What prompted you to identify CentOS's reply as "not getting things off on the right foot", rather than starting at the beginning, with Taylor's initial email?
If you're going to blame the entire mess on the first person to act ignorant and abusive, then CentOS is clearly nothing more than a victim. Their response was clearly provoked from the very beginning by Taylor's bad attitude.
Raytheon has always been staffed by human beings, and human beings as a group have always exhibited a wide range of behaviors and abilities. There's bound to be someone like Taylor in every large organization. Raytheon is no more scary today than it was last week, or than it will be next year.
Instead of judging an organization by one incompetent person who's not even a member anymore, try judging them by their overall track record. For example, Raytheon built the Apollo Guidance Computer, then the most advanced digital computer in existence. The AGC served throughout the Apollo Program with zero failures--in spite of Raytheon being staffed partly by idiots. Surely that is a better measure of Raytheon's mettle, neh?
Then, to make matters worse, he talked to a 'network administrator', who thanks to MS always refering to windows admins as 'network administrators' is a just a windows admin.
That's funny. I've never heard anyone refer to a Windows admin as a "network administrator". Every tech company I've ever worked for has had plenty of both and never gotten the two confused. Microsoft itself refers to its certified admins as "Microsoft Windows Systems Adminstrators" in all its official correspondence.
Besides, there are plenty of real network adminstrators out there. What evidence do you have that Tuttle, OK's network is being adminstered by a Windows admin?
I also never said there would be no effect. I did say that I expect the effect to be measurable, but insignificant. That is, given a large enough fleet, we would be able to detect its impact on the "overall worldwide ecosystem", but that its impact would be insignificant.
I mean, look at what Kyoto specifies: that if we engage in radical and immediate de-industrialization (which would result in suffering and death for millions of people, by the way), we could potentially affect global temperatures by as much as one or two degrees over a hundred-year period. We're talking about whole industries: factories, power plants, etc. That's barely a significant change, and even then it's looking likely that global temperature trends are the result of forces beyond our control, and our own activities will mean very little in the long run one way or the other.
Which is why I'm betting that a fleet of scramjets--whether it be four or four score--will make a measurable impact in the sense that we are capable of measuring even very tiny things, but that this impact will in no way be a significant impact on the "overall worldwide ecosystem".
I could be wrong, though: what's been the impact of the huge fleets of passenger jets over the years? Measurable? Significant?
Me, I see the military applications as a necessary and inevitable precursor to the civilian applications. So where you say it's too bad that the military will start applying the technology first, I say it's nice that the development of the technology is proceeding in the customary fashion: from "idea so crazy it just might work" through "obvious military applications" to "proven technology mature enough to be safe for human use".
I mean, the military already has the funding, the motivation, and the experience to carry out this kind of R&D. Plus, they have a compelling reason to develop the technology long before it becomes profitable. That's a huge benefit right there.
Instead of saying it's too bad the military develops new technology, I'm saying it's a good thing the military develops new technology.
Yeah sure, too bad the first use of scramjets will be in missile weapons.
Why is that too bad? It's a given that the technology will be practical long before it's mature enough to be considered safe for human use. So weapons applications are guaranteed to come online first anyway.
And every dollar the military-industrial complex spends perfecting its scramjet-based weapons systems is a dollar spent on R&D towards a safe, profitable, commercial passenger scramjet.
And it will be far from the first time things have worked out this way. Good things flow out of military research all the time. From medicines to materials to machines, not a day goes by that your life has not been made better in some way courtesy of the military-industrial complex.
I wonder what a fleet of exo-atmospheric scrajets transports would do to the atmosphere. Do we have any idea about the potential impact to 'GAIA'?
Given that we live in the real world, and not the world of the X-Files, The Matrix, or Final Fantasy, I'm betting the potential impact will be measurable but insignificant.
the V2 was little more than a predecessor to the SCUD missile
The V2 was also the predecessor to the Saturn V, one of the most powerful and sophisticated rockets ever--indeed, the two launch vehicles were designed by the same man. I'd say that makes it a lot more than a predecessor to the SCUD missile.
Re:Flight Data: San Francisco to London
on
New Jet Engine Tested
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
since it doesn't have enough oxygen in the system below mach five for the oxidation of the fuel
This has always bothered me: If the jet must already be traveling at high speed to operate, then how does it get up to high speed in the first place?
