustration of the futility of Gandhi's prescriptions can be found in his advice to the Jews. Asked what the Jews should do in response to the cruelty visited upon them by Gandhi's "friend" Adolf Hitler, the answer was simple: Commit mass suicide. Gandhi-who despised the idea of a Jewish homeland in "Arab Palestine"-believed that the Jews shouldn't allow the Nazis to bully them out of Germany. Hence he advised Germany Jewry to stand up to the Nazis with Gandhian civil disobedience. He believed that such defiance would "have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." When his biographer asked him, "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?" Gandhi replied, "Yes, that would have been heroism."(Orwell, "Reflections on Gandhi")

Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was being realized, Gandhi never recanted his position that "the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from the cliffs" The Jews died anyway, Gandhi explained; at least if they'd followed his advice they would have died significantly. Theologians, ethicists, and philosophers can debate which aspects of this response are the most offensive. Heroism, after all, is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. What is not open to debate is the stunning naivete of Gandhi's universal philosophy of peace. How likely is it that Jewish mass suicide would have "aroused the world" to Hitler's violence, when the mass murder of the Jews did not. Moreover, of what use is arousing world opinion when Gandhi's preferred course of action is surrender? If all you propose is to call attention to violence but do not believe that force is ever justified to stop it, why bother?

Still Gandhian nonviolence is preferable to the sort of violence employed by today's self-proclaimed anti-imperialists: Muslim terrorists. If the Palestinians, for instance, took Gandhian nonviolence to heart, they'd be living in their own state already. But instead they've opted for terrorism and bloodshed. When Hamas blows up pizza parlors or sends assassins to slit the throats of babies in their sleep, the "violence never solved anything" chorus remains remarkably mute. When Israel takes lawful action to prevent or punish such attacks, that is the cue for the very same chorus to kick in. That's because, as ever, the claim that "violence never solves anything" is not a universal truism; it is a selective attempt to manipulate the conscience of those with might not to do right.

I recently read about this in The Tyranny of Clieches by Johan Goldberg (above is Shamelessly paraphrased)

Comment: Re:finger pointing (Score 1) 407

by theArtificial (#49357029) Attached to: Millennial Tech Workers Losing Ground In US
Do other countries have a glut of school administrators with salaries to the tune of $700,000+ a year plus perks? OC Register Article featuring several salaries. LA Times

UC San Francisco's Sam Hawgood, who started in July, is the highest-paid UC chancellor, at $750,000 . In hoping to erase disparities, regents noted that Gene Block, who came to UCLA in 2007, is paid $428,480, which is below what Gillman will be paid at a smaller campus. (In addition to salaries, chancellors receive housing or housing allowances.)

Absolutely ridiculous.

Administrators ate my tuition

Here's an interactive chart with a state by state breakdown. Why the obscene jump in administration, especially over the last 20 years? Far greater than the educators, you know the ones actually doing something, many educators are adjunct instructors (pardon the source), in a nutshell so they're working cheaper and they comprise the super majority of instructors.

braindead republicans, ruining the country

Your bias is showing. Both parties are fully bought and paid for and further corporate special interests. Democrats were in control for many years and furthered ghastly policies began by the previous administration. Apathy and partisan politics is ruining this country. Control by splitting into hostile groups, it's not new and it's effective, you're doing them proud! The Millennials will make up a larger voting block than the Boomers this year.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score -1) 886

Unless you're the Government, or a School, or a Business. Being most everywhere is fixated with Diversity (code for institutionalized sexism and racism) we can play name games with things! Douchebag Google, Douchebag University California Irvine, Douchebag Stanford University. Maybe we can just swap out parts of the name for Douchebag? Douchebagrosoft. Since many sites are also imposing policies, maybe Douchebagdot or Douchebaggit?

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!

Working...