I don't know, what do you consider better? Activists brought us womens' suffrage, the eight hour work day, workplace safety laws, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, equal rights, the minimum wage, desegregation, and much much more. What bad things have activists done, in your opinion?
As Encyclopedia Dramatica is about the most sophomoric, unfunny web site I've ever seen, don't expect me to rush out and listen to some nobody that they happen to list.
Let me know when good old Chris Morris has won three Peabody Awards and three Emmy Awards like Stephen has, and I might actually check him out. Just think, at this very minute, someone somewhere is watching the Colbert Report and laughing at people just like you.
Right, because it is so nonsensical not only to want clean energy. Let's laugh at people because making clean energy is sometimes harder and more complicated than it looks. Yes, that makes all the sense in the world, as does lumping all activists together and tarring them all with the same brush.
Really? All activists want to prevent you from being happy? I mean, you despise every cause on the planet? Or is it only activists you disagree with that piss you off? Maybe everyone but you and people you agree with should just shut the hell up, is that what you'd like?
Most of the time, your happy being different doesn't make you wrong in most activists' eyes. But it depends: does your happy involve oppressing others for your own profit? Does it involve polluting? You don't get to have a happy that hurts other people, sorry.
Who says activists never compromise? I think maybe the reason you've never seen compromise is that you are unwilling to compromise. Compromise takes two willing parties, you know. Despite what you may think, "Do what I say," and "Shut up and stop complaining that I'm fucking you over," are not actually compromises.
Who the fuck is Chris Morris? Wiki lists a bunch of Chris Morrises, but none of them are humorists.
Does it burn inside, knowing that most of the country loves Stephen Colbert? Does it hurt a little when you consider how many awards he's won? When you picture huge nationwide audiences laughing at conservative stupidity, does that make you angry? I know it does.
If I were you, I'd shut up now. You are just giving me more ammunition to use in making fun of and goading you. But if you want to dig yourself in deeper, I'm game!
Stupid people have existed in every group, every movement, every race and nation, for all time. For instance, a lot of stupid people like Ron Paul. A lot of stupid people like Obama, and McCain. There are just a lot of stupid people. It isn't smart to judge a group by the stupid people that support it, but by the smart people who do.
As for laughing at activists, the only people I've met who consider that worthwhile are people who haven't done anything good and decent with their lives, and resent people who have. But whatever, go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place if that helps you sleep at night.
You know, plugging your ears and yelling, "You're not the boss of me!" when your elders try to give you honest advice simply isn't very mature.
And the US has allowed tyrants, massive corruption, and wholesale slaughter for the last 100 years as much if not more than any other country. Look at the history of Central and South America: we have a nasty habit of helping overthrow democratically elected socialist governments and installing US friendly tyrannical madmen.
Honest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions from not being honest. What's the repercussions for these lawmakers for corrupting their office? Additional campaign contributions?
Dishonest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions. Honest men are honest because that's what feels right to them. Politicians are kept honest by burying them up to the neck in sand, head first.
What facts? You are presenting opinions. The facts that you can't distinguish your opinions from facts is frightening.
First, we are not providing for the defense of these countries. If we weren't around, who exactly do you think would be taking over the rest of the free world, and how?
You don't understand: these countries aren't left or super left by world standards, they are centrist. We are super-right.
What good have we done for the planet? More opinion, not fact.
Gosh, Hal, do you think that a website with the motto, "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Bias in Media," might itself be a little biased? You don't suppose they could be cherry picking their data, and only presenting studies that support their agenda, do you?
No, of course not. There are smart conservatives, just not as many. The problem is that reality has a liberal bias. The more you understand reality, the more liberal you are likely to be.
The people who control the networks, editors and CEOs, are conservative. They hire liberal journalists because they have no choice, there aren't enough conservative journalists to do the job.
So, you blame the fellow putting up the protest notice? The boycott notice is a relatively small part of the page. It's not over the top or crazy, simply one guy putting his opinion on his project page. Why is he to blame for this? Should we all censor ourselves lest we offend someone? Maybe we should protest only in the properly marked official protest spaces?
All I am saying is that it is easier to shift a bunch of bits to give an optimal reward cycle than it is to shift, say, a rock-face to do the same thing. I'm claiming nothing about the absolute level of enjoyment one can get out of any pleasurable activity.
