What do you think the guy you were responding to was doing? He was trying to deflect the issue to criticism of the United States. They do it every single time. Without fail. I anticipated it...
I find it fascinating how the leftists always want to disparage the US but then defend any other country doing the same things as "cultural differences"! I guess it's just our culture to invade Iraq and stuff, right? Of course, that won't sit well for you. Rape? "Eh, it's just their culture." Murder? "Who are you to force your cultural norms and values upon another people?" Ad naseaum.
I'm not stupid. I know what sort of premises allow for that stupid kind of thinking--the type that is so democratic, that cultural bigotries where the masses oppress the minority is something to be respected or even cherished. Mob rule is mob rule, no matter what you label as "culture" or not.
Especially when I'm just as critical of this stuff occurring at home. My country, your country, it doesn't really matter to me. I have no loyalties to a flag just because I was born within certain borders.
And multi-generational dynasties are not the norm, although it was seeming to come close with the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated. We have nothing even CLOSE to a monarchy. I could see an argument for sort of-oligarchy, but a monarchy? No.
I'll bite before the apologists do that claim it's OK "because it's their culture" or some other nonsense where they try to find a way to justify individuals being oppressed by their government.
It doesn't matter how many people like the Royalty there. In fact, I would call that blind nationalism--not at all a good thing.
If the royalty there--and I know someone is going to bring it up--is so good, then why are they allowing/accepting this nonsense to be put into law? Nobody honorable anywhere allows censorship to go on in their name.
Anyway, especially in this day and age, royalty is at worst a tyranny of one family often with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity, and at best is a grandiose leech on society with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity.
The fact is that they did ask him to revise the manuscript, and he refused.
I don't know what revisions they asked him to make, but they published it anyway.
It is really refreshing and lots of fun to see that somebody, calling himself MindlessAutomata at that, can distinguish between "made-up garbage" and "outright nonsense and meaningless statements".
Oooooh! I'm treading on some po-mo toes here! Please, next response you make to me be sure to be properly verbose and wordy and to namedrop at the very least Derrida:)
No, but one of the great things about the Sokal hoax is that even a layman can read it and see that it's a joke.
Wikipedia even points out my favorite part of the paper:
Just as liberal feminists are frequently content with a minimal agenda of legal and social equality for women and 'pro-choice', so liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians are often content to work within the hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework (which, reflecting its nineteenth-century liberal origins, already incorporates the axiom of equality) supplemented only by the axiom of choice.
You pomo types really are something.
It's true Social Text wasn't a peer-reviewed journal, but that doesn't change the fact that it got through the editors--and, well, it surely says something about the necessity of peer review, doesn't it? Sokal's paper wasn't just made-up garbage, it was full of outright nonsense and meaningless statements.
That's true of most of the things that Randi "debunks" (for lack of a better word), but not really in Project Alpha. Project Alpha involved deliberately deceiving the researchers to show that their scientific controls were not strong enough.
For example:
During one type of telepathy test, a subject would be given a sealed envelope containing a picture drawn from a target pool. Left alone with the envelope, the subject would subsequently surrender the envelope to the experimenter, who would examine it for signs of tampering. The subject would then announce his selection for the target pool. This series of tests was quite successful â" though not overly so, because the boys realized that 100 percent might be suggestive of trickery. They purposely minimized their success. The method was easy. Since the envelope was âoesealedâ only with a few staples, they removed them, peeked, and then replaced the staples through the original holes! In one case, Michael lost two staples, and to cover this he opted to open the envelope himself upon confronting the experimenter. The breach of protocol was accepted. The subject had been allowed to shape the experiment.
Project Alpha was more about finding weaknesses in the testing protocols of the researchers. In fact, if you read the link, Project Alpha largely began because the researchers in question did not take Randi's advice on how to properly control for fraud and deception in such experiments. It is true that experimenter bias is a factor, but the spotlight here was on the shoddy test designs and poor protocols.
