Slashdot Mirror

Presumably, the brain tissue is changing all the time. I wonder, perhaps the human brain "on sugar" changes more frequently, or, quicker, such that bad habits or a living a life with a lazy sophisticated intellect or maybe a dulled emotional life have the effect of leading to an impaired brain in the long run I am wondering, as people get older, more lazy, or perhaps. Thinking that, as senility sets in (simply getting old, unlike 'dementia'), the brain facing a more stumped life with less impulses, less interests and less appeal, eventually defaults back to itself, as if the brain had to try relying on a basic way of functioning, simply by relying on a caricature or an abstract of sorts of the way the brain once was.

I would like to know how many people that can truly be said to have lived a full life (family life, personal life, intellectual life, and an interesting life) still end up with that which is understood as being Alzheimer's disease.

Apparently security researchers already have a proof of concept for exploits, something I learned off one researcher on twitter who seemed legit so to speak. I don't remember the details. I don't believe for a second that there is "no danger", as the claim itself seem exaggerated and a caricature in itself.

This is a caricature used by those who have never served. Every western nations puts great emphasis on the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that a soldiers duty is to follow all lawful orders, as well as to reject all unlawful ones. If you are given an unlawful order not only is it your duty to refuse to obey, it is also your duty to report the person who issued it.

The important thing is that lawful means it is allowed by law. A country cab change their laws to make holding people prisoner without trial lawful, even if it is morally wrong and would be condemned if any other country would have done it.

Otherwise we would have plenty of soldiers who would see waterboarding and Guantanamo as unlawful orders to do.

He never bothered to READ the book, he just decided it was right-wing and therefore, by twisted leftist logic, FASCIST.

He ended up with a warped and essentially caricatured version of what he imagined the book to be... because that's what fit his fantasy of what he admits he intentionally made himself ignorant of.

And in the end, he ended up making a film that actually seems to promote the comic book fascism he claims he opposes.... sorta like the antifa morons who claim to oppose fascism while jack-booting throught the streets EXACTLY like Hitler's brown-shirted SA and beating up opponents JUST LIKE HITLER'S SA.

Oh, and if Mr Verhoven had bothered to head any HISTORY books (which he probably didn't because somebody probably concinced him they were FASCIST), he would have noticed that Fascism was created by that leftwing socialist Benito Mussolini and hit its apex with that National Socialist Workers' Party man Hitler. Fasdcism and jack-bootery ALWAYS comes from the left, which worships big government control over populations, speech codes, and socialist economic policies that eventually run out of other people's money and must resort to disarming the civiliansds and taking their stuff by force.

This is a caricature used by those who have never served.

Nope, it's a true reflection on the actual parameters of such training, though it isn't especially limited to the military, there's a long-running streak in authority to demand compliance.

Every western nations puts great emphasis on the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that a soldiers duty is to follow all lawful orders, as well as to reject all unlawful ones. If you are given an unlawful order not only is it your duty to refuse to obey, it is also your duty to report the person who issued it.

I seriously hope that this part of your comment only applied to the book, because if you think it plays any relevance to how modern armies operate you are seriously misinformed.

You'd be arguing against the practice of genuine dehumanization of the enemy then. It's quite evident, and without even the excuse of the aliens being...aliens. We even have massive amounts of pictures.

And again, not even limited to the military. Check out the Prison-industrial complex.

If you caricature of the military were at all accurate, I suppose there might be some truth to that. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be a having this discussion; you would already be living under a military dictatorship supported by the millions of men and women who are serving or have served in your armed forces.

No, we're just lucky that the military hasn't been allowed to subsume the civilian, at least not universally. That's because fundamentally, they're not self-sustaining or all-encompassing, which means that said mania is limited, though still a problematic issue in many cases.

Don't confuse fortune with security, you're just blinding yourself.

Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question

This is a caricature used by those who have never served. Every western nations puts great emphasis on the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that a soldiers duty is to follow all lawful orders, as well as to reject all unlawful ones. If you are given an unlawful order not only is it your duty to refuse to obey, it is also your duty to report the person who issued it.

As far as the book goes, the oath of the terran federation specifically stated that the members vows to follow "all lawful orders". Heinlein did not include that word by accident.

that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people

In the book the enemy quite literally are not people. But it doesn't matter, since the purpose of the war was never extermination, or enslavement, or any form of subjugation; it was self defence. The enemy attacked, and the mobile infantry responded.

I seriously hope that this part of your comment only applied to the book, because if you think it plays any relevance to how modern armies operate you are seriously misinformed.

and that the military is important.

Isn't it?

Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.

If you caricature of the military were at all accurate, I suppose there might be some truth to that. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be a having this discussion; you would already be living under a military dictatorship supported by the millions of men and women who are serving or have served in your armed forces.

Don't be stupid. Nearly every "capitalist" portrayed in Hollywood movies - outside of annointed saints like Steve Jobs - is an eeeeevil caricature. Pointing this out is not a demand for "sharks" to be painted in a positive light.

my karma

So you have an account that you don't post this sort of thing under.

punish

The role of karma is to allow the community to moderate the message. How is this punishment?

restrict my posting

Ah, so you're abusing the ability to post anonymously to avoid the moderation by the community of which you are a part.

