Slashdot Mirror

Unbelievably high values for something that doesn't actually have any intrinsic value are generally followed by crashes.

This is obviously a conspiracy theory, and I have no evidence, but the shady origin of Bitcoin (nobody really knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is) could mean that it was engineered by a national actor to crash national economies. It is, after all, a caricature of fiat currency.

I read that book recently and frankly regretted doing so. Literally all of her characters are either put-upon autistic genius/bastards with perfect hair who like to sit around doing impersonations of Swedish furniture or over the top caricatures of lazy, ineffectual, sly, sneering cartoon villians who make it their life's work to torment the aforementioned autistic genius/bastards. And I really could have done without the 80 page monologue toward the end where she basically repeats every point she's tried to make in the book so far over and over again.

I even agree with her on many points but ye gods woman: learn subtlety. Learn how actual humans talk and act. Learn what motivates people. Learn how to construct human characters I don't want to throttle.

Robert Trivers' original papers, or any decent rehash thereof.

Trivers proposed the theories of reciprocal altruism (1971), parental investment (1972), facultative sex ratio determination (1973), and parent–offspring conflict (1974).

He has also contributed by explaining self-deception as an adaptive evolutionary strategy (first described in 1976) and discussing intragenomic conflict.

I really didn't know Trivers' work until edge.org starting featuring these ideas in the early 2000s.

Instead I slogged through my teenage years reading Roots (icch), Airport (icch), Mere Christianity (icch), Your Erroneous Zones (icch), The Arms of Krupp (painful, but worth the effort), and The Sovereign State (of ITT) (even more painful, but also worth the effort).

I was a sampler of all things.

As such, it looks like I managed to read nearly every non-fiction work mentioned on this young thread either A) by the age of 23, B) shortly after first publication.

The one exception being Ayn Rand, a permanent no-fly zone.

Big Sister Is Watching You — 1957

Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive story known as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.

My second vote goes to Wikipedia. Yes, I mean this seriously.

Since elementary school, I was no stranger to the Encyclopedia Britannica, its many gaps forming the permanent, eroding skyline of my bedroom bookshelves. Every month or so, I'd have 20 gaps and 3 volumes standing, so I'd gather them up off every available surface, shelve them in order, and start again.

Then a miracle happened in 2005.

For the last decade, I've been randomly looking things up in Wikipedia, that I would have liked to have looked up long before, only it wasn't immediate, organized, and convenient.

Just yesterday I started randomly looking up all the cartoons I grew up with, and a few more recent ones:

* xkcd — 2005
* Calvin and Hobbes — 1995
* Dilbert — 1989
* Bloom County — 1980
* The Far Side — 1980
* Doonesbury — 1970
* The Family Circus — 1960
* B.C. (comic strip) — 1958
* Dennis the Menace (U.S. comics) — 1951
* Peanuts — 1950
* Blondie (comic strip) — 1930

Doesn't that shine a different light on ye olde Dagwood sandwich?

According to Blondie scripter Dean Young, his father, Chic Young, began drawing the huge sandwiches in the comic strip during 1936.

Where else would one go to systematically back-fill these (perhaps) inconsequential gaps?

If the root cause of the women needing to hide is due to novelty or rarity rather than, say, lecherousness, isn't it still indicative that their sex is causing a problem working within the system? That'd be sexism, then, just not necessarily rooted in a 'men are horndogs' caricature.

In a range of ethnic styles. And then he'd complain about them being racist caricatures.

Why do you want to read stuff favourable about killing millions of people in gas chambers, shithead? And you can learn about Nazi Germany just fine. Even in Germany. What you can't do is talk a load of bollocks about it and pretend it wasn't the ravings of delusional madmen made government mandate.

Oh, and as long as you retards don't bother understanding what the laws are, go ahead and cry about how bad whatever caricature you call hate speech is, because it won't change reality.snowflake.

Here's your cite:

It is not "my" position at all - it's called science

My conversation with you started when you stated:

The reason that people have a problem with global warming is that it hurts their feelings.

My first post in the topic was a response to that statement of yours:

You seem to have an idea that everyone who has an issue with global warming is having an emotional response and not a logical one. So let's see if you are able to participate in a logical discussion of the issue.

I then included several specific questions asking you what your beliefs on global warming are so we could logically discuss them. Since then, we've merely gone round and round your refusal to even state a position for discussion, instead making vague references to other people's general thoughts and ideas without even any concrete references.

