Thank you for all your thoughts. I'd like to comment on the general issues of money, labor, power and fear. (Hardly pleasant subjects;-) ).
I keep thinking about how different people would be willing to fight in a war over something. Consider the Middle-Eastern suicidal fanatics and their _rich_ sponsors. This is similar but different than the suppossed Chinese slave labor and the rich Chinese businessmen (the difference being the Chinese worker's will to live, and a fanatic's will to die), but my point would be that the difference of attitudes might possibly be explained though theoretical labor that was or was not done by or in relation to their ancestors. Such an approach probably wouldn't be reasonable. It's even worse if you have to account for the pure luck of someone being in the situation of controlling an area with natural resources, which in the case of a state and its depended organizations means both presence at a location and power to keep it. It's relevant, because a group of insane lazy maniacs with cheap guns can dictate prices to peaceful and productive (or how to define productive) people who also have other interests beyond this trade.
If you are robbed by a man with a gun... It's kind of an effort for both of you, and money changes hands. What kind of labor is that? The money in his pocket represents your yielding to a threat. When you institute tariffs on imports, you (some group of people) compete on a psychological, but eventually military level against other group within your country that would rather have those cheap foreign goods, and against the other country which you deprive of access. Now to take this to the extreme: this is what you say made the middle class strong. I would tend to think that power games were not what made the middle class strong: in the meaning that Soviets--to try to find an example--had been terrorizing the other half of the world for many years, yet had not developed strong middle class...
Just an unoriginal remark about one thing--that something is not included in some index does not change reality, but makes one wonder why is it not included. Also, one could argue that a war gives "artificial" boost to domestic defense industry.
Very interesting, though neither China nor US are ideally competitive markets, neither the international trade is (at least not on the financial "level"). I can't also help thinking that you should specifically explain the military power balance (at least, if you discuss fuel at particular) in terms of labor and check if the approach still works.
Actually, many people compose and perform music in their spare time for no profit at all...
I don't expect you to expect the people who designed the formula of the motor oil to personally make the oil specifically for you, because such oil would be bad and expensive...
Thank you for your post, however this discussion actually proves that you can be of a different age that you mentioned, and probably even actually taking prescribed psychoactive substances, and still behave without reason and good manners.
Not necessarily "never". Actually, the prankster is half right. I wonder if you realize you left out this obvious option; namely, to believe it's possible that it's possible to prove [Gg]od.*'s existence, and to believe it has not been proven that either it's possible to prove, or actually that \& exists{0,1}. Or is it not agnosticism? A dictionary def. does exclude some options you included, though.
After a brief discussion about why pluggable syntaxes won't be allowed, Bob, in real life a professional vet, becomes disgusted with coding and decides to devote his evenings to learning Chinese (to the dismal of the users who want better performance in games, and don't run their games on servers). A few days later a minor turmoil with another guy Henrik who offers his Reverse Forth Syntax (RFS) results in a Slashdot story.
I've came back to this story and noticed your comment as it is the most recent. Maybe it will help if I try to put together some thoughts about what you have written. Unfortunately, I have to begin by mentioning that I find the parody lyrics which you linked absurd (in a bad sense) and (mildly) appalling.
Now to the oil changing metaphor: the previous poster seems to me to be wrong about the metaphor's meaning. The point is that if the act of changing oil can be instantly replicated in unlimited number of instances, there might possibly be some negative consequences (it's difficult to develop this idea futher, isn't it?)
I'm also not sure if we wouldn't be able to find quite a number of reasons why, actually, the anti-intellectual property propaganda is the attempt to protect the old from the new. For example, if a person can't afford writing a book, only old books are available.
That's a commonplace practice which is mainly aimed at making people inadvertently click the button which takes them to the registration website, and also makes it more annoying to click through the dialog.
Intriguing. I think I've read somewhere about time going slower for older people (I don't know from which point of view, though). Maybe I'll remember in a few days, where. I'm not very old.