Certainly fun things can be addictive, but as a glaring example, both rock climbing and sex have a natural end-point, you get to the top and that's it for right then. Sure you can come own and do it all over again, but then the body has it's natural limits. You feel tired and fulfilled, and you don't feel like you need any more for a while.
Not so with games like WoW, which are specifically designed to be addictive. You can keep playing until you die from starvation, and people have.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
Wow, WHOOSH on me, that's the next line of the quote...
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Funny
And for his next act, Captain Obvious will explain the dangers of stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork!
But how frequently is a sunny beach going to hit your reward centers? Is it going to let off for a little bit and then hit again, or is it going to stay at the same level of stimulus pretty constantly, fading into the background? Video games can be engineered to be addictive in a way that no non-interactive media or experience can be. Not everyone who tries crack goes on to be a crack addict, either. Addictive tendencies run in families. Likely, people who have these tendencies already know they do, which is why a subtle, "Hey? You know how you get obsessed about certain things to the detriment of the rest of your life? Yeah, this may be one of those things, you may want to pace yourself," is enough. Forewarned is forearmed. For most people, it won't be an issue anyway.
Some things are more prone to cause addiciton than others. Video games are not just simple escapism, they are specifically designed to hit our reward centers in consistent ways. They can be very addicting. But that is no reason to impose any kind of rules or restrictions on them. It is simply a reason to educate people. "Hey, you might want to watch yourself if you play video games, and just make sure they aren't taking over your life to the detriment of your job, health and relationships."
That is really the most that needs to be done for ANY addictive substance. Any other 'solution' causes more problems than it cures.
It doesn't help you at all. The author of that article was attempting to make himself look smart and revolutionary. I was just trying to explain what he was saying so people like you could point out what was ACTUALLY stupid about the article, rather than what was stupid about the imaginary article in their heads.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, what do you consider better? Activists brought us womens' suffrage, the eight hour work day, workplace safety laws, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, equal rights, the minimum wage, desegregation, and much much more. What bad things have activists done, in your opinion?
As Encyclopedia Dramatica is about the most sophomoric, unfunny web site I've ever seen, don't expect me to rush out and listen to some nobody that they happen to list.
Let me know when good old Chris Morris has won three Peabody Awards and three Emmy Awards like Stephen has, and I might actually check him out. Just think, at this very minute, someone somewhere is watching the Colbert Report and laughing at people just like you.
Right, because it is so nonsensical not only to want clean energy. Let's laugh at people because making clean energy is sometimes harder and more complicated than it looks. Yes, that makes all the sense in the world, as does lumping all activists together and tarring them all with the same brush.
Really? All activists want to prevent you from being happy? I mean, you despise every cause on the planet? Or is it only activists you disagree with that piss you off? Maybe everyone but you and people you agree with should just shut the hell up, is that what you'd like?
Most of the time, your happy being different doesn't make you wrong in most activists' eyes. But it depends: does your happy involve oppressing others for your own profit? Does it involve polluting? You don't get to have a happy that hurts other people, sorry.
Who says activists never compromise? I think maybe the reason you've never seen compromise is that you are unwilling to compromise. Compromise takes two willing parties, you know. Despite what you may think, "Do what I say," and "Shut up and stop complaining that I'm fucking you over," are not actually compromises.
Who the fuck is Chris Morris? Wiki lists a bunch of Chris Morrises, but none of them are humorists.
Does it burn inside, knowing that most of the country loves Stephen Colbert? Does it hurt a little when you consider how many awards he's won? When you picture huge nationwide audiences laughing at conservative stupidity, does that make you angry? I know it does.
If I were you, I'd shut up now. You are just giving me more ammunition to use in making fun of and goading you. But if you want to dig yourself in deeper, I'm game!
Stupid people have existed in every group, every movement, every race and nation, for all time. For instance, a lot of stupid people like Ron Paul. A lot of stupid people like Obama, and McCain. There are just a lot of stupid people. It isn't smart to judge a group by the stupid people that support it, but by the smart people who do.
As for laughing at activists, the only people I've met who consider that worthwhile are people who haven't done anything good and decent with their lives, and resent people who have. But whatever, go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place if that helps you sleep at night.
