i have noticed myself doing this at work before, and realized that i inherited it from my father. he always goes on and on explaining things about his work (artificial lift), and just about any other topic we talk about.
i would say that extroverts are more interested in other people, and introverts are more interested in ideas.
i certainly dont think my father was just seeking my attention whenever he started talking about sucker rods and submersible pumps. he was just talking about what he is interested in, and (as a few other posts have said) was sharing it with me because he thought i might be interested in hearing it. it is the same with me whenever i explain things about computers to other people.
when i notice i'm talking about something that shows some superior knowledge of a subject, i feel like i'm gloating, and that feeling isn't one i like.
you have a mostly good point, but unfortunately terrorists aren't our number one threat. here is a list of possible real threats:
1) cancer 2) obesity 3) loss of democracy, effective dictatorship
terrorists definately want to kill us, and i am surprised they haven't yet, but look at the hard facts (and NOT/NEVER what comes out of the bush administration).
There has been one major terrorist attack on US soil. The statistical threat to any person living in the US is smaller than just about any common cause of death.
the threat of loss of life, liberty, or justice is much higher from our own government or other pitfalls of life than from terrorists.
Forever wars suck. Now is the time to (re)read 1984. Oddly enough, the proles in the US have always shown high support for elected officials whenever those officials start a perpetual war. It's really more of a marketting coup by politicians than anything else.
how the hell can you honestly believe prohibition is a good course of action regarding any harmful drug? here are some facts you might want to consider:
1. Prohibition doesn't lead to less drug use. 2. Prohibition creates most of the problems associated with drugs. 3. Drug use is more dangerous when the drug is illegal. 4. Massive rings of organized crime surrounding drug distribution are much more harmful than drug use ever could be.
I would be more than happy to elaborate on any of these points if you are still confused.
Yes, drug use is bad. But it is not even close to bad enough to justify introducing prohibition and all of the truly bad things associated with it.
instead of tug-of-war, i would consider it more of two big masses leaning on one another to hold each other up. more of a balancing system instead of a system progressing towards one side or the other
i wonder if this kind of legislation is going to help the government turn our country into enough of an "effective" police state to have a very large impact on the war on drugs. surely the government is growing tired of the inneffectivity of its current efforts. but maybe they just think they need a little bit more power to pull it off?
and here i was hoping they might choose to go the other way, and destroy the black market by giving us back some of our personal freedoms.
please remember that this is nothing more than propagandist speculation. disregard accordingly.
"Can you reconcile your beliefs with intellect, reason, history, human behavior, life experiences, etc?"
Just wanted to remind you, once again, that all extremists think they have done exactly this, and (just as you believe towards them) believe you should seek out the real truth by looking at whatever they consider the best argument for their way of thinking.
Reminds me of a quote from "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, "Those that hate goodness are sometimes nearer than those that know nothing at all about it and think they have it already."
The problem is that most people think they have truth already, and aren't going to change their opinion. People like to think they are right, and are taught from a very young age what is right and wrong. Those early lessons are very hard to overcome, whether they be of racism, violence, any particular religion, drugs, etc. The big problem is that the more extreme the actions caused by a belief, the more "undenyable truths" there must be to justify those actions.
Lets face it, as long as humans still walk the earth, there can never be "absolute truth," because everyone is forced to view the world through their own filters. Your absolute truth is just as incorrect in just as many ways as the most "insidious" people's beliefs are. Unfortunately, nothing really matters in life, so the foundations of nearly all belief systems are nonexistant. That is my personal absolute truth;)
[insert karmamongering obligatory admittance of "-1, Off Topic"-ness here]
perhaps i'm just paranoid, but wouldn't this make trcking people by a single number (by the government, the people pushing for this initiative) much more easily automated?
i assume this eternal number would be optional, but the number of people who would do it for convenience alone would save a lot of time for info trackers.
"Microsoft would have to develop the code to load and save Office documents for 5 open source office suites"
Remember that this isn't only about helping open source get on a level playing field with MS. The agreement is supposed to make sure that all competition to MS has a fair chance.
Re:What were they thinking?!
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
"Drugs kill people and releasing a movie that falsely depicts the efforts to curb the influx of these lethal substances as hopeless most certainly won't help."
Drugs don't kill people. However, drugs can kill people; just as cars can kill people. Drugs don't kill people, but irresponsible drug users do kill people, as well as drug turf wars, but not drugs.
There are two trains of logic you can take as I see it. You can either think "Ok, but if drugs didn't exist, you wouldn't have any problems. So lets law-enforce drugs into non-existence and then we won't have any drug related deaths at all." This thought seems to logically call for our country to ban drugs and try to enforce that ban. The problem with this system is that it just doesn't work. There is just way too much money in it for a fraction of our taxes to pay people to keep out -- not to mention our privacy would have to be altogether forfeited (oops, just mentioned it didn't i).