Wait, wasn't this a castle, and not a city? I don't recall those muppets as being exceptionally brilliant. Most scientists don't have magical worldviews, either.
Someone who places anonymous Skype calls to harass people is not a script kiddie anymore than someone who places harassing phone calls from a pay phone at a gas station is.
What is the point of your post? Karma whoring? It's obvious what I meant; I never said or even implied a sociopath can't be a script kiddie or vice versa.
A script kiddie just describes a certain type of "hacker", using the term loosely. Usually, by trying to overcome security measures or exploit computer flaws by using someone elses' scripting or programming knowledge, all while having little-to-no knowledge of how the program actually works or what it is doing.
I didn't mean to imply (though I did, sorry!) that it began then, mostly it became more commonplace. The AOL days was when the internet was becoming more solidified in our culture and people were starting to get home PCs and internet connections.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone can learn to love Big Brother, too...
What is it with the reverence for Dear Leader in Thailand, anyway?
Yeah, he gets to double dip. Harass dissenters, then look like the good guy in the end.
I don't see much of the right-wing apologizing for this kind of stuff, as pitiful as the American right wing is.
A lot of the left wouldn't like it, either. Most of the people whom are OK with censorship laws in other countries tend to be kooks.
Insults are free speech.
Popular enough to be, well, you know, banning youtube over criticism he doesn't really need to stifle.
What do you think the guy you were responding to was doing? He was trying to deflect the issue to criticism of the United States. They do it every single time. Without fail. I anticipated it...
I find it fascinating how the leftists always want to disparage the US but then defend any other country doing the same things as "cultural differences"! I guess it's just our culture to invade Iraq and stuff, right? Of course, that won't sit well for you.
Rape? "Eh, it's just their culture." Murder? "Who are you to force your cultural norms and values upon another people?" Ad naseaum.
I'm not stupid. I know what sort of premises allow for that stupid kind of thinking--the type that is so democratic, that cultural bigotries where the masses oppress the minority is something to be respected or even cherished. Mob rule is mob rule, no matter what you label as "culture" or not.
Especially when I'm just as critical of this stuff occurring at home. My country, your country, it doesn't really matter to me. I have no loyalties to a flag just because I was born within certain borders.
And multi-generational dynasties are not the norm, although it was seeming to come close with the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated. We have nothing even CLOSE to a monarchy. I could see an argument for sort of-oligarchy, but a monarchy? No.
I'll bite before the apologists do that claim it's OK "because it's their culture" or some other nonsense where they try to find a way to justify individuals being oppressed by their government.
It doesn't matter how many people like the Royalty there. In fact, I would call that blind nationalism--not at all a good thing.
If the royalty there--and I know someone is going to bring it up--is so good, then why are they allowing/accepting this nonsense to be put into law? Nobody honorable anywhere allows censorship to go on in their name.
Anyway, especially in this day and age, royalty is at worst a tyranny of one family often with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity, and at best is a grandiose leech on society with weird eugenical notions of bloodline purity.
If Palin came across someone apologizing for Marx in rather silly ways using rather silly excuses I think she'd be justified on those occasions, too.
I have read them, thank you.
In fact, at least one of the editors refused to believe that Sokal's work was a hoax. I think that's rather telling.
But of course, that doesn't really matter now, does it? Reality is just a social construction and all, right?
Oh! YOU were the one that posted this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1003069&cid=25458011
How enlightening this all is!
The fact is that they did ask him to revise the manuscript, and he refused.
I don't know what revisions they asked him to make, but they published it anyway.
It is really refreshing and lots of fun to see that somebody, calling himself MindlessAutomata at that, can distinguish between "made-up garbage" and "outright nonsense and meaningless statements".
Oooooh! I'm treading on some po-mo toes here! Please, next response you make to me be sure to be properly verbose and wordy and to namedrop at the very least Derrida :)
No, but one of the great things about the Sokal hoax is that even a layman can read it and see that it's a joke.
