squirrels can be mischievous...one ran right in my door as i was outside watching him, i had to chase him out. but i wouldn't kill one. unless he was really being annoying and had been duly warned.
My ex-gf has cockatiels (also lovebirds). I think they are very smart. One 'tiel always imitates the beeping sound the microwave makes when you set the cook time, as soon as you close the oven door...
Maybe you're the one who's ultimately useless to society, trying to protect what little advantage you think you have now by debunking technical progress
Sure, but you don't need to become a grandmaster (i.e. spend a lot of time) on chess to benefit from it. Like those "hello world" programs, you write them once and move on. Just saying that if Kasparov or whoever knew they couldn't defeat a computer in chess, they might have dedicated their brain power to some unsolved problem, or gone into programming or something.
You are always free not to play against a computer.
Basically this type of accomplishment means that another task we used to consider indicative of intelligence is not really as important to intelligence as we once thought.
We're good at learning new games, learning rules, adapting strategies. When we can get a computer to do that, that's when you start worrying...
Just think, all that wasted energy spent getting really good at a solved game, maybe now they can apply their brain power to an as yet unsolved problem.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not good to go online and look for ways to vent, but rather to eliminate that which makes you want to vent. Getting rid of social constraints, though, is not the solution
What makes me want to vent is society. All the stupid games, that I suck at and don't want to learn. Online, I can sort of create my own society; I choose which web sites to visit. I am not forced to conform to the rules of a society that I don't like and don't want to be a part of as long as it includes all those damn bullshit games.
(Nor will it ever happen anyhow, even if it is the solution, so it's kind of pointless to talk about it.)
I don't know. I'm currently living out in the hills. I don't have much contact with real life people, and it's a lot less stressful than before when I lived in cities. (When I go to the store, I love those self-serve checkout counters.)
Online society is better, more customizable, less hurtful to me than real society.
They tried to do something that, in my opinion, would have added value to the world, and it was destroyed by a bunch of idots who wanted to "express themslves." That kind of expression is worthless.
First of all, as you note, that's your opinion. I think I probably would have derived a chuckle out of the defacements; I certainly enjoy slashdot trolls, they often make me laugh.
Second, they could have handled the situation in other ways than by taking down the site. They could have left it up and let the trolls get tired. They could have had more moderators. I think they just got upset that they couldn't control people.
It's harder to control people online. That is a good thing. If you don't like it, don't go online; or write some software that will filter content for you.
Maybe I don't. But the most effective way to get me to see that is to use verbal, logical terms to explain it to me. The ways they use are too easy to apply to contributions that could have value, and have been extensively so used in the past. For example: black slaves used to invent things to make their work easier, but those inventions were ignored because of social considerations.
Ha ha, it's like the strains of flu that become immune to regular antibiotics, you have to keep developing stronger and stronger medicine to deal with them...
Exactly. The people arguing that AC should be removed probably have deep control issues; they don't want ANYONE to be able to see posts that they disapprove of. If they were just concerned about themselves and what they want to see, they could simply browse at a higher threshold.
The question is, why are people more rude and nasty online? It is a symptom of deeper problems that are heavily influenced by the society in which the "rude" people grew up.
Also, what is rude and nasty to you might be funny and stress-relieving to me. Why do you think that everyone agrees with your opinion of what is rude and nasty?
First of all, words do hurt (as clearly shown in the example of the NY times, which was "hurt" or damaged by the words of internet users to the extent that they had to take down a product that they had spent a lot of time developing and now will likely have to scrap)
They weren't physically hurt. This is the kind of hurt that can be compared to the type I experience when someone makes fun of me or otherwise makes me feel bad. If it's a bad thing, you should be complaining equally about all situations where people are dicks to each other in real life.
Second, it seems like everyone assumes that social constraints are generally bad things. That is wrong thinking. Social constraints exist so that we can live with each other as humans in a fashion where the amount of pain that people have to go through is lessened. Almost all situations in which these constraints are removed tend toward decay.
Social constraints have been a bad thing in my life. I am often afraid to say things in real life because I don't have a confident tone, because I'm afraid that people will ignore me or laugh at me or use emotional instead of logical arguments against me. So I build up a lot of resentment and anger inside, and I can't find an outlet to express it. It's natural that if I can do it online without having all that pernicious non-verbal feedback, I may go wild.