I've never stated, nor attempted to prove climate science is based on hurt feelings. Your opinions/personal beliefs aren't identical to "climate science".
So without any statement from you about what you individually believe in regards to global warming, this conversation is pointless and I'll just stop responding. If all you know is (this is a total caricature) "Some scientist dudes are out there and I agree with whatever they think, even though they don't all agree on everything, I'll just go with whatever the majority says at any given time, 'cause they've thought about it and I haven't!", then you aren't ready to have a logical conversation about the subject beyond discussing the advantages or disadvantages of using majority vote as a proxy for scientific truth.

less bitching on Twitter, please.

You asking him to give up his singular asset? The TV rights alone might actually get him out of debt. You really are misunderstanding his intent.

And more than anything, the man epitomizes the internet. He was made in its image. A perfect caricature. And of course, with the candidate you people put up, he couldn't lose. Thanks!

Every new build water power plant (based on a hydro dam) has the problem of rotting vegetation.
Has nothing to do with tropes or Alpes.

Has entirely to do.

In the most extremely exagerated case, the rotting vegetation is much more serious if you have submerged a whole chunk of tropical rain forest vs. only a bunch of rocks with a little bit of moss growing on them.
In real life, seriously, alpine climates tend to generate a biotope with is a bit more on the less luxuriant side of the scalat (similar to what you find going to northern latitudes).
There's a lot less thing to rot at the bottom if you have a lot less vegetation in the region and a lot less rich soil to begin with.
(Or another way to put it as a caricature : do you see much submersible tropical rain forest here ?)

Also part of the decomposition process is assisted by the micro-organisms present in the water. Colder climate means less activity of micro-organism, meaning the dam doesn't emit as much methane as it would in warm waters.

In the end, a dam in Switzerland doesn't emit that much greenhouse gazes as one in Brazil.

It looks like to me he is wanting to reinforce those Facebook friend bubbles. For the most part my Facebook friends reinforce what I believe and what I think is right. I do not see the differing opinions. Actually I have a few outlier 'friends' that help give me a broader perspective, but for the most part my 'friends' reinforce what I believe.

I do not think this is good for any country.. I think the thing to do is not to reinforce our bubbles but to break them down some with thoughtful alternative viewpoint posts (news articles). We need to see the other side and break down the caricatures . Conservatives need to hear what those Liberals are thinking, and the Liberals need to hear what the Conservatives are thinking. It may not be popular but I think it would be good for the country and world. This is what would really build community.

A caricature says more than words could: http://www.tomz.ch/wp/wp-conte...

(the soldier says "both target got hit").

What are you talking about, conflating political liberalism with Hollywood business practices. Studios still shoot on set in Hollywood when it makes sense to do so. But they also shoot on location. Which means they're shooting anywhere it makes sense for the story. But it's also true there are production companies around the world who compete, often with cheaper labor and logistics (permitting, construction regulations, insurance, etc)

'Liberalism' is a boogeyman caricature for small minds in need of a scapegoat.

Nope, it was precisely like what I said.

You got some half-assked untrained hoboes and hicks to fight against a professional army. Sure there were some actual trained soldiers, but then again, same with China, dumbfuck. The peasant armies included professional soldiers too.

Those peasants took over the country from the legal owner of it. Just like in the Chinese revolution.

And they then ushered in a massive reversal of the wealth of the colonies, spreading poverty and hardship all around. Yeah, some made out like bandits, just like in China.

So given you were 100% fine with the OP caricature in its broad brush,you are incapable of supporting your claim against mine.

It's exactly as valid, you deluded hick.

Let me get this straight. You and the other moron in the GP post basically have the same argument: "because it's so hard" sarcasm?

Guy invents automobile. You morons: "Because it's so hard to hop on my horse? LOL!!!"

Guy invents horn. You morons: "Because it's so hard to shrilly scream out my window LOL??"

Guy invents light bulb. You morons: "Because it's so hard to light a candle LOL!!!"

This place has really become a caricature of itself.

