People are animals too, as are insects and worms and fish and dogs and frogs.
Being a member of Animalia usually means you're an animal, but the common term animal is not universally applied to Parazoa/Porifera(sponges) even though sponges are technically part of the "Animal kingdom".
I think in general though, it would be easier to control mammals (like us humans) and amphibians rather than insects which tend to bread much more vociferously.
I think that since this is a science topic and a "nerd" Web site that the use of the term "animal" should be used in its more scientific (rather than colloquial) meaning.
There is the problem of these ants adapting to the newly introduced species, and even worse, perhaps developing genetic defenses against them over generations. From the article:
Plowes said fire ants are "very aware" of these tiny flies, and it only takes a few to cause the ants to modify their behavior.
And there is of course, the problem of migration and in controlling the newly found species if it gets out of control. From the article:
Researchers began introducing phorid species in Texas in 1999. The first species has traveled all the way from Central and South Texas to the Oklahoma border.
And its not even known for sure if this strategy will work. Again from the article:
Determining whether the phorid flies will work in Texas will take time, perhaps as long as a decade.
It's all a vast experiment that could possibly go wrong. The Law of Unintended Consequences could very well be applied here.
The article talks specifically about deliberately introducing a species into the wild to become part of the ecosystem. Your points of inter-continental travel are unfortunately relevant to the un-deliberate introduction of foreign species into the wild.
Introducing foreign species, even to battle other foreign species/NEVER WORKS/.
I'm not sure about never but there are often unforeseen consequences. Even Looney Toons had a classic cartoon on this.
In some cases, biological pest control can have unforeseen negative results that could outweigh all benefits. For example, when the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rat population, it preyed on the endemic birds of Hawaii, especially their eggs, more often than it ate the rats.
Cane toads (Bufo marinus) were introduced to Australia in the 1930s in a failed attempt to control the cane beetle, a pest of sugar cane crops. 102 toads were obtained from Hawaii and bred in captivity to increase their numbers until they were released into the sugar cane fields of the tropic north in 1935. It was later discovered that the toads can't jump very high so they did not eat the cane beetles which stayed up on the upper stalks of the cane plants. The toads soon became very numerous and out-competed native species and became very harmful to the Australian environment, including being very toxic to would-be predators such as native snakes.
I suppose I need to watch TV more often. When I did a Wikipedia search for 'Fighting Dukaki' the first article that came up was about Michael Dukakis. I'm not sure if that is relevant, ironic, or just the symptoms of a poorly designed search engine.
Too bad that the students car was recently smashed to bits by numerous individuals attempting to illegally park in (what looks like) a pedestrian no-parking zone.
Having the battlefield look like a whole battalion of Ross Perots marching toward the front lines would make the enemy drop their weapons and run like hell. There may be some use to this technology.
I'm not trying to sound cynical here, but I think it's an interesting point; spending lots of money on something you can't see and that has a lot of dubious but theoretical value.
Seems to me like you could just make a small tank look like a heavy truck by hanging some shit on it. Ditto for the rocket launcher situation.
Less expensive and probably a much easier to attain illusion. Your point however probably wouldn't impress the military Fundies in the advanced research department of DARPA.
Instead of steering light to make a region of space look empty, the illusion cloak manipulates light in a way that makes a region of space look as if it contains a specific object, such as an elephant. So any object within that region of space, a mouse say, takes on the appearance of an elephant."
This is just going to piss off astronomers and give more credence to the UFO and ET enthusiasts when miscreants start projecting images of elephants floating around in the night sky.
You're showing a level of myopia seen normally only in engineers -- please think more. Think long and hard about how Twitter is useful. I, like you, don't use/need it, but I can certainly see a hole it fills / a hole it overlaps with.
It's really not that difficult, please just think a little harder.
Funny thing is, I once had an argument with some Mathematicians (students I could presume, or math-Fanboys at the least) maybe about a year ago on Slashdot. Most of them seemed quite myopic to me and many of them used Flames and condescension in their arguments. The funny part here is that I remember you mentioning that you are into mathematics, though as far as I can tell, you seem to have a different mindset than the people I was arguing with. (The topic was [science] education, and the general arguments had to do with Logic and the presumption that the study of Mathematics naturally makes people more Logical or smarter then people who have less education about mathematics). It's not directly on topic here, so I won't elaborate, just making an observation.
I think myopia goes with just about everything (profession-wise) and everybody. Perhaps engineers have a greater level of it -:)
Thanks for the apology. FYI, I don't think you should have been labeled a Troll for merely expressing an opinion; I'll restate that the formal definition of Troll (as I understand it) really depends on the intent which I don't see here. FYI, I have comment moderations set in my preferences to message me whenever I receive a Moderation. Apparently you are not alone in the opinion that my post was a Troll, seeing as that there was some up and down activity in regards to Moderation here.