There are multiple posts here with xenophobic remarks

Yes, but I'm calling you out

so I have no doubt I'd be targeted by their moderation

Yes, negative moderation can only be xenophobia. Besides, what's a little negative karma compared to real sacrifice for the sake of your professed beliefs?

subjected to your censorship

bzzt. More exaggeration. You aren't/won't-be censored. You are being provided with feedback on how well your comments fit the guidelines of the community. If your need to spread the truth trumps civility, then log-in and take it like a person of faith. Stop hiding.

You are disingenuous, posting anonymously while criticizing me for posting anonymously

And earlier you accused me of hypocrisy. Wrong on both counts. As I said, I'm not claiming to be speaking truth or calling people to share a faith. I'm criticising something that looks a lot like a shallow attempt at trolling.

Log in and post from your account, otherwise your claim is baseless.

Fail again. Our positions are not equivalent. I'm not spamming every story with a poor imitation of evangelisation.

I don't need your validation, anyway.

It's not about validation, and I have no expectation of persuading you. You lack the intelligence to be creative, so its unlikely you'd have the grace to accept being called on a poor attempt.

I have Allah, who is all I'll ever need.

Those I've know who really had faith had little need to preach, and people would ask them for the secret to their apparent peace and happiness. The only preachers I've met all had something missing inside that their preaching tried to cover. But you aren't even a good parody of them.

so your posts are meaningless

And yet you reply.

I just want others to see that Islam is the truth

If that were true, you'd be doing so in a very different way. You're a poor parody of a Muslim, devout or otherwise. You're two dimensional. You're a caricature; a stereotype. It's not even vaguely convincing.

perhaps you ought to go read the Qur'an instead

Oh, but I have. Have you?

My wife said she was watching a "Betty Boop" cartoon and couldn't figure out why there was a gorilla in the audience, until it started to spit watermelon and she realized it was a derogatory caricature. We removed those from our cartoon line [...]
It's easy to forgot how hurtful previous generations were

And when idiots (even if they mean well) censor things it becomes even easier.

A relative gave us some old cartoons when my daughters were younger. My wife said she was watching a "Betty Boop" cartoon and couldn't figure out why there was a gorilla in the audience, until it started to spit watermelon and she realized it was a derogatory caricature. We removed those from our cartoon lineup.

I know some of the early Tom and Jerry cartoons I saw as a kid had similarly insensitive inclusions. It's actually pretty shocking to run across these sorts of things. It's easy to forgot how hurtful previous generations were.
I'm often reminded of this when I hear young people talking about civil rights. They aren't cognizant of the sorts of things that really happened. They can't fathom the idea of living every day afraid of rape or murder without any authority to turn to for protection.

of taking over the Democratic party from the corporate Dems (Nansi Pelosi, Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, etc) then getting a third party in place. Also, I think the too most viable third parties (Libertarian & Green) are hopelessly naive when it comes to policy. Libertarians would gut the gov't to let the free market take over, but there's a reason that 'Libertarian Paradise' meme exists. Sure it's a caricature, but in practice weak gov'ts don't work in complex societies. If all else fails someone comes along and makes a strong one on you lose out by not participating in it.

As for Green.... probably fine but they're a haven for a lot of the really radical feminists. I can sympathize with those people (we're allies with Saudi Arabia, who treat women awfully), but they're not helping. They tend to make men feel threatened, not by a strong women, but by a women who'll lock them up if they make a pass at them. I'd rather see them integrated into the Dems with their good parts (equal opportunity, wage parity, etc) intact and like any radical mellow out and focus on realistic policy.

Someone didn't stay awake during classes I see.

And then go on to reinforce the statement I made?
Why do you think I mentioned in particularly that Liberals usually are for a free market and deregulation? Socialists usually do not like these things. They prefer to have the economy more heavily regulated and taxed in order to get money for the things they like to implement. This is something that makes the US Liberals very different from the Europe Liberals (again with the exception of UK Liberals). The reason for this is probably because Liberals in Europe did not undergo the same developments as the political parties in the US, where all parts of the politcal plane practically had to be divided into two parties. So the European Liberals usually still adhere to classical Liberalism, which pursues economic AND personal liberties. In the left-right spectrum this usually puts them more on the right than the left. In the authoritarian-anarchy spectrum it clearly puts them more on the anarchy than the authoritarian part.

Furthermore, yes, there are already laws in place for these instances. Which makes it look like Macron is just saying things for the sake of saying things. Making people believe that he actually cares about stuff. That happens a lot in politics and there's no denying that it is a shitty practice. Unfortunately suing for slander and falsehoods it's an arduous processes that is very rarely successful in proving that the false claims were made knowingly and with malicious intent. It's a good thing because it allows political criticism through satire and caricature for example, but seeing how far things have gone lately you do have to question the current legal situation of this. A lot more transparency is required when it comes to these political speeches during elections. And if there needs to be a law to enforce this, so be it. The rest is pretty much a slippery slope fallacy, where people claim that one little thing here will inadvertently lead to a disaster.