Sometimes originality is unavoidable; you have to come up with a radically new solution to some radically new problem.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily desireable.
What you want in a rocket design is something stable and proven; something that's known to get the job done and not known to blow up.
Maybe the problem is that "science" isn't really the best term for what SpaceX is doing. Their ultimate goal isn't to invent a new rocket, but rather to profit from selling rocket launch services. Designing a new rocket from scratch, isntead of building on existing designs, will delay achievement of that goal.
But hey, I'm not a rocket scientist. I could be wrong. We'll see in about a decade or so. NASA's new rocket design is based on the SSME, which is based on the Saturn V's F-1 engine. It'll be interesting to see which design ends up being more influential and more widely used... Who knows? SpaceX might be onto something. It's obvious they think so, even if I have my doubts.
My argument is that to the extent that gravity-wave comm technology is hard to use, it will not be quickly adopted except in extreme cases where the necessity outweighs the cost.
You brought up fiber-optics as a counter-example, and the thread since then has been devoted to me demonstrating that in fact fiber-optics seem to follow the same constraints of difficulty and necessity that I predict for gravity-wave comm systems.
It was 6.7 million bucks for the satellite, a whopping 6.7 / 300 = 2.2 cents per person in the United States.
Which would be totally fine with me, if this was the only place in the budget where this kind of bureaucratic math was being applied to falsely imply justification for incompetence or corruption.
I'm sure this sum total of this kind of thinking adds a good several hundred dollars to my annual tax burden.
I never said that this particular communication was carried out via fiber optics.
In fact, I do not know, but merely assume, that fiber optics were involved at some point in this communication.
However, I do know that there is no fiber-optic network cable connecting my workstation to my LAN, and I do know that there is no fiber-optic network cable connecting my LAN to my service provider. So clearly the expense (i.e., the difficulty) of implementing fiber-optic comm solutions is still too great for my employer to justify.
The same thing is true at home: I know there's no fiber between my workstation and my router, and I know there's no fiber between my router and my modem, and no fiber between my modem and my phone jack, and no fiber between my phone jack and the phone line drop from the pole outside, and no fiber between that drop and the next nearest phone company networking device. And this is because of the difficulty/expense of implementing the fiber technology, which makes it unjustifiable for my personal networking needs. Which is almost exactly what I said.
Perhaps my only mistake was assuming you and I belonged to the same set. Was I mistaken about that? Have you implemented fiber-optics for your personal networking needs? Has your employer implemented fiber-optics in their corporate LAN?
It seems to me that fiber is still to expensive to be justified for anything other than industrial applications such as high-volume SANs, where economies of scale and high demand combine to justify the extra difficulty/expense of the implementation.
The average user would not need to know how difficult it was to get the technology to work,
Ah, but the average user would end up knowing anyway, as the difficulty would be reflected in the exorbitant price. As far as I know "difficulty getting the technology to work" = "expensive technology". The greater the expense, the greater the need for such a solution would have to be, to justify the expense.
any more than you or I need to know how difficult it was to get fiber-optics to work.
In fact, fiber-optics are an excellent example: you and I may not know how difficult the technology is, but we do know that it's still too expensive to justify using it to meet our personal comm needs.
Now, would you care to comment on the likelihood that the scientists conducting this research thought of these same factors, and accounted for them in their experimental methodology?
(a) hard to detect; (b) not blocked by much of anything, e.g. usable by submarines, deep-shaft miners, and networks that don't want to either lay cable or launch satellites.
I'm sorry, but you kind of lost me at "hard to detect".
If it's hard to detect, wouldn't that make it hard for submarines, miners, and networks to actually use it?
Last time I checked, things that were hard to use don't generate a lot of demand for their use.
I mean, while it might come in handy for nations waging war on enemies incapable of overcoming the detection difficulty, such enemies would probably be stumped by legacy communications technology (and other advanced weapons technology) anyway, so going to the extra trouble of gravitizing your comms would still be a waste of resources.
Enh. It seems much more likely that there is something dark and evil in human nature, alongside something bright and good. Sometimes we get a monster, sometimes we get a saint. Either way, we always get an unadulterated human being. No need to postulate space aliens. Occam's razor, etc.