Every executive employee serves at the discretion and pleasure of the POTUS. He can fire anyone at any time for any reason.
Eric Holder, as Attorney General, set the precedent of a partisan Democrat hack, instead of being an impartial advocate for Justice. He was forced to resign. Lois Lerner also set that standard in the IRS. Susan Rice lied to the American people about the "Video that caused Benghazi" when their internal docs showed exactly the opposite.
The Democrat controlled Senate set the precedent for changing the senate rules and creating the Nuclear option to force Obamacare fail-sauce on an American populace who were, at the time, against it to the tune of 70%. Obama fired a whole slew of Bush hires and no one batted an eye about it.
So the GOP controlled government is doing things you don't like. You don't have to like it, but you will take it.
There's not going to be some grand realization of the entire population who all come to see the world from your point of view. There will be civil war first, then after that at least half the population still won't agree with the other half. The ignorant man assumes that the other side doesn't agree with his world-view because they are ignorant. The reality is that human beings have the CHOICE to select collectivism or individualism. If only the hackneyed caricature of the dumb redneck Redstaters lined up with reality, but if it helps you get to sleep at night....
Yeah but, but, but Bush was bad too and Hillary threw Bernie under the Bus and Obama lied about Obamacare and Bush started wars in the Middle East and then Obama warred even more over there and the GOP was bad when they gave 1 trillion TARP money to a bunch of rich Wall Street & banker guys so they could stay rich. The Democrats were wrong when they gave another 2 trillion to rich wall-street & banker guys so they could stay rich. What keeps me awake a night is wondering why the rich Wall Street guys and bankers could force their hand. Maybe the economy is just one big juggling act floating on a bunch of worthless paper & we're all mass hallucinating that it still has value. Take a look at Argentina some time.
We're divided.
But it's not RED against BLUE. It's D.C. against us and they're playing us like a fiddle.

It's happening in France at least. There are relatively many zillionnaires, though obviously a very small part of the population, and the same global capitalism as anywhere else that makes their income or wealth (whatever) increase rapidly. I say "whatever" jokingly as I don't know exactly the difference between income and wealth increase.

But let's say you have 50 millions and this number increases 8% a year even if you don't do anything then yes wealth distribution inequity rises and rises inevitably.
There's also been rather massive media concentration roughly since the change of century and so perceptions might be evolving as it's too blatant to not be noticed.

At the same time, the country is a lot more right-wing that you would expect if following the caricature of it. But there's a left-wing support for UBI, a left that does not support UBI (because it's a trap for gutting unemployment benefits, pensions, stable employment), liberals in the right-wing European meaning of liberal who support UBI, a right that doesn't support UBI (because it's free money for lazy ass bums, demeans the value of work), and the "extreme centre" we seem to be electing doesn't deal with the idea or does not want it.
So I think I'd rather have UBI but while it got a leg in public discourse we're a bit far from it yet.

I expected you were trolling but thanks for confirming.

Remember, just because you didn't like what I wrote, that doesn't mean every word of it isn't true. You should try to be a better person, if you were a little less arrogant and ignorant and you might stop looking like a caricature of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You said the same thing about wheels, a non-Earth-centric universe, flight, satellites, manned space exploration, landing on the moon, antibiotics, computers, The Internet, and not living in a fucking mud hut.

Shut the fuck up. You have been proven to be an imbecile throughout history. You are the caricature of the vapid naysayer, ever whining, arms crossed, and always wrong.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Millennials don't have any money, unless it's from their student loads for their useless liberal arts degree.

Lol you're a caricature of a curmudgeonly grandfather from 1968.

Well, that's the thing about Dunning-Kruger; if you thought it through a little farther, you'd realize that a bunch of people glancing at my post and laughing are almost all at that early peak. ;) You seem rather sure of yourself too, and yet, you didn't even get far enough in to touch on the meat of my comment.

Know going in that I'm an old-school software developer and that my comment was a universal truth. If you didn't understand it, or were too busy laughing at the nearest meme to try, that's fine; but it wasn't wrong. It can't be wrong, actually, because it was an observation of historical fact.

Almost everything is waterfall, and waterfall was never the extreme absolutist caricature that you and other idiots laugh at. Yes, you're right, I am superior to you when it comes to reading comprehension of the term "waterfall development model." What people laugh at never even existed, so how much chance do they have to be correct, or have some insight? The author of the book people point at to support their weird claim that waterfall was absolutist even clarified later, in response to those criticisms, that it is not and never was a static system with no changes allowed, you simply try not to make late changes. There was never anything at the end that said, "and when problems come up, you don't even respond." That is just idiocy, and the target audience of the book were engineers for whom that is actually rather obvious.

The vast majority of software was always made using waterfall process, and that is still true today.