First off, I will make this very explicit; "sobrietism" is a word I pretty much invented. It's just an elaboration on the concept of "addiction". The main idea being that people can be psychologically addicted to anything. At the very least you can think of this idea as a concept. Logically (to me at least) it makes sense and explains the psychological mindset of prohibitionists and people in general who want to control other people (in this case the control variable who be alcohol or any mind/mood altering substance).
The concept is somewhat rhetorical, but as I've stated, I think it is logically coherent. The mental health profession has traditionally labeled behaviors which are socially or politically unacceptable as "illnesses", so I am using the same rationale to demonstrate that even (apparently) socially normal and acceptable behaviors can be interpreted as illnesses as well. The difference (or variable) is the degree to which one acts on their behaviors.
So, basically, being sober is normal. Fanaticism is not normal. Forcing sobriety on other people is not normal. Assuming the not being sober is abnormal is not normal. Having a compulsion to control people is not normal (prohibitionist attitudes and behaviors, punishment).
So basically, I am referring to irrational behaviors or beliefs. And more specifically people who act on their irrational behaviors and beliefs in order to control people. It can be labeled "fanaticism" or obsessive compulsive behavior. I will emphasize that these are my own interpretations. I'm sure mental health professionals who actually deal with people who are drug addicted may probably have major philosophical problems with my hypothesis.
The term "addiction" that I used here should probably be best viewed as a rhetorical device (as I've stated, I'm no expert, but rather just dealing with theoretical concepts). My actual intentions were more to challenge peoples assumptions rather than to try to define or prove peoples behaviors or motivations. I think of it more as a mental exercise rather than a scientific statement of fact.
I don't think I can elaborate further. My goal here is to make people (like yourself) think and challenge your assumptions. Things are usually never as straight forward as the status quo would have you believe; whether it be the scientific community, your teachers, or your preachers. You need to think for yourself here. Keep an open mind and never label people.
Is this actually a thing? It's a very interesting idea -- I'm someone who I guess is "addicted to sobreity", except for coffee. I'd like to read about it is all.
Addiction
It is, AFAIK a mental illness, based on the logic and experiences that I've read about addictions in general. I'm no expert on addiction or psychology, but I do have a social science background and I'm pretty keen at analyzing logic, so yep, I would say so. Of course you, or anybody else shouldn't take my word for it. Come to your own conclusions and keep an open mind. Be intelligent and skeptical at anything you observe.
Of course anything can be addictive, whether it be alcohol, chocolate, heroine, caffeine, religion, or even sobriety. It's not so much the "thing" that is addictive (alcohol does not have a conscience or will, so it can not be "addictive" in and of itself, nor can heroine or tobacco for that matter). The "addiction" lies in the brain. The casual reader may think my (original) statement is full of shit, but (I think, and hope) the thoughtful and perceptive reader will realize the logic of my statement.
The original premise of the idea of sobriety being addictive came to me when I heard about an anecdote about Adolf Hitler. The details elude my memory, but the concepts remained. The ideas that I remembered is that Hitler was a fanatical, anti-social, argumentative person that had no social vices (i.e. alcohol or tobacco). This person noticed that all his socially normal friends all had "vices"; they got drunk occasionally, they smoked, they even listened to forbidden jazz music under the Nazi regime. Based on my knowledge and experience with people (I'll emphasize my social science background for good measure, but will also emphasize that I am presenting my own interpretations and hypothesis here. The point I'm trying to make by pointing out my "science" background is that, at the very least, I dare any scientist to prove that my hypothesis is wrong or faulty. I've argued with some of the best on very issues).
So, in other words, an addiction can be described as an abnormal compulsion. Addicts often promote their own vices to other people. So people who insist that sobriety is normal and that non-sobriety is bad are therefore following there own addictive compulsions. Anthropological and historical data show that all societies have there mind and mood altering substances that they indulge in. This is a (statistically) normal part of humanity. Most people will indulge in mood and mind altering chemicals as part of a normal routine of socialization. Some people do it more often then others, some people do it in private, and some people have psychological compulsions to do it. The "illness" is not the specific behavior (alcohol, tobacco, heroine, or sobriety), but in the psychological compulsion to maintain the habit. I will emphasize here the specific characteristic of "addicts" to promote and evangelize their addictive tendencies and enthusiasms (which is a noted tendency in the earlier stages of addiction).