Trump's behavior is disgusting, unprofessional, and unbecoming of a sitting president of the leader of the free world. The lack of respect that he shows for the office is deplorable. Typically once an election ends, so does the name calling and blaming. Once an election ends, the elected official assumes a much more civil and responsible position. I erroneously thought Trump would do so when I heard him say, "President Obama is a good guy." and this is a direct quote during their pre-inaugural meeting. It turned out that Trump simply continues his campaign as if he is still in an election.

I have a way of trying to model people I disagree with.

When they say or do something I don't like I find there's usually two interpretations. First is the cartoon caricature where they're really evil/stupid/dishonest and performed the action for those reasons. Second, is they're a fundamentally rational well intentioned person, and while I disagree with their objectives I can't say their action was totally out of line.

Historically I've done really well assuming the second, assuming the best of my opponents usually gives me the best understanding and I'm rarely surprised by the media... until Trump.

Ever since he started his campaign I kept looking for evidence of the smart rational person underneath the mask and I've never found it. He can't understand complicated concepts, he's extremely susceptible to manipulation and flattery, he has temper tantrums, he'll say ridiculous lies if it makes his current social interaction easier, he has an extremely limited attention span, just look at any event where he's supposed to stand still, he fidgets!

I don't know if it's cognitive decline, decades of being at the centre of his own universe, or if he's always been that way. But the most reliable way to model Trump is to imagine a very spoiled child between the ages of 8 and 12.

But isn't wishing a Merry Christmas like wishing someone to have a great weekend? It feels odd when someone says it even though you're going to work all weekend, but it's just a custom and well intentioned.

I don't think they're equal because the weekend is the weekend, whether you're working or not. Is Christmas Christmas if you don't believe in Christ? Imagine an online conversation that went like "So what are you doing for Independence Day?" "Nothing, I'm not American and nor in the US so it's nothing to me" "Well okay, happy Independence Day then" and you wouldn't go a little WTF? I know we've done it with ancient religions because nobody bats an eye that Thursday is dedicated to the Norse god Thor and Saturday to the Roman god Saturn but I don't think Christmas is that secularized that it simply means these holidays. Not that I'd bother at all if I was in an Islam-dominated area and they wished me happy Ramadan or Eid or whatever. If you keep using it after I say "thanks, not Muslim though" it gets weird.

I assume that there's a few OCD nutcases who can't help to stop and lecture people that they're not Christians and they don't celebrate Christmas who insist nobody says Merry Christmas to them. That any form of Christmas decoration, Santa Claus and whatnot is really religious propaganda. To me it's a little bit like the people who think Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. The modern jolly bearded fatso in a red suit flying a sled of reindeer going down chimneys got so little to do with St. Nicholas that it's laughable. I mean if anything it's the Christians who should object to this twisted caricature, if he wasn't such an accepted way to teach kids about invisible men who know if you've been naughty or nice. Then again today most graduate to adult Santa, very little fire and brimstone left...

If you were to ever listen to "Donald", you'd know that his opinion is the exact opposite.

That's why lower social classes voted for him in droves. He was very consistent in the insistence that they don't want hand outs. They want opportunities. And his entire platform was built around providing them with opportunities that were taken away from them by globalism.

This is notably the traditional leftist answer. It's the modern left instead insists that they should buy votes with social handouts. Specifically because modern left is just as study suggests, well educated and lacking in empathy. They don't understand that poor people prefer having an opportunity to lift themselves out of their problems, rather than be lifted out by others in overwhelming majority. That's why most poor people look down on "wellfare queens" even more so than rich right wingers do. To them, it's not a caricature. It's the worst thing they or their children can realistically end up as.

The campaign of raw hatred being waged on the same people ever since on the left is exactly because tyrants with no empathy hate those that don't bend the knee to them.

We have become a caricature of the Soviet Union.

Has there ever been a good show about geeks

There has never been a "good" show about being an IT worker. Nor about being a doctor, cop, president, soldier, spy, lawyer, detective, scientist or any other job that comes to mind. Even the "reality" shows are completely artificial.

They are all depicted as disneyfied caricatures, since all jobs are tedious, unimaginative and dull. But people don't want realism on TV - that is what real life is for. TV only ever offers the concentrated, accelerated, no natural ingredients, version of "life" in whatever way it claims to reflect it.

If anyone thinks TV offers a "window" on peoples' lives, they are either being obtuse or have no actual clue.

It's noteworthy because it's anti-Trump.

Being in any way relevant, factually correct and so on is utterly irrelevant in this aspect. All that matters is that it's yet another piece that temporarily reinforces the caricature that certain portion of the population has built in their minds about Trump, and that needs constant reinforcement as reality keeps fracturing this caricature.

It's almost as if your caricature of them isn't accurate.

It's obvious that you go out of your way to use big words, despite this you're still using an 8th grade vocabulary

You're probably pretty stupid and autistic. When people tell you that you're smart, they mean smart (for a sped) "you silly child"

Are you Matthew Moulton? I know he likes to hang out on tech sites talking at people like a Saturday morning cartoon caricature of an evil genius.