The second train of thought is the same one that the government has taken with cars. Cars are dangerous. They are big hunks of metal that we humans drive extremely fast because we are impatient. They are basically big weapons. They can rip the head off of a person with very little effort. With all of this danger, the government said "woah... we have to do something about this," just as they said at some point with drugs (but probably for an entirely different reason). To reduce the danger of drivign cars, they decided the best thing to do was to educate the public as well as possible, and implement a few limitations to keep things doubly safe. This policy has pretty much been a success. I feel somewhat safe when i'm out driving around. While car accidents (and deaths) still occur, the rules have done a good job of lessening the danger. So why not take this approach with drugs? It is clear that the WoD won't be won by the US, meaning that people won't just stop wanting to use drugs. If people are going to use them either way, why not do what you can to make it more safe? It almost seems like the government doesn't really care about us *sniffle* *sniffle*. I would be interested in hearing a US official give a good answer... What could they say?
Anyways, by showing the hopelessness of the current drug efforts, my guess would be that the creators of "Traffic" are trying to lead its viewers (after they are 'persuaded' that the current method is hopeless) to ask questions like "What else be done to fix these drug-related problems?"
but the license is a copy protection device, and the DMCA forbids circumvention of a copy protection device. you can use WinZIP to circumvent the license, so you are circumventing a copy protection device, which is illegal.
NVidia ripped us all big time. They were one of the first companies to actually have a press release about their support for Linux. After I read it, I was thrilled. The current leading video card company was going to have kick-ass 3d hardware accelerated drivers for Linux! Just as NVidia wanted, tons of Linux people went out and bought their top of the line $300 video card just because of that one pro-Linux statement. Then, NVidia pulls this bullshit. I could *almost* understand them not releasing open-source drivers, but them choosing not to use open infrastructure, and instead developing their own closed solution (that, of course, won't work with any competitiors cards, locking competition out). This kind of behavior shows quite clearly what NVidia wants, and that is control over Linux. And as for the uncertainty of NVidia not using XFree4.0's DRI, why haven't they released any correction to stop the rumor if it isn't true? Sorry NVidia, you fucked up big this time. -helo
Remember when id released the Quake source code, and all of the cheating issues that were possible because of Quake's security through obscurity model? I think there is a very high chance that the same sort of problems would occur if the source code of windows was released. that is all
Yes, it is "Marketing", but what disturbs me is that many linux companies are doing the same thing. *cough*slack*cough* I don't see the need for marketing gimmicks with free products like linux... marketing stuff just gets in the way and makes you look bad
Slashdot Mirror
i have noticed myself doing this at work before, and realized that i inherited it from my father. he always goes on and on explaining things about his work (artificial lift), and just about any other topic we talk about.
i would say that extroverts are more interested in other people, and introverts are more interested in ideas.
i certainly dont think my father was just seeking my attention whenever he started talking about sucker rods and submersible pumps. he was just talking about what he is interested in, and (as a few other posts have said) was sharing it with me because he thought i might be interested in hearing it. it is the same with me whenever i explain things about computers to other people.
when i notice i'm talking about something that shows some superior knowledge of a subject, i feel like i'm gloating, and that feeling isn't one i like.
they know that by doing this, they will get flamed in all sorts of horrible ways. maybe that is why they are doing it...
is their next move to start a smear campaign against the linux community itself?
hell, it's worth a try!
it causes economic damage to us, but it helps the global economy to allow the best (and cheapest) people for the job to do it.
let everyone find their niche, and the world will be a much much better place in the long run.
fuck this shit.
i see you avoided the flames. good job :)
you have a mostly good point, but unfortunately terrorists aren't our number one threat. here is a list of possible real threats:
1) cancer
2) obesity
3) loss of democracy, effective dictatorship
terrorists definately want to kill us, and i am surprised they haven't yet, but look at the hard facts (and NOT/NEVER what comes out of the bush administration).
There has been one major terrorist attack on US soil. The statistical threat to any person living in the US is smaller than just about any common cause of death.
the threat of loss of life, liberty, or justice is much higher from our own government or other pitfalls of life than from terrorists.
Forever wars suck. Now is the time to (re)read 1984. Oddly enough, the proles in the US have always shown high support for elected officials whenever those officials start a perpetual war. It's really more of a marketting coup by politicians than anything else.
how the hell can you honestly believe prohibition is a good course of action regarding any harmful drug? here are some facts you might want to consider:
1. Prohibition doesn't lead to less drug use.
2. Prohibition creates most of the problems associated with drugs.
3. Drug use is more dangerous when the drug is illegal.
4. Massive rings of organized crime surrounding drug distribution are much more harmful than drug use ever could be.
I would be more than happy to elaborate on any of these points if you are still confused.
Yes, drug use is bad. But it is not even close to bad enough to justify introducing prohibition and all of the truly bad things associated with it.
instead of tug-of-war, i would consider it more of two big masses leaning on one another to hold each other up. more of a balancing system instead of a system progressing towards one side or the other
i wonder if this kind of legislation is going to help the government turn our country into enough of an "effective" police state to have a very large impact on the war on drugs. surely the government is growing tired of the inneffectivity of its current efforts. but maybe they just think they need a little bit more power to pull it off?
and here i was hoping they might choose to go the other way, and destroy the black market by giving us back some of our personal freedoms.
please remember that this is nothing more than propagandist speculation. disregard accordingly.