If you are lucky (or unlucky) enough to have met a sobriety addict, then you would have experienced the fact that they don't drink (in Western cultures) and that, amongst their closest friends and family members they will insist that drinking is not tolerated, especially if it will be deemed excessive (enough to make a person feel pleasure). So for example, they may tolerate a ritual glass of wine at Christmas, but they will not tolerate 3 or 4 glasses of wine.
I will use Western alcohol consumption as an example because this is what I am most familiar with. Parents, for example, who forbid their teenagers to drink will tend to have adult children who turn into alcoholics. This may seem contrary to the protestant christian conservativism of many families and cultures in places like the United States, but the scientific and statistical observations demonstrate that where a drug (alcohol in this case) is rea
OK, since you were thoughtful enough to tell me why you Foed me (which I really do appreciate), I will tell you why I think you are wrong in your decision.
1) You admitted and realized that my statements about the poster where true (he is a Troll). I'm being presumptuous here when I say that, but your wording tacitly implies that you agree with me (but you probably think I was being too curt in my demonstration). Sometimes (I believe) it is best to tell people outright the truth (of what I think about their statements, regardless of what the person may think). 2) You admitted (outright here) that what I said was True. You were disappointed and offended at the way I expressed myself, but you do generally agree with my statements. (OK, I know you probably think I'm talking down to you, but I also think you are probably intelligent enough to see through your own biases.)
I may be totally fucked up and wrong about my impressions and statements about what you think and perceive (give me some latitude here, I'm not a mind reader, but just making some presumptions based on experiences and perceptions).
At any rate, I'm just stating that, no matter how gruff I may appear, there is usually some thoughtfulness behind what I say. Method in the madness some would say. Keep an open mind!
TO BE CLEAR: this isn't because I disagree with you. It's entirely because you toss 'troll' around like some people toss 'retard' and 'gay' around.
Perhaps you're right. "Troll", by definition, refers more to the motivation of the poster, rather than to what he says. I originally gave the poster the benefit of the doubt, but on re-reading his comments (more than once) I was convinced that he had an agenda. Yes, this is an opinion. My opinion may be wrong. My experiences of talking with people over the many, many years of my life, has persuaded me to make that statement. If I am proved wrong I will apologize. I certainly respect and understand your opinion to Foe me. Perhaps "Troll" has more emotional meaning for you than for me. I try to be logical (and unemotional) when I make statements.... well, by "unemotional", I mean that I am aware of my biases and try to see through them. My statements were certainly not meant to offend, but to make a point. For what it's worth, one of my long term "Fans" de-Friended me because I referred to a journal entry of his as a Troll. I didn't think he would take it personally. I don't think I am wrong in my evaluation, but your comment (and my other experience) gives me food for thought. I will give more thought to the use of that term.
1. We really don't see how it is going to hurt us. Mass surveillance is certainly a new, odd, and perhaps an ominous thing, but we just don't see a complete picture or a smoking gun. 2. We are constantly surrounded with messages that say, Only crazy people complain about the government.
As a person who has recently (over the past couple of months) done some review and a lot of reading into Nazi Germany, I can see the same types of Authoritarian trends and psychological tendencies to dismiss the worst case scenarios in "Democratic" countries (I scary-quote the word "Democratic" because there appears to be a cultural assumption that Democracy is necessarily equated with Freedom and justice, which, at the most is an accident. Democracy only assumes voting power (to an extant, for the majority of people), and not Freedom from oppression. I will emphasize that Democracy is generally a more utilitarian means towards Freedom than other forms of government. Benign and beneficent Autocracies would be great if they weren't "Utopian" [that is, mythical] in nature).
There also appears to be a tendency for people to appease authority in order to minimize worst case scenarios. There also appears to be a tendency for governments to rationalize extremist and authoritarian practices. Hitler (and perhaps more tellingly Goebbels [who wasn't intellectually fanatical against Jews, but realized the value of Fear, Ignorance, and Hatred]) used the Jews as his main propaganda vehicle. The contemporary West uses the "pedophile" and the "terrorist" as the excuse. In both cases the regimes generally tend to have financial support from big businesses and the "conservative" voting class (I don't mean to slight well-meaning Conservatives here, but I am taking my language directly from the history books, some of which are contemporary to the history I am talking about). In both cases (Nazi pre-war Germany and the Authoritarian-leaning democracies of the West) share the same thing: the propagation (propaganda) of fear and nationalism. Think of the children is certainly a motto that Hitler used (I'm not going to bother to look up the references; they've been pointed out before on Slashdot). "Terrorism" too, was used as an excuse by Hitler; granted that much of his terrorism was contrived (like the Russian government bombings of residential buildings. Yes, I am aware that the Russians claim it was the Chechens. Western Intel AFAIK and have heard, seems to think differently).