Awww, does the sad little conservative not like Stephen Colbert? Thanks for sharing, Hal, your anger makes me all happy inside. Mission Accomplished!
You know, plugging your ears and yelling, "You're not the boss of me!" when your elders try to give you honest advice simply isn't very mature.
And the US has allowed tyrants, massive corruption, and wholesale slaughter for the last 100 years as much if not more than any other country. Look at the history of Central and South America: we have a nasty habit of helping overthrow democratically elected socialist governments and installing US friendly tyrannical madmen.
Honest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions from not being honest. What's the repercussions for these lawmakers for corrupting their office? Additional campaign contributions?
Dishonest men are kept honest by fear of repercussions. Honest men are honest because that's what feels right to them. Politicians are kept honest by burying them up to the neck in sand, head first.
What facts? You are presenting opinions. The facts that you can't distinguish your opinions from facts is frightening.
First, we are not providing for the defense of these countries. If we weren't around, who exactly do you think would be taking over the rest of the free world, and how?
You don't understand: these countries aren't left or super left by world standards, they are centrist. We are super-right.
What good have we done for the planet? More opinion, not fact.
Gosh, Hal, do you think that a website with the motto, "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Bias in Media," might itself be a little biased? You don't suppose they could be cherry picking their data, and only presenting studies that support their agenda, do you?
"My friends and acquaintances are not a random sample."
No, of course not. There are smart conservatives, just not as many. The problem is that reality has a liberal bias. The more you understand reality, the more liberal you are likely to be.
The people who control the networks, editors and CEOs, are conservative. They hire liberal journalists because they have no choice, there aren't enough conservative journalists to do the job.
So, you blame the fellow putting up the protest notice? The boycott notice is a relatively small part of the page. It's not over the top or crazy, simply one guy putting his opinion on his project page. Why is he to blame for this? Should we all censor ourselves lest we offend someone? Maybe we should protest only in the properly marked official protest spaces?
It was one project page, notepad++. If a person wants to protest on their own personal project page, that's a perfect place to do it.
That was so last century. Now the Chinese simply use their snazzy new mobile execution units.
Dude, way to run with that example! And I agree with you, the article is poorly thought out. The scientific method is in no danger.
Hmm, I can't find anything to back it up. You've got something that says otherwise?
All I am saying is that it is easier to shift a bunch of bits to give an optimal reward cycle than it is to shift, say, a rock-face to do the same thing. I'm claiming nothing about the absolute level of enjoyment one can get out of any pleasurable activity.
Certainly fun things can be addictive, but as a glaring example, both rock climbing and sex have a natural end-point, you get to the top and that's it for right then. Sure you can come own and do it all over again, but then the body has it's natural limits. You feel tired and fulfilled, and you don't feel like you need any more for a while.
Not so with games like WoW, which are specifically designed to be addictive. You can keep playing until you die from starvation, and people have.
Wow, WHOOSH on me, that's the next line of the quote...
And for his next act, Captain Obvious will explain the dangers of stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork!
But how frequently is a sunny beach going to hit your reward centers? Is it going to let off for a little bit and then hit again, or is it going to stay at the same level of stimulus pretty constantly, fading into the background? Video games can be engineered to be addictive in a way that no non-interactive media or experience can be.
Not everyone who tries crack goes on to be a crack addict, either. Addictive tendencies run in families. Likely, people who have these tendencies already know they do, which is why a subtle, "Hey? You know how you get obsessed about certain things to the detriment of the rest of your life? Yeah, this may be one of those things, you may want to pace yourself," is enough. Forewarned is forearmed. For most people, it won't be an issue anyway.
Some things are more prone to cause addiciton than others. Video games are not just simple escapism, they are specifically designed to hit our reward centers in consistent ways. They can be very addicting.
But that is no reason to impose any kind of rules or restrictions on them. It is simply a reason to educate people. "Hey, you might want to watch yourself if you play video games, and just make sure they aren't taking over your life to the detriment of your job, health and relationships."
That is really the most that needs to be done for ANY addictive substance. Any other 'solution' causes more problems than it cures.
It doesn't help you at all. The author of that article was attempting to make himself look smart and revolutionary. I was just trying to explain what he was saying so people like you could point out what was ACTUALLY stupid about the article, rather than what was stupid about the imaginary article in their heads.