Also, when I was a kid, holidays were so long. Nonsense, probably. Cheers.
Guys, numerous synthesizers allow using arbitrary scales, from the program "Scala", for example. Just see the list on the homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/
Funny joke indeed, but as a Freudist, I think guys feel an irrational urge to behave unfairly and/or preach about fairness, subconsciously induced by the word (accidentally) fair being brought to their attention with hypnotic regularity;-D
I'll start from the end. I'll mention that I don't support a relatively widely accepted idea that an "escapist" activity is by definition wrong. Then I'd like to show that it's possible to argue that Saving Private Ryan can be argued to be escapist, with the past employed in the movie as a functionally fantasy world for most viewers--a convenient vehicle not only for quality entertainment, but also for gratifying feelings of righteousness among both the producers and the audience.
You are right that there is a kind of a challenge with the "little sisters". Nobody obviously would equate acts of killing a real person and of killing a computer-controlled avatar. What is challenged here is not a preconception, but 1. the instinct of avoiding hurting the weak 2. an immature tendency* of feeling about the unreal the same as about the real 3. the conviction that certain transgressions should be taboo.
The point 3 seem to be, so to say, a standard point of disagreement. About the 1st I'll say, as a side note, that what a person here is expected to learn about himself (it's a boy, right?), is that he too can be tricked to do certain things for "leisure", things which he had before considered not fun. That is to the satisfaction of those who always wait to say "you are just as much scum as me or anybody else", and the saint holy me does not condemn them, but would like to kinda inspire them or whatevar.
I'd also add about point 2, that it's something that should not** be challenged, I think. A person should be helped to grow without having his mind wrecked, that is, being abused, which means it's wrong to support a system of values in which abuse is great. Now, here, that's what you had been doing a little tiny bit, hadn't you;-)
I'm not happy with how I can't help falling from analysis into mundane judgements. Working on it;-)
*I hope this answers "Would you"
**I've missed the goddamn not, thank God for Preview
Is it much more there if we go after particulars, though? What kind of preconception is challenged here, that it's not always unrewarding to kill zombie little girls? That's not a challenge.
BTW it's worthy of consideration why something gory or challenging is more likely to be widely described as great or as art.
The most important thing is that it is actually great violent art that is escapist and allows the consumer to not be confronted with the real problems they encounter in, as you say, their occupations.
Please don't take it personally, I'm just trying to explore this issues.
I've been thinking about posting something like this; I, for one, have seen only Trainspotting. It's been interesting sociologically and politically for mostly the same reasons for which I didn't like it.
Easy way out... as violence often is. Avoiding violence is violent on yourself and on people who need it to live. Please move along.
As for the other poster, it's not satire, it's apotheosis.
Interesting, although wouldn't it be more accurate to say that once your privacy is taken, you can die by that sword many times, as your data is stolen in a chain. It's not the database owners who "die" by that sword, is it?
Man, I've posted about this just above.
I've even made an effort of reformatting the pasted list. And it's you who got a point! Should have mentioned Google. *cries*
The core idea for accessing bzip-compressed data is interesting.
The later execution, however... Perl, Python, PHP, Xapian, Django all together as the runtime, and add to this C code for the preparation (I might be wrong about the details, just skimmed), for such a small application.
The other poster who rejoices about how wonderfully old-skool TFA is, is obviously right. This kind of duct-tape Linux development feels badly sooo 90's and smells like maintenance, performance, installation and portability problems.
Keeping it all in just one of the scripting languages would make it much more serious. (Perl, or maybe Bash for the easiest installation?)
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for all your thoughts. I'd like to comment on the general issues of money, labor, power and fear. (Hardly pleasant subjects ;-) ).