Like the British and American public of 1930's, and much of Europe for that matter, people rationalized away their fears. The moderates in Germany at the time appeased the authoritarian measures as well. They kept thinking that a giving up a little freedom was politically expedient. Like the famous poem goes, people don't put much thought into things until it happens to them (ref: First they came. Considering the fact the US has the most amount of people in jail than any other country in the world, I would be concerned (A popular and fairly good reference: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2494/does-the-united-states-lead-the-world-in-prison-population). Notice that I'm not talking about secret CIA prisons, MK-ULTRA type covert activities, etc., just the stuff that is well documented. Life is fine if you are "middle-class" and lucky enough not to piss off the wrong people. Don't hold your breath.
The statements you make (many of which are completely bogus and worthy of a Troll Moderation) do not necessitate the involvement of law enforcement (in this particular situation).
You have to know why the photograph was on your system. You have to know how it was being used.
I question the whole rationality of your statement (without trying to sound like a Troll, but just merely using Logic). I will elaborate; you do not have to know why a naked picture of an employee is on a companies computer system. Of course it is an oddity, and probably something that should be taken up my management and not by law enforcement. Nude photographs of adults are not illegal (or even of minors, necessarily, but that would be a tangent). Nude photographs of oneself are not even immoral (you need to trust me here and have some faith. Presumption of innocence isn't just a legal matter).
You can't take the man's word as gospel.
Of course not. Most people lie, but I always give people the benefit of the doubt unless or until I observe evidence to the contrary. It would be fair to presume that this supervisor is not a legal expert and probably only made the worst assumptions. I doubt if this supervisor would have realized that merely going to a Web site (and interacting with the people on it) that was not directly related to company business was illegal; hence the abusive nature of the supervisors behavior. Considering that (from what I've read from the article at least) nothing illegal could possibly be presumed (without going out of the way to consult a an aggressive lawyer with courtroom ambitions), nothing of a criminal nature should or logically could have been presumed. This is (at least) an over-reaction, and in a Democratic society shouldn't have even been given consideration by the courts (the abuse of the law here apparently trumps my assertions however).
You need answers and you need them now.
No offense, but that's a Bullshit statement. I need answers now all the time when I deal with the incompetency, immorality, and illegality of all the companies and bosses I have ever worked for. Of course I'm on the ass-end of the Totem-pole and the pecking order so my righteousness and logic will always get me fired and without job references. Your statement is unfounded.
The mayor won't be pleased when a secretary files a ten million dollar lawsuit for sexual harassment.
This is definitely a red-herring Troll. I will "risk" being down-modded by stating this. So be it. There is no evidence of sexual harassment here. There is however, implications of a fishing expedition on behalf of Management.
He will be even more unhappy when your man is arrested by the feds for soliciting minors on online
Another Troll. I will go out of the way and state that you should be down-modded because you are going out of your way to suggest unsubstantiated illicit behavior. The person who up-modded you should be punished through meta-moderation.
and he'll be really - royally - pissed off if comes out later that you tucked the photograph away and did nothing.
Another Troll. Use some logic. You are advocating fishing expeditions and witch hunts. You are an Asshole. I say this not out of spite, but merely as an observation. I will let the Moderators judge me.
I'm one of those people you hear about on TV, and even I thought it was funny.
For the sake of rhetoric I try to assume that people put a bit of salt in the grain of insight I sometimes offer. The point being that this Moderator probably had some pre-conceived bias that he/she felt deserved a down-mod. I was being presumptuous about the motivations, but that's really besides the point. People view things through their own biases.
As stated in the article, he would not have been prosecuted if he would have looked at horticultural Web sites [and uploaded pictures of flowers].
Unless he worked for Monsanto.
Touché! Excellent reply! I've never asked anybody to up-mod a parent post (as far as I can recall, much less an apparent repudiation to my own post), but you've got the rhetorical skills that impress me. Give the parent an Underrated or Funny mod. Very good. Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it!
Slashdot Mirror
You said:
We are the disease... we are the cure... we are the disease... we are the cure...
From Night of the Living Dead:
They're us.
We're them, and they're us.
People are animals too, as are insects and worms and fish and dogs and frogs.
Being a member of Animalia usually means you're an animal, but the common term animal is not universally applied to Parazoa/Porifera(sponges) even though sponges are technically part of the "Animal kingdom".
I think in general though, it would be easier to control mammals (like us humans) and amphibians rather than insects which tend to bread much more vociferously.