The problem lies with the social constraints. They are oppressing enough people, preventing us from being able to express ourselves, that when those constraints disappear (online), it causes a backlash.
The ACs are often the best thing on slashdot. Sometimes you get great AC posts from people who really know what they're talking about, but for one reason or another don't want to reveal their identities.
Saying AC is the problem is an ad hominem argument. Pay attention to the content of the post, not who says it. If the content is crap, ignore it, moderate it down and raise your viewing threshold, or use reason and logic to point out why it's crap.
People say and do things they never would in person.
I don't see this as a bad thing. Why are people afraid to say things in person that they can say online? Because they fear reprisals, of a physical or social nature? Threatening physical violence is illegal and a gross overreaction to mere words. And social reprisals (ostracism, humiliation, exclusion) often are not based on logic or reason but pure emotion.
Words are just words. They don't hurt like a stick or a stone. People should feel that they can say anything they want to, at any time.
Freedom is an advantage. All other things being equal, a freer more just society will develop technology quicker, and be able to use that technology to improve their evolutionary survival fitness.
This is because arbitrary barriers to education or communication prevent contributions from geniuses or near-geniuses in the oppressed groups. All things being equal, if you remove those barriers to contribution the rate of contributions should increase.
It is in your best interests to support freedom and justice.
I'm talking about when I stand at a crosswalk, perfectly happy to wait for traffic, maybe I haven't even decided to cross there yet, and cars slow down and stop and motion me across. Why do you think they do that?
Our government exists by consent of the people. We can change that government in elections. You can run if there isn't a compassionate enough candidate, or you can support someone else who is at least slightly more compassionate.
You have a very limited view of the potential of the human race, my friend.
Slashdot Mirror
mindreading!
Say hello to Tim for me will ya? I went to grade school with him in Paris.
robertscottmitchell@hotmail.com
I second the recommendation of JTiger. The author provides support on freenode #jtiger too.
squirrels can be mischievous...one ran right in my door as i was outside watching him, i had to chase him out. but i wouldn't kill one. unless he was really being annoying and had been duly warned.
Excellent write-up. The "swallowtail" home page however is teh lamest evar!
My ex-gf has cockatiels (also lovebirds). I think they are very smart. One 'tiel always imitates the beeping sound the microwave makes when you set the cook time, as soon as you close the oven door...
Maybe they can train them to write programs to play Go now...
maybe all that other stuff is human-specific and arbitrary and essentially uninteresting?
Maybe you're the one who's ultimately useless to society, trying to protect what little advantage you think you have now by debunking technical progress
Sure, but you don't need to become a grandmaster (i.e. spend a lot of time) on chess to benefit from it. Like those "hello world" programs, you write them once and move on. Just saying that if Kasparov or whoever knew they couldn't defeat a computer in chess, they might have dedicated their brain power to some unsolved problem, or gone into programming or something.
You are always free not to play against a computer.
Basically this type of accomplishment means that another task we used to consider indicative of intelligence is not really as important to intelligence as we once thought.
We're good at learning new games, learning rules, adapting strategies. When we can get a computer to do that, that's when you start worrying...
Just think, all that wasted energy spent getting really good at a solved game, maybe now they can apply their brain power to an as yet unsolved problem.
It was funny in Soviet Russia.
What's to prevent trolls from doing the same? What is your point?
What I'm trying to say is that it's not good to go online and look for ways to vent, but rather to eliminate that which makes you want to vent. Getting rid of social constraints, though, is not the solution
What makes me want to vent is society. All the stupid games, that I suck at and don't want to learn. Online, I can sort of create my own society; I choose which web sites to visit. I am not forced to conform to the rules of a society that I don't like and don't want to be a part of as long as it includes all those damn bullshit games.
(Nor will it ever happen anyhow, even if it is the solution, so it's kind of pointless to talk about it.)
I don't know. I'm currently living out in the hills. I don't have much contact with real life people, and it's a lot less stressful than before when I lived in cities. (When I go to the store, I love those self-serve checkout counters.)
Online society is better, more customizable, less hurtful to me than real society.