I keep thinking about how different people would be willing to fight in a war over something. Consider the Middle-Eastern suicidal fanatics and their _rich_ sponsors. This is similar but different than the suppossed Chinese slave labor and the rich Chinese businessmen (the difference being the Chinese worker's will to live, and a fanatic's will to die), but my point would be that the difference of attitudes might possibly be explained though theoretical labor that was or was not done by or in relation to their ancestors. Such an approach probably wouldn't be reasonable. It's even worse if you have to account for the pure luck of someone being in the situation of controlling an area with natural resources, which in the case of a state and its depended organizations means both presence at a location and power to keep it. It's relevant, because a group of insane lazy maniacs with cheap guns can dictate prices to peaceful and productive (or how to define productive) people who also have other interests beyond this trade.
If you are robbed by a man with a gun... It's kind of an effort for both of you, and money changes hands. What kind of labor is that? The money in his pocket represents your yielding to a threat. When you institute tariffs on imports, you (some group of people) compete on a psychological, but eventually military level against other group within your country that would rather have those cheap foreign goods, and against the other country which you deprive of access. Now to take this to the extreme: this is what you say made the middle class strong. I would tend to think that power games were not what made the middle class strong: in the meaning that Soviets--to try to find an example--had been terrorizing the other half of the world for many years, yet had not developed strong middle class...
Write to Mr. Rather or somebody like him, who believes everything, just like me!
3. Virgin didn't want to be sued by Adidas [1] [1] for implying Adidas is for virgins
Just an unoriginal remark about one thing--that something is not included in some index does not change reality, but makes one wonder why is it not included. Also, one could argue that a war gives "artificial" boost to domestic defense industry.
Very interesting, though neither China nor US are ideally competitive markets, neither the international trade is (at least not on the financial "level"). I can't also help thinking that you should specifically explain the military power balance (at least, if you discuss fuel at particular) in terms of labor and check if the approach still works.
However, what about using the received talents wisely, about justice, and encouragement of good? It seems the book doesn't help, say, so easily.
Actually, many people compose and perform music in their spare time for no profit at all... I don't expect you to expect the people who designed the formula of the motor oil to personally make the oil specifically for you, because such oil would be bad and expensive...
Thank you for your post, however this discussion actually proves that you can be of a different age that you mentioned, and probably even actually taking prescribed psychoactive substances, and still behave without reason and good manners.
Not necessarily "never". Actually, the prankster is half right. I wonder if you realize you left out this obvious option; namely, to believe it's possible that it's possible to prove [Gg]od.*'s existence, and to believe it has not been proven that either it's possible to prove, or actually that \& exists{0,1}. Or is it not agnosticism? A dictionary def. does exclude some options you included, though.
After a brief discussion about why pluggable syntaxes won't be allowed, Bob, in real life a professional vet, becomes disgusted with coding and decides to devote his evenings to learning Chinese (to the dismal of the users who want better performance in games, and don't run their games on servers). A few days later a minor turmoil with another guy Henrik who offers his Reverse Forth Syntax (RFS) results in a Slashdot story.
I've came back to this story and noticed your comment as it is the most recent. Maybe it will help if I try to put together some thoughts about what you have written. Unfortunately, I have to begin by mentioning that I find the parody lyrics which you linked absurd (in a bad sense) and (mildly) appalling.
Now to the oil changing metaphor: the previous poster seems to me to be wrong about the metaphor's meaning. The point is that if the act of changing oil can be instantly replicated in unlimited number of instances, there might possibly be some negative consequences (it's difficult to develop this idea futher, isn't it?)
I'm also not sure if we wouldn't be able to find quite a number of reasons why, actually, the anti-intellectual property propaganda is the attempt to protect the old from the new. For example, if a person can't afford writing a book, only old books are available.
That's a commonplace practice which is mainly aimed at making people inadvertently click the button which takes them to the registration website, and also makes it more annoying to click through the dialog.
Intriguing. I think I've read somewhere about time going slower for older people (I don't know from which point of view, though). Maybe I'll remember in a few days, where. I'm not very old.
Also, when I was a kid, holidays were so long. Nonsense, probably. Cheers.