I think that since this is a science topic and a "nerd" Web site that the use of the term "animal" should be used in its more scientific (rather than colloquial) meaning.
There is the problem of these ants adapting to the newly introduced species, and even worse, perhaps developing genetic defenses against them over generations. From the article:
Plowes said fire ants are "very aware" of these tiny flies, and it only takes a few to cause the ants to modify their behavior.
And there is of course, the problem of migration and in controlling the newly found species if it gets out of control. From the article:
Researchers began introducing phorid species in Texas in 1999. The first species has traveled all the way from Central and South Texas to the Oklahoma border.
And its not even known for sure if this strategy will work. Again from the article:
Determining whether the phorid flies will work in Texas will take time, perhaps as long as a decade.
It's all a vast experiment that could possibly go wrong. The Law of Unintended Consequences could very well be applied here.
I for one welcome our new Zombie Fire Ant overlords.
Somebody with an ant farm moderated you a Troll.
You said:
Not animals. Insects. The distinction does matter.
Once again I will quote Wikipedia:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Mandibulata
Class: Insecta
and:
Insects are the most diverse group of animals on the planet.
I think they've already gotten to the politicians first. The brain dead are sometimes hard to tell apart from normal people.
The article talks specifically about deliberately introducing a species into the wild to become part of the ecosystem. Your points of inter-continental travel are unfortunately relevant to the un-deliberate introduction of foreign species into the wild.
Your quote:
Introducing foreign species, even to battle other foreign species /NEVER WORKS/.
I'm not sure about never but there are often unforeseen consequences. Even Looney Toons had a classic cartoon on this.
In some cases, biological pest control can have unforeseen negative results that could outweigh all benefits. For example, when the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rat population, it preyed on the endemic birds of Hawaii, especially their eggs, more often than it ate the rats.
Cane toads (Bufo marinus) were introduced to Australia in the 1930s in a failed attempt to control the cane beetle, a pest of sugar cane crops. 102 toads were obtained from Hawaii and bred in captivity to increase their numbers until they were released into the sugar cane fields of the tropic north in 1935. It was later discovered that the toads can't jump very high so they did not eat the cane beetles which stayed up on the upper stalks of the cane plants. The toads soon became very numerous and out-competed native species and became very harmful to the Australian environment, including being very toxic to would-be predators such as native snakes.
- Ref:
You mean like the 'Fighting Dukaki' in Futurama?
I suppose I need to watch TV more often. When I did a Wikipedia search for 'Fighting Dukaki' the first article that came up was about Michael Dukakis. I'm not sure if that is relevant, ironic, or just the symptoms of a poorly designed search engine.
The second search result; The Fighting Dukaki - Futurama also links to the Michael Dukakis page.
Too bad that the students car was recently smashed to bits by numerous individuals attempting to illegally park in (what looks like) a pedestrian no-parking zone.
Having the battlefield look like a whole battalion of Ross Perots marching toward the front lines would make the enemy drop their weapons and run like hell. There may be some use to this technology.
Why make a tank look like a heavy truck or a rocket launcher look like a stack of pipes when you could make them look like just another rock?
That sounds like a Monty Pythonesque question. Rocks don't move at 30 MPH!
Your post reminds me of The Emperor's New Clothes
I'm not trying to sound cynical here, but I think it's an interesting point; spending lots of money on something you can't see and that has a lot of dubious but theoretical value.
Seems to me like you could just make a small tank look like a heavy truck by hanging some shit on it. Ditto for the rocket launcher situation.
Less expensive and probably a much easier to attain illusion. Your point however probably wouldn't impress the military Fundies in the advanced research department of DARPA.
Instead of steering light to make a region of space look empty, the illusion cloak manipulates light in a way that makes a region of space look as if it contains a specific object, such as an elephant. So any object within that region of space, a mouse say, takes on the appearance of an elephant."
This is just going to piss off astronomers and give more credence to the UFO and ET enthusiasts when miscreants start projecting images of elephants floating around in the night sky.
You're showing a level of myopia seen normally only in engineers -- please think more. Think long and hard about how Twitter is useful. I, like you, don't use/need it, but I can certainly see a hole it fills / a hole it overlaps with.
It's really not that difficult, please just think a little harder.
Funny thing is, I once had an argument with some Mathematicians (students I could presume, or math-Fanboys at the least) maybe about a year ago on Slashdot. Most of them seemed quite myopic to me and many of them used Flames and condescension in their arguments. The funny part here is that I remember you mentioning that you are into mathematics, though as far as I can tell, you seem to have a different mindset than the people I was arguing with. (The topic was [science] education, and the general arguments had to do with Logic and the presumption that the study of Mathematics naturally makes people more Logical or smarter then people who have less education about mathematics). It's not directly on topic here, so I won't elaborate, just making an observation.