Wikipedia even points out my favorite part of the paper:
Just as liberal feminists are frequently content with a minimal agenda of legal and social equality for women and 'pro-choice', so liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians are often content to work within the hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework (which, reflecting its nineteenth-century liberal origins, already incorporates the axiom of equality) supplemented only by the axiom of choice.
You pomo types really are something.
It's true Social Text wasn't a peer-reviewed journal, but that doesn't change the fact that it got through the editors--and, well, it surely says something about the necessity of peer review, doesn't it? Sokal's paper wasn't just made-up garbage, it was full of outright nonsense and meaningless statements.
Do we have a postmodernist on Slashdot?
That's true of most of the things that Randi "debunks" (for lack of a better word), but not really in Project Alpha. Project Alpha involved deliberately deceiving the researchers to show that their scientific controls were not strong enough.
For example:
During one type of telepathy test, a subject would be given a sealed envelope containing a picture drawn from a target pool. Left alone with the envelope, the subject would subsequently surrender the envelope to the experimenter, who would examine it for signs of tampering. The subject would then announce his selection for the target pool. This series of tests was quite successful â" though not overly so, because the boys realized that 100 percent might be suggestive of trickery. They purposely minimized their success. The method was easy. Since the envelope was âoesealedâ only with a few staples, they removed them, peeked, and then replaced the staples through the original holes! In one case, Michael lost two staples, and to cover this he opted to open the envelope himself upon confronting the experimenter. The breach of protocol was accepted. The subject had been allowed to shape the experiment.
Project Alpha was more about finding weaknesses in the testing protocols of the researchers. In fact, if you read the link, Project Alpha largely began because the researchers in question did not take Randi's advice on how to properly control for fraud and deception in such experiments. It is true that experimenter bias is a factor, but the spotlight here was on the shoddy test designs and poor protocols.
Well, some of these hoaxes, like the hilarious Sokal hoax, weren't really scientific hoaxes moreso than exposing the idiocy of certain groups.
So, if you want to go down that route (and I see no reason not too!) then you MUST bring up the venerable James Randi.
Project Alpha humiliated a bunch of paranormal researchers and parapsychologists because of how easily fooled they were.
Banachek has a good article on his website:
http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm
The most interesting thing is that some people were such True Believers in the supposed "powers" of Banachek and Edwards that they continued to believe in them even after revealing it was all just an exposé. The most important thing was that it reveals that while many scientists in this area just didn't properly account for outright fraud; I would guess it is because most experiments do not have to worry about participants purposefully trying to mess with the results.
Wait, wasn't this a castle, and not a city? I don't recall those muppets as being exceptionally brilliant. Most scientists don't have magical worldviews, either.
How do you know the individual in question is even the culprit?
I'm surprised that the school hasn't yet done anything about having their computers broken into. How exactly was all this done?
Someone who places anonymous Skype calls to harass people is not a script kiddie anymore than someone who places harassing phone calls from a pay phone at a gas station is.
What is the point of your post? Karma whoring? It's obvious what I meant; I never said or even implied a sociopath can't be a script kiddie or vice versa.
A script kiddie just describes a certain type of "hacker", using the term loosely. Usually, by trying to overcome security measures or exploit computer flaws by using someone elses' scripting or programming knowledge, all while having little-to-no knowledge of how the program actually works or what it is doing.
Usually they'd be pissing-their-pants scared to rat them out because they know it'd be highly likely that they'd get a hit put on their head.
I have to admit, I do look upon some of my script kiddie days with a bit of nostalgia as well :)
Heh, some say the moon landing never happened. I say it did. I'm sure that common ground can be found, though, in wishing that AOL never happened.
I didn't mean to imply (though I did, sorry!) that it began then, mostly it became more commonplace. The AOL days was when the internet was becoming more solidified in our culture and people were starting to get home PCs and internet connections.
That's not what a "script kiddie" is. Sociopathic asshole, yes; script kiddie, no.