Oh yay.. let's all go back to the mainframe days. Those times were great. You know... the single point of failure... the times when someone ran a resource hog and everyone was screwed... the times when annoying UNIX operators were still there in dark rooms hacking away at an ugly console.
Totally! Not only have none of these problems ever been solved, but it's obvious that these problems will never be solved!
I mean, unless computers get a lot smaller, cheaper, and more efficient, we'll never be able to overcome the single point of failure problem, because we won't be able to afford the extra space, power, and funding requirements for multiple redundant servers!
And it's a safe bet that nobody has any idea at all how to manage potential resource hogs on a shared system! Not only that, but it's a safe bet that nobody will ever have any idea at all how to manage resource hogging! We've reached the outer limits of that particular field for sure!
Finally, it's clear that consoles and work areas haven't changed at all since the first mainframes were developed, and that these things won't ever change at all in the future! Again, we're at our wit's end when it comes to user interfaces and operating environments!
Perhaps you should give the AjaxWrite people a call, so you can laugh your ass off at their stupid and unworkable solutions to the impossible problems you have so wisely identified.
All of this innuendo and supposition about Bush's motives and goals would be a lot more compelling if there were any evidence at all that Bush was serious about establishing himself as a dictator.
When the 2008 elections come and go, with no martial law, no Constitutional amendments allowing Bush to serve additonal terms, etc., will you then finally admit that this has all been politics as usual, rather than a headlong slide into fascism?
To the extent that a foreign and hostile power is infiltrating a nation's governmental and cultural institutions for the purposes of espionage, propaganda, and revolution--to that extent I accept a nation's persecution of such spies, propagandists, and revolutionaries.
To the extent that free citizens are persecuted simply on account of their ideology, I oppose such persecution.
McCarthy's campaign resulted in both the persecution of very real spies and traitors, and in the persecution of people whose only crime was to espouse the ideology of the foreign and hateful power in question.
Given what we know today about Soviet Communism in general, Stalinism in particular, and the U.S.S.R.'s very real and very extensive espionage operations, it doesn't surprise me at all that there would be some spill-over from the legitimate suspects to innocent (or ignorant) fellow-travelers. I'm sure you know better than I how complicit the average American socialist was in Stalin's covert war of ideology. My guess is, not nearly as complicit as most people think, but in hindsight rather more complicit than anyone should like.
Luckily, McCarthyism petered out soon enough. The Soviet program did little lasting damage. In America today, socialists such as yourself are free to say whatever they want. This is all as it should be. I'm just glad it turned out for better, and not for worse.
Brooks responded that you can't fight a dictator by getting up on a soap box... But what you can do and what works is to make them look ridiculous.
True enough, when you're fighting a dictator.
So, in this case you paint the administration as a bunch of goose stepping blockheads who are besotted with fascism.
It seems to me that if the administration really were dictatorial in nature, you'd have to wait until they were out of power and their regime had failed, in order to begin with the ridicule.
The fact that all this ridicule is going on in public, by free citizens, with no reprisals, strongly suggests that the administration has not actually established any kind of dictatorship at all.
Which leads pretty much instantly to the reasonable conclusion that you're not ridiculing Bush because he's a dictator, but rather because you have neither evidence of a dictatorship nor any other reasonable argument against him, and are therefore reduced to cheap and unsubstantiated smears.
But please, don't be ashamed. I totally understand: "It's not the way our system is supposed to work, but it's the way politics works."
*The correct response to anyone opposed to physician-assisted suicide is to kick them in the balls as hard as you can. Twice. And then drag them bound and gagged to visit the terminally ill.
Really? I would have thought that the correct response was to engage them in dialogue, do what you can to change their mind through reason and respect, and then move on (perhaps to communicating your ideals to the rest of your neighbors, in order to ensure that your opponent's propaganda does not go unopposed).
You obviously have a strong emotional reaction to the topic of euthanasia. Your strong feelings seem to have led to you advocate violent physical attacks, kidnapping, incarceration, and forced "good citizenship" against people who disagree with you on this issue. I find your willingness to let your emotions guide you in this way disturbing and hateful.
Remember: Emotions are great for telling you that something needs to be done. But they totally suck for telling you what needs to be done, and why.
Slashdot Mirror
What prompted you to identify CentOS's reply as "not getting things off on the right foot", rather than starting at the beginning, with Taylor's initial email?