I think myopia goes with just about everything (profession-wise) and everybody. Perhaps engineers have a greater level of it -:)
Thanks for the apology. FYI, I don't think you should have been labeled a Troll for merely expressing an opinion; I'll restate that the formal definition of Troll (as I understand it) really depends on the intent which I don't see here. FYI, I have comment moderations set in my preferences to message me whenever I receive a Moderation. Apparently you are not alone in the opinion that my post was a Troll, seeing as that there was some up and down activity in regards to Moderation here.
Best regards,
UTW
First off, I will make this very explicit; "sobrietism" is a word I pretty much invented. It's just an elaboration on the concept of "addiction". The main idea being that people can be psychologically addicted to anything. At the very least you can think of this idea as a concept. Logically (to me at least) it makes sense and explains the psychological mindset of prohibitionists and people in general who want to control other people (in this case the control variable who be alcohol or any mind/mood altering substance).
The concept is somewhat rhetorical, but as I've stated, I think it is logically coherent. The mental health profession has traditionally labeled behaviors which are socially or politically unacceptable as "illnesses", so I am using the same rationale to demonstrate that even (apparently) socially normal and acceptable behaviors can be interpreted as illnesses as well. The difference (or variable) is the degree to which one acts on their behaviors.
So, basically, being sober is normal. Fanaticism is not normal. Forcing sobriety on other people is not normal. Assuming the not being sober is abnormal is not normal. Having a compulsion to control people is not normal (prohibitionist attitudes and behaviors, punishment).
So basically, I am referring to irrational behaviors or beliefs. And more specifically people who act on their irrational behaviors and beliefs in order to control people. It can be labeled "fanaticism" or obsessive compulsive behavior. I will emphasize that these are my own interpretations. I'm sure mental health professionals who actually deal with people who are drug addicted may probably have major philosophical problems with my hypothesis.
The term "addiction" that I used here should probably be best viewed as a rhetorical device (as I've stated, I'm no expert, but rather just dealing with theoretical concepts). My actual intentions were more to challenge peoples assumptions rather than to try to define or prove peoples behaviors or motivations. I think of it more as a mental exercise rather than a scientific statement of fact.
I don't think I can elaborate further. My goal here is to make people (like yourself) think and challenge your assumptions. Things are usually never as straight forward as the status quo would have you believe; whether it be the scientific community, your teachers, or your preachers. You need to think for yourself here. Keep an open mind and never label people.
Best regards,
UTW
Is this actually a thing? It's a very interesting idea -- I'm someone who I guess is "addicted to sobreity", except for coffee. I'd like to read about it is all.
Addiction
It is, AFAIK a mental illness, based on the logic and experiences that I've read about addictions in general. I'm no expert on addiction or psychology, but I do have a social science background and I'm pretty keen at analyzing logic, so yep, I would say so. Of course you, or anybody else shouldn't take my word for it. Come to your own conclusions and keep an open mind. Be intelligent and skeptical at anything you observe.
Of course anything can be addictive, whether it be alcohol, chocolate, heroine, caffeine, religion, or even sobriety. It's not so much the "thing" that is addictive (alcohol does not have a conscience or will, so it can not be "addictive" in and of itself, nor can heroine or tobacco for that matter). The "addiction" lies in the brain. The casual reader may think my (original) statement is full of shit, but (I think, and hope) the thoughtful and perceptive reader will realize the logic of my statement.
The original premise of the idea of sobriety being addictive came to me when I heard about an anecdote about Adolf Hitler. The details elude my memory, but the concepts remained. The ideas that I remembered is that Hitler was a fanatical, anti-social, argumentative person that had no social vices (i.e. alcohol or tobacco). This person noticed that all his socially normal friends all had "vices"; they got drunk occasionally, they smoked, they even listened to forbidden jazz music under the Nazi regime. Based on my knowledge and experience with people (I'll emphasize my social science background for good measure, but will also emphasize that I am presenting my own interpretations and hypothesis here. The point I'm trying to make by pointing out my "science" background is that, at the very least, I dare any scientist to prove that my hypothesis is wrong or faulty. I've argued with some of the best on very issues).
