Not everyone wants to live in a dog eat dog world. The whole reason for society is to share risks and rewards in an equitable way. Many of us actually want to look out for the less fortunate. You seem to think anyone advocating that lifestyle is advocating forcing it on you. We aren't, but we would like the option to withdraw the rewards of cooperation from those who don't. You want to be a rugged individualist and make it 'all on your own.' (there's no such thing, but whatever makes you feel good) fine.
But we can create a society without coercion and still keep selfish people like you from profiting off of us. To join the society, you agree never to do business with or help anyone who has not joined. Contract, baby. You agree to give part of your earnings, or work towards helping those who need it, in turn, you will be helped when you need it. It's all free and voluntary and non-coercive and still provides a framework to help the less fortunate while keeping the selfish sharks at bay. Now, you may think free riders would ruin a system like that, but they won't. People get pleasure from contributing. Systems like this work very well, look up the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain.
Canada, and every other country with socialist medicine has a better track record than we do on every important benchmark, like like life expectancy and child mortality. Modern economic research shows that people are motivated more by ideals of fairness and reciprocity than by self interest. We're a species born and bred to be cooperative: we are successful because we cooperate with each other, not because we compete. Competition destroys efficiency, and it de-motivates people. It frightens people into doing things they wouldn't, and not doing the things they'd like. Competition, of the form where someone has to lose in order for others to win, is destructive.
The mnarketplace is NOT a consensus decision. Oner dollar, one vote does not equal consensus. The people with more dollars have more power to determine how the market operates. The network effect and other positive feedback loops ensures that some will rise to the top whether they deserve it or not. Even Adam Smith said that the market must be regulated in order to remain free, because of the built in failure modes. Natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities all create market failures where Pareto optimality is not preserved.
So much for the "perfection" of the free market over the ebil gubbermint... No, no, no. See, this is because we don't have enough free market, and too much ebil gubbermint. If we just got rid of all gubbermint except that what keeps y'all off my propah-tie, then the Divine Invisible Hand of Adam Smith would descend