If you're going to blame the entire mess on the first person to act ignorant and abusive, then CentOS is clearly nothing more than a victim. Their response was clearly provoked from the very beginning by Taylor's bad attitude.
Not really.
Raytheon has always been staffed by human beings, and human beings as a group have always exhibited a wide range of behaviors and abilities. There's bound to be someone like Taylor in every large organization. Raytheon is no more scary today than it was last week, or than it will be next year.
Instead of judging an organization by one incompetent person who's not even a member anymore, try judging them by their overall track record. For example, Raytheon built the Apollo Guidance Computer, then the most advanced digital computer in existence. The AGC served throughout the Apollo Program with zero failures--in spite of Raytheon being staffed partly by idiots. Surely that is a better measure of Raytheon's mettle, neh?
Then, to make matters worse, he talked to a 'network administrator', who thanks to MS always refering to windows admins as 'network administrators' is a just a windows admin.
That's funny. I've never heard anyone refer to a Windows admin as a "network administrator". Every tech company I've ever worked for has had plenty of both and never gotten the two confused. Microsoft itself refers to its certified admins as "Microsoft Windows Systems Adminstrators" in all its official correspondence.
Besides, there are plenty of real network adminstrators out there. What evidence do you have that Tuttle, OK's network is being adminstered by a Windows admin?
I'm pretty sure that's what you meant.
I also never said there would be no effect. I did say that I expect the effect to be measurable, but insignificant. That is, given a large enough fleet, we would be able to detect its impact on the "overall worldwide ecosystem", but that its impact would be insignificant.
I mean, look at what Kyoto specifies: that if we engage in radical and immediate de-industrialization (which would result in suffering and death for millions of people, by the way), we could potentially affect global temperatures by as much as one or two degrees over a hundred-year period. We're talking about whole industries: factories, power plants, etc. That's barely a significant change, and even then it's looking likely that global temperature trends are the result of forces beyond our control, and our own activities will mean very little in the long run one way or the other.
Which is why I'm betting that a fleet of scramjets--whether it be four or four score--will make a measurable impact in the sense that we are capable of measuring even very tiny things, but that this impact will in no way be a significant impact on the "overall worldwide ecosystem".
I could be wrong, though: what's been the impact of the huge fleets of passenger jets over the years? Measurable? Significant?
I guess it depends how you look at it.
Me, I see the military applications as a necessary and inevitable precursor to the civilian applications. So where you say it's too bad that the military will start applying the technology first, I say it's nice that the development of the technology is proceeding in the customary fashion: from "idea so crazy it just might work" through "obvious military applications" to "proven technology mature enough to be safe for human use".
I mean, the military already has the funding, the motivation, and the experience to carry out this kind of R&D. Plus, they have a compelling reason to develop the technology long before it becomes profitable. That's a huge benefit right there.
Instead of saying it's too bad the military develops new technology, I'm saying it's a good thing the military develops new technology.
Yeah sure, too bad the first use of scramjets will be in missile weapons.
Why is that too bad? It's a given that the technology will be practical long before it's mature enough to be considered safe for human use. So weapons applications are guaranteed to come online first anyway.
And every dollar the military-industrial complex spends perfecting its scramjet-based weapons systems is a dollar spent on R&D towards a safe, profitable, commercial passenger scramjet.
And it will be far from the first time things have worked out this way. Good things flow out of military research all the time. From medicines to materials to machines, not a day goes by that your life has not been made better in some way courtesy of the military-industrial complex.
I wonder what a fleet of exo-atmospheric scrajets transports would do to the atmosphere. Do we have any idea about the potential impact to 'GAIA'?
Given that we live in the real world, and not the world of the X-Files, The Matrix, or Final Fantasy, I'm betting the potential impact will be measurable but insignificant.
the V2 was little more than a predecessor to the SCUD missile
The V2 was also the predecessor to the Saturn V, one of the most powerful and sophisticated rockets ever--indeed, the two launch vehicles were designed by the same man. I'd say that makes it a lot more than a predecessor to the SCUD missile.
since it doesn't have enough oxygen in the system below mach five for the oxidation of the fuel
This has always bothered me: If the jet must already be traveling at high speed to operate, then how does it get up to high speed in the first place?
Sometimes originality is unavoidable; you have to come up with a radically new solution to some radically new problem.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily desireable.