So, in other words, an addiction can be described as an abnormal compulsion. Addicts often promote their own vices to other people. So people who insist that sobriety is normal and that non-sobriety is bad are therefore following there own addictive compulsions. Anthropological and historical data show that all societies have there mind and mood altering substances that they indulge in. This is a (statistically) normal part of humanity. Most people will indulge in mood and mind altering chemicals as part of a normal routine of socialization. Some people do it more often then others, some people do it in private, and some people have psychological compulsions to do it. The "illness" is not the specific behavior (alcohol, tobacco, heroine, or sobriety), but in the psychological compulsion to maintain the habit. I will emphasize here the specific characteristic of "addicts" to promote and evangelize their addictive tendencies and enthusiasms (which is a noted tendency in the earlier stages of addiction).
If you are lucky (or unlucky) enough to have met a sobriety addict, then you would have experienced the fact that they don't drink (in Western cultures) and that, amongst their closest friends and family members they will insist that drinking is not tolerated, especially if it will be deemed excessive (enough to make a person feel pleasure). So for example, they may tolerate a ritual glass of wine at Christmas, but they will not tolerate 3 or 4 glasses of wine.
I will use Western alcohol consumption as an example because this is what I am most familiar with. Parents, for example, who forbid their teenagers to drink will tend to have adult children who turn into alcoholics. This may seem contrary to the protestant christian conservativism of many families and cultures in places like the United States, but the scientific and statistical observations demonstrate that where a drug (alcohol in this case) is rea
OK, since you were thoughtful enough to tell me why you Foed me (which I really do appreciate), I will tell you why I think you are wrong in your decision.
1) You admitted and realized that my statements about the poster where true (he is a Troll). I'm being presumptuous here when I say that, but your wording tacitly implies that you agree with me (but you probably think I was being too curt in my demonstration). Sometimes (I believe) it is best to tell people outright the truth (of what I think about their statements, regardless of what the person may think).
2) You admitted (outright here) that what I said was True. You were disappointed and offended at the way I expressed myself, but you do generally agree with my statements. (OK, I know you probably think I'm talking down to you, but I also think you are probably intelligent enough to see through your own biases.)
I may be totally fucked up and wrong about my impressions and statements about what you think and perceive (give me some latitude here, I'm not a mind reader, but just making some presumptions based on experiences and perceptions).
At any rate, I'm just stating that, no matter how gruff I may appear, there is usually some thoughtfulness behind what I say. Method in the madness some would say. Keep an open mind!
TO BE CLEAR: this isn't because I disagree with you. It's entirely because you toss 'troll' around like some people toss 'retard' and 'gay' around.
Perhaps you're right. "Troll", by definition, refers more to the motivation of the poster, rather than to what he says. I originally gave the poster the benefit of the doubt, but on re-reading his comments (more than once) I was convinced that he had an agenda. Yes, this is an opinion. My opinion may be wrong. My experiences of talking with people over the many, many years of my life, has persuaded me to make that statement. If I am proved wrong I will apologize. I certainly respect and understand your opinion to Foe me. Perhaps "Troll" has more emotional meaning for you than for me. I try to be logical (and unemotional) when I make statements.... well, by "unemotional", I mean that I am aware of my biases and try to see through them. My statements were certainly not meant to offend, but to make a point. For what it's worth, one of my long term "Fans" de-Friended me because I referred to a journal entry of his as a Troll. I didn't think he would take it personally. I don't think I am wrong in my evaluation, but your comment (and my other experience) gives me food for thought. I will give more thought to the use of that term.
As usual, my two cents,
UTW
A quote from the articles' referenced PDF:
1. We really don't see how it is going to hurt us. Mass surveillance is
certainly a new, odd, and perhaps an ominous thing, but we just
don't see a complete picture or a smoking gun.
2. We are constantly surrounded with messages that say, Only crazy
people complain about the government.
As a person who has recently (over the past couple of months) done some review and a lot of reading into Nazi Germany, I can see the same types of Authoritarian trends and psychological tendencies to dismiss the worst case scenarios in "Democratic" countries (I scary-quote the word "Democratic" because there appears to be a cultural assumption that Democracy is necessarily equated with Freedom and justice, which, at the most is an accident. Democracy only assumes voting power (to an extant, for the majority of people), and not Freedom from oppression. I will emphasize that Democracy is generally a more utilitarian means towards Freedom than other forms of government. Benign and beneficent Autocracies would be great if they weren't "Utopian" [that is, mythical] in nature).
There also appears to be a tendency for people to appease authority in order to minimize worst case scenarios.