They tried to do something that, in my opinion, would have added value to the world, and it was destroyed by a bunch of idots who wanted to "express themslves." That kind of expression is worthless.
First of all, as you note, that's your opinion. I think I probably would have derived a chuckle out of the defacements; I certainly enjoy slashdot trolls, they often make me laugh.
Second, they could have handled the situation in other ways than by taking down the site. They could have left it up and let the trolls get tired. They could have had more moderators. I think they just got upset that they couldn't control people.
It's harder to control people online. That is a good thing. If you don't like it, don't go online; or write some software that will filter content for you.
Maybe I don't. But the most effective way to get me to see that is to use verbal, logical terms to explain it to me. The ways they use are too easy to apply to contributions that could have value, and have been extensively so used in the past. For example: black slaves used to invent things to make their work easier, but those inventions were ignored because of social considerations.
Ha ha, it's like the strains of flu that become immune to regular antibiotics, you have to keep developing stronger and stronger medicine to deal with them...
Slashot is breeding super-trolls.
Exactly. The people arguing that AC should be removed probably have deep control issues; they don't want ANYONE to be able to see posts that they disapprove of. If they were just concerned about themselves and what they want to see, they could simply browse at a higher threshold.
The question is, why are people more rude and nasty online? It is a symptom of deeper problems that are heavily influenced by the society in which the "rude" people grew up.
Also, what is rude and nasty to you might be funny and stress-relieving to me. Why do you think that everyone agrees with your opinion of what is rude and nasty?
First of all, words do hurt (as clearly shown in the example of the NY times, which was "hurt" or damaged by the words of internet users to the extent that they had to take down a product that they had spent a lot of time developing and now will likely have to scrap)
They weren't physically hurt. This is the kind of hurt that can be compared to the type I experience when someone makes fun of me or otherwise makes me feel bad. If it's a bad thing, you should be complaining equally about all situations where people are dicks to each other in real life.
Second, it seems like everyone assumes that social constraints are generally bad things. That is wrong thinking. Social constraints exist so that we can live with each other as humans in a fashion where the amount of pain that people have to go through is lessened. Almost all situations in which these constraints are removed tend toward decay.
Social constraints have been a bad thing in my life. I am often afraid to say things in real life because I don't have a confident tone, because I'm afraid that people will ignore me or laugh at me or use emotional instead of logical arguments against me. So I build up a lot of resentment and anger inside, and I can't find an outlet to express it. It's natural that if I can do it online without having all that pernicious non-verbal feedback, I may go wild.
The problem lies with the social constraints. They are oppressing enough people, preventing us from being able to express ourselves, that when those constraints disappear (online), it causes a backlash.
The ACs are often the best thing on slashdot. Sometimes you get great AC posts from people who really know what they're talking about, but for one reason or another don't want to reveal their identities.
Saying AC is the problem is an ad hominem argument. Pay attention to the content of the post, not who says it. If the content is crap, ignore it, moderate it down and raise your viewing threshold, or use reason and logic to point out why it's crap.
Or you could just browse at +2 or +3 or something.
People say and do things they never would in person.
I don't see this as a bad thing. Why are people afraid to say things in person that they can say online? Because they fear reprisals, of a physical or social nature? Threatening physical violence is illegal and a gross overreaction to mere words. And social reprisals (ostracism, humiliation, exclusion) often are not based on logic or reason but pure emotion.
Words are just words. They don't hurt like a stick or a stone. People should feel that they can say anything they want to, at any time.
Freedom is an advantage. All other things being equal, a freer more just society will develop technology quicker, and be able to use that technology to improve their evolutionary survival fitness.
This is because arbitrary barriers to education or communication prevent contributions from geniuses or near-geniuses in the oppressed groups. All things being equal, if you remove those barriers to contribution the rate of contributions should increase.
It is in your best interests to support freedom and justice.
I'm talking about when I stand at a crosswalk, perfectly happy to wait for traffic, maybe I haven't even decided to cross there yet, and cars slow down and stop and motion me across. Why do you think they do that?
Our government exists by consent of the people. We can change that government in elections. You can run if there isn't a compassionate enough candidate, or you can support someone else who is at least slightly more compassionate.
You have a very limited view of the potential of the human race, my friend.