Guys, numerous synthesizers allow using arbitrary scales, from the program "Scala", for example. Just see the list on the homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/
Funny joke indeed, but as a Freudist, I think guys feel an irrational urge to behave unfairly and/or preach about fairness, subconsciously induced by the word (accidentally) fair being brought to their attention with hypnotic regularity ;-D
I'll start from the end. I'll mention that I don't support a relatively widely accepted idea that an "escapist" activity is by definition wrong. Then I'd like to show that it's possible to argue that Saving Private Ryan can be argued to be escapist, with the past employed in the movie as a functionally fantasy world for most viewers--a convenient vehicle not only for quality entertainment, but also for gratifying feelings of righteousness among both the producers and the audience.
;-)
;-)
You are right that there is a kind of a challenge with the "little sisters". Nobody obviously would equate acts of killing a real person and of killing a computer-controlled avatar. What is challenged here is not a preconception, but 1. the instinct of avoiding hurting the weak 2. an immature tendency* of feeling about the unreal the same as about the real 3. the conviction that certain transgressions should be taboo.
The point 3 seem to be, so to say, a standard point of disagreement. About the 1st I'll say, as a side note, that what a person here is expected to learn about himself (it's a boy, right?), is that he too can be tricked to do certain things for "leisure", things which he had before considered not fun. That is to the satisfaction of those who always wait to say "you are just as much scum as me or anybody else", and the saint holy me does not condemn them, but would like to kinda inspire them or whatevar.
I'd also add about point 2, that it's something that should not** be challenged, I think. A person should be helped to grow without having his mind wrecked, that is, being abused, which means it's wrong to support a system of values in which abuse is great. Now, here, that's what you had been doing a little tiny bit, hadn't you
I'm not happy with how I can't help falling from analysis into mundane judgements. Working on it
*I hope this answers "Would you"
**I've missed the goddamn not, thank God for Preview
Is it much more there if we go after particulars, though? What kind of preconception is challenged here, that it's not always unrewarding to kill zombie little girls? That's not a challenge.
BTW it's worthy of consideration why something gory or challenging is more likely to be widely described as great or as art.
The most important thing is that it is actually great violent art that is escapist and allows the consumer to not be confronted with the real problems they encounter in, as you say, their occupations.
Please don't take it personally, I'm just trying to explore this issues.
I've been thinking about posting something like this; I, for one, have seen only Trainspotting. It's been interesting sociologically and politically for mostly the same reasons for which I didn't like it. Easy way out... as violence often is. Avoiding violence is violent on yourself and on people who need it to live. Please move along. As for the other poster, it's not satire, it's apotheosis.
Interesting, although wouldn't it be more accurate to say that once your privacy is taken, you can die by that sword many times, as your data is stolen in a chain. It's not the database owners who "die" by that sword, is it?
Man, I've posted about this just above. I've even made an effort of reformatting the pasted list. And it's you who got a point! Should have mentioned Google. *cries*
PHP and Python and Perl (Django less so ;-)) are actually optimized to do many jobs!
Note I suggested Bash myself.
The core idea for accessing bzip-compressed data is interesting.
The later execution, however... Perl, Python, PHP, Xapian, Django all together as the runtime, and add to this C code for the preparation (I might be wrong about the details, just skimmed), for such a small application.
The other poster who rejoices about how wonderfully old-skool TFA is, is obviously right. This kind of duct-tape Linux development feels badly sooo 90's and smells like maintenance, performance, installation and portability problems.
Keeping it all in just one of the scripting languages would make it much more serious. (Perl, or maybe Bash for the easiest installation?)
An open-source-writing outcast genius as the only positive character--the humanity's lost chance. The humanity gets punished.
;-)
You are so kind it's cruel.
Now I'm going to cry a little.
yeah theres some old guys on the net btw love dc ^_^ kthx
I think we should just leave a note for a casual reader that Wikipedia says that this word is, in fact, pronounced "grahv". ;-D