What you want in a rocket design is something stable and proven; something that's known to get the job done and not known to blow up.
Maybe the problem is that "science" isn't really the best term for what SpaceX is doing. Their ultimate goal isn't to invent a new rocket, but rather to profit from selling rocket launch services. Designing a new rocket from scratch, isntead of building on existing designs, will delay achievement of that goal.
But hey, I'm not a rocket scientist. I could be wrong. We'll see in about a decade or so. NASA's new rocket design is based on the SSME, which is based on the Saturn V's F-1 engine. It'll be interesting to see which design ends up being more influential and more widely used... Who knows? SpaceX might be onto something. It's obvious they think so, even if I have my doubts.
My argument is that to the extent that gravity-wave comm technology is hard to use, it will not be quickly adopted except in extreme cases where the necessity outweighs the cost.
You brought up fiber-optics as a counter-example, and the thread since then has been devoted to me demonstrating that in fact fiber-optics seem to follow the same constraints of difficulty and necessity that I predict for gravity-wave comm systems.
It was 6.7 million bucks for the satellite, a whopping 6.7 / 300 = 2.2 cents per person in the United States.
Which would be totally fine with me, if this was the only place in the budget where this kind of bureaucratic math was being applied to falsely imply justification for incompetence or corruption.
I'm sure this sum total of this kind of thinking adds a good several hundred dollars to my annual tax burden.
Sounds like the early days of any space program.
I noticed from TFA that SpaceX was touting this as the first totally new rocket design.
On that basis alone I'd expect it to be plagued with problems for several more iterations.
I'm pretty sure originality is not a desireable feature in rocket science.
I never said that this particular communication was carried out via fiber optics.
In fact, I do not know, but merely assume, that fiber optics were involved at some point in this communication.
However, I do know that there is no fiber-optic network cable connecting my workstation to my LAN, and I do know that there is no fiber-optic network cable connecting my LAN to my service provider. So clearly the expense (i.e., the difficulty) of implementing fiber-optic comm solutions is still too great for my employer to justify.
The same thing is true at home: I know there's no fiber between my workstation and my router, and I know there's no fiber between my router and my modem, and no fiber between my modem and my phone jack, and no fiber between my phone jack and the phone line drop from the pole outside, and no fiber between that drop and the next nearest phone company networking device. And this is because of the difficulty/expense of implementing the fiber technology, which makes it unjustifiable for my personal networking needs. Which is almost exactly what I said.
Perhaps my only mistake was assuming you and I belonged to the same set. Was I mistaken about that? Have you implemented fiber-optics for your personal networking needs? Has your employer implemented fiber-optics in their corporate LAN?
It seems to me that fiber is still to expensive to be justified for anything other than industrial applications such as high-volume SANs, where economies of scale and high demand combine to justify the extra difficulty/expense of the implementation.
The average user would not need to know how difficult it was to get the technology to work,
Ah, but the average user would end up knowing anyway, as the difficulty would be reflected in the exorbitant price. As far as I know "difficulty getting the technology to work" = "expensive technology". The greater the expense, the greater the need for such a solution would have to be, to justify the expense.
any more than you or I need to know how difficult it was to get fiber-optics to work.
In fact, fiber-optics are an excellent example: you and I may not know how difficult the technology is, but we do know that it's still too expensive to justify using it to meet our personal comm needs.
Fair enough. And I loved that movie, by the way.
All good points.
Now, would you care to comment on the likelihood that the scientists conducting this research thought of these same factors, and accounted for them in their experimental methodology?
(a) hard to detect; (b) not blocked by much of anything, e.g. usable by submarines, deep-shaft miners, and networks that don't want to either lay cable or launch satellites.
I'm sorry, but you kind of lost me at "hard to detect".
If it's hard to detect, wouldn't that make it hard for submarines, miners, and networks to actually use it?
Last time I checked, things that were hard to use don't generate a lot of demand for their use.
I mean, while it might come in handy for nations waging war on enemies incapable of overcoming the detection difficulty, such enemies would probably be stumped by legacy communications technology (and other advanced weapons technology) anyway, so going to the extra trouble of gravitizing your comms would still be a waste of resources.
Enh. It seems much more likely that there is something dark and evil in human nature, alongside something bright and good. Sometimes we get a monster, sometimes we get a saint. Either way, we always get an unadulterated human being. No need to postulate space aliens. Occam's razor, etc.