"Can you reconcile your beliefs with intellect, reason, history, human behavior, life experiences, etc?"
;)
Just wanted to remind you, once again, that all extremists think they have done exactly this, and (just as you believe towards them) believe you should seek out the real truth by looking at whatever they consider the best argument for their way of thinking.
Reminds me of a quote from "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, "Those that hate goodness are sometimes nearer than those that know nothing at all about it and think they have it already."
The problem is that most people think they have truth already, and aren't going to change their opinion. People like to think they are right, and are taught from a very young age what is right and wrong. Those early lessons are very hard to overcome, whether they be of racism, violence, any particular religion, drugs, etc. The big problem is that the more extreme the actions caused by a belief, the more "undenyable truths" there must be to justify those actions.
Lets face it, as long as humans still walk the earth, there can never be "absolute truth," because everyone is forced to view the world through their own filters. Your absolute truth is just as incorrect in just as many ways as the most "insidious" people's beliefs are. Unfortunately, nothing really matters in life, so the foundations of nearly all belief systems are nonexistant. That is my personal absolute truth
[insert karmamongering obligatory admittance of "-1, Off Topic"-ness here]
helo
perhaps i'm just paranoid, but wouldn't this make trcking people by a single number (by the government, the people pushing for this initiative) much more easily automated?
i assume this eternal number would be optional, but the number of people who would do it for convenience alone would save a lot of time for info trackers.
eh?
"Microsoft would have to develop the code to load and save Office documents for 5 open source office suites"
Remember that this isn't only about helping open source get on a level playing field with MS. The agreement is supposed to make sure that all competition to MS has a fair chance.
"Drugs kill people and releasing a movie that falsely depicts the efforts to curb the influx of these lethal substances as hopeless most certainly won't help."
Drugs don't kill people. However, drugs can kill people; just as cars can kill people. Drugs don't kill people, but irresponsible drug users do kill people, as well as drug turf wars, but not drugs.
There are two trains of logic you can take as I see it. You can either think "Ok, but if drugs didn't exist, you wouldn't have any problems. So lets law-enforce drugs into non-existence and then we won't have any drug related deaths at all." This thought seems to logically call for our country to ban drugs and try to enforce that ban. The problem with this system is that it just doesn't work. There is just way too much money in it for a fraction of our taxes to pay people to keep out -- not to mention our privacy would have to be altogether forfeited (oops, just mentioned it didn't i).
The second train of thought is the same one that the government has taken with cars. Cars are dangerous. They are big hunks of metal that we humans drive extremely fast because we are impatient. They are basically big weapons. They can rip the head off of a person with very little effort. With all of this danger, the government said "woah... we have to do something about this," just as they said at some point with drugs (but probably for an entirely different reason). To reduce the danger of drivign cars, they decided the best thing to do was to educate the public as well as possible, and implement a few limitations to keep things doubly safe. This policy has pretty much been a success. I feel somewhat safe when i'm out driving around. While car accidents (and deaths) still occur, the rules have done a good job of lessening the danger. So why not take this approach with drugs? It is clear that the WoD won't be won by the US, meaning that people won't just stop wanting to use drugs. If people are going to use them either way, why not do what you can to make it more safe? It almost seems like the government doesn't really care about us *sniffle* *sniffle*. I would be interested in hearing a US official give a good answer... What could they say?
Anyways, by showing the hopelessness of the current drug efforts, my guess would be that the creators of "Traffic" are trying to lead its viewers (after they are 'persuaded' that the current method is hopeless) to ask questions like "What else be done to fix these drug-related problems?"
My post for the year.
but the license is a copy protection device, and the DMCA forbids circumvention of a copy protection device. you can use WinZIP to circumvent the license, so you are circumventing a copy protection device, which is illegal.
-helo
NVidia ripped us all big time. They were one of the first companies to actually have a press release about their support for Linux. After I read it, I was thrilled. The current leading video card company was going to have kick-ass 3d hardware accelerated drivers for Linux! Just as NVidia wanted, tons of Linux people went out and bought their top of the line $300 video card just because of that one pro-Linux statement. Then, NVidia pulls this bullshit. I could *almost* understand them not releasing open-source drivers, but them choosing not to use open infrastructure, and instead developing their own closed solution (that, of course, won't work with any competitiors cards, locking competition out). This kind of behavior shows quite clearly what NVidia wants, and that is control over Linux. And as for the uncertainty of NVidia not using XFree4.0's DRI, why haven't they released any correction to stop the rumor if it isn't true? Sorry NVidia, you fucked up big this time. -helo
Remember when id released the Quake source code, and all of the cheating issues that were possible because of Quake's security through obscurity model? I think there is a very high chance that the same sort of problems would occur if the source code of windows was released. that is all
Yes, it is "Marketing", but what disturbs me is that many linux companies are doing the same thing. *cough*slack*cough* I don't see the need for marketing gimmicks with free products like linux... marketing stuff just gets in the way and makes you look bad