There also appears to be a tendency for governments to rationalize extremist and authoritarian practices. Hitler (and perhaps more tellingly Goebbels [who wasn't intellectually fanatical against Jews, but realized the value of Fear, Ignorance, and Hatred]) used the Jews as his main propaganda vehicle. The contemporary West uses the "pedophile" and the "terrorist" as the excuse. In both cases the regimes generally tend to have financial support from big businesses and the "conservative" voting class (I don't mean to slight well-meaning Conservatives here, but I am taking my language directly from the history books, some of which are contemporary to the history I am talking about). In both cases (Nazi pre-war Germany and the Authoritarian-leaning democracies of the West) share the same thing: the propagation (propaganda) of fear and nationalism. Think of the children is certainly a motto that Hitler used (I'm not going to bother to look up the references; they've been pointed out before on Slashdot). "Terrorism" too, was used as an excuse by Hitler; granted that much of his terrorism was contrived (like the Russian government bombings of residential buildings. Yes, I am aware that the Russians claim it was the Chechens. Western Intel AFAIK and have heard, seems to think differently).
Like the British and American public of 1930's, and much of Europe for that matter, people rationalized away their fears. The moderates in Germany at the time appeased the authoritarian measures as well. They kept thinking that a giving up a little freedom was politically expedient. Like the famous poem goes, people don't put much thought into things until it happens to them (ref: First they came. Considering the fact the US has the most amount of people in jail than any other country in the world, I would be concerned (A popular and fairly good reference: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2494/does-the-united-states-lead-the-world-in-prison-population). Notice that I'm not talking about secret CIA prisons, MK-ULTRA type covert activities, etc., just the stuff that is well documented. Life is fine if you are "middle-class" and lucky enough not to piss off the wrong people. Don't hold your breath.
The statements you make (many of which are completely bogus and worthy of a Troll Moderation) do not necessitate the involvement of law enforcement (in this particular situation).
You have to know why the photograph was on your system. You have to know how it was being used.
I question the whole rationality of your statement (without trying to sound like a Troll, but just merely using Logic). I will elaborate; you do not have to know why a naked picture of an employee is on a companies computer system. Of course it is an oddity, and probably something that should be taken up my management and not by law enforcement. Nude photographs of adults are not illegal (or even of minors, necessarily, but that would be a tangent). Nude photographs of oneself are not even immoral (you need to trust me here and have some faith. Presumption of innocence isn't just a legal matter).
You can't take the man's word as gospel.
Of course not. Most people lie, but I always give people the benefit of the doubt unless or until I observe evidence to the contrary. It would be fair to presume that this supervisor is not a legal expert and probably only made the worst assumptions. I doubt if this supervisor would have realized that merely going to a Web site (and interacting with the people on it) that was not directly related to company business was illegal; hence the abusive nature of the supervisors behavior. Considering that (from what I've read from the article at least) nothing illegal could possibly be presumed (without going out of the way to consult a an aggressive lawyer with courtroom ambitions), nothing of a criminal nature should or logically could have been presumed. This is (at least) an over-reaction, and in a Democratic society shouldn't have even been given consideration by the courts (the abuse of the law here apparently trumps my assertions however).
You need answers and you need them now.
No offense, but that's a Bullshit statement. I need answers now all the time when I deal with the incompetency, immorality, and illegality of all the companies and bosses I have ever worked for. Of course I'm on the ass-end of the Totem-pole and the pecking order so my righteousness and logic will always get me fired and without job references. Your statement is unfounded.
The mayor won't be pleased when a secretary files a ten million dollar lawsuit for sexual harassment.
This is definitely a red-herring Troll. I will "risk" being down-modded by stating this. So be it. There is no evidence of sexual harassment here. There is however, implications of a fishing expedition on behalf of Management.
He will be even more unhappy when your man is arrested by the feds for soliciting minors on online
Another Troll. I will go out of the way and state that you should be down-modded because you are going out of your way to suggest unsubstantiated illicit behavior. The person who up-modded you should be punished through meta-moderation.
and he'll be really - royally - pissed off if comes out later that you tucked the photograph away and did nothing.
Another Troll. Use some logic. You are advocating fishing expeditions and witch hunts. You are an Asshole. I say this not out of spite, but merely as an observation. I will let the Moderators judge me.
I'm one of those people you hear about on TV, and even I thought it was funny.
For the sake of rhetoric I try to assume that people put a bit of salt in the grain of insight I sometimes offer. The point being that this Moderator probably had some pre-conceived bias that he/she felt deserved a down-mod. I was being presumptuous about the motivations, but that's really besides the point. People view things through their own biases.
Best regards,
UTW
As stated in the article, he would not have been prosecuted if he would have looked at horticultural Web sites [and uploaded pictures of flowers].
Unless he worked for Monsanto.
Touché! Excellent reply! I've never asked anybody to up-mod a parent post (as far as I can recall, much less an apparent repudiation to my own post), but you've got the rhetorical skills that impress me. Give the parent an Underrated or Funny mod. Very good. Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it!