Oh yay.. let's all go back to the mainframe days. Those times were great. You know... the single point of failure... the times when someone ran a resource hog and everyone was screwed... the times when annoying UNIX operators were still there in dark rooms hacking away at an ugly console.
Totally! Not only have none of these problems ever been solved, but it's obvious that these problems will never be solved!
I mean, unless computers get a lot smaller, cheaper, and more efficient, we'll never be able to overcome the single point of failure problem, because we won't be able to afford the extra space, power, and funding requirements for multiple redundant servers!
And it's a safe bet that nobody has any idea at all how to manage potential resource hogs on a shared system! Not only that, but it's a safe bet that nobody will ever have any idea at all how to manage resource hogging! We've reached the outer limits of that particular field for sure!
Finally, it's clear that consoles and work areas haven't changed at all since the first mainframes were developed, and that these things won't ever change at all in the future! Again, we're at our wit's end when it comes to user interfaces and operating environments!
Perhaps you should give the AjaxWrite people a call, so you can laugh your ass off at their stupid and unworkable solutions to the impossible problems you have so wisely identified.
Either way, how is this a "rights" issue, or an "online" issue?
All of this innuendo and supposition about Bush's motives and goals would be a lot more compelling if there were any evidence at all that Bush was serious about establishing himself as a dictator.
When the 2008 elections come and go, with no martial law, no Constitutional amendments allowing Bush to serve additonal terms, etc., will you then finally admit that this has all been politics as usual, rather than a headlong slide into fascism?
To the extent that a foreign and hostile power is infiltrating a nation's governmental and cultural institutions for the purposes of espionage, propaganda, and revolution--to that extent I accept a nation's persecution of such spies, propagandists, and revolutionaries.
To the extent that free citizens are persecuted simply on account of their ideology, I oppose such persecution.
McCarthy's campaign resulted in both the persecution of very real spies and traitors, and in the persecution of people whose only crime was to espouse the ideology of the foreign and hateful power in question.
Given what we know today about Soviet Communism in general, Stalinism in particular, and the U.S.S.R.'s very real and very extensive espionage operations, it doesn't surprise me at all that there would be some spill-over from the legitimate suspects to innocent (or ignorant) fellow-travelers. I'm sure you know better than I how complicit the average American socialist was in Stalin's covert war of ideology. My guess is, not nearly as complicit as most people think, but in hindsight rather more complicit than anyone should like.
Luckily, McCarthyism petered out soon enough. The Soviet program did little lasting damage. In America today, socialists such as yourself are free to say whatever they want. This is all as it should be. I'm just glad it turned out for better, and not for worse.
Brooks responded that you can't fight a dictator by getting up on a soap box... But what you can do and what works is to make them look ridiculous.
True enough, when you're fighting a dictator.
So, in this case you paint the administration as a bunch of goose stepping blockheads who are besotted with fascism.
It seems to me that if the administration really were dictatorial in nature, you'd have to wait until they were out of power and their regime had failed, in order to begin with the ridicule.
The fact that all this ridicule is going on in public, by free citizens, with no reprisals, strongly suggests that the administration has not actually established any kind of dictatorship at all.
Which leads pretty much instantly to the reasonable conclusion that you're not ridiculing Bush because he's a dictator, but rather because you have neither evidence of a dictatorship nor any other reasonable argument against him, and are therefore reduced to cheap and unsubstantiated smears.
But please, don't be ashamed. I totally understand: "It's not the way our system is supposed to work, but it's the way politics works."
*The correct response to anyone opposed to physician-assisted suicide is to kick them in the balls as hard as you can. Twice. And then drag them bound and gagged to visit the terminally ill.
Really? I would have thought that the correct response was to engage them in dialogue, do what you can to change their mind through reason and respect, and then move on (perhaps to communicating your ideals to the rest of your neighbors, in order to ensure that your opponent's propaganda does not go unopposed).
You obviously have a strong emotional reaction to the topic of euthanasia. Your strong feelings seem to have led to you advocate violent physical attacks, kidnapping, incarceration, and forced "good citizenship" against people who disagree with you on this issue. I find your willingness to let your emotions guide you in this way disturbing and hateful.
Remember: Emotions are great for telling you that something needs to be done. But they totally suck for telling you what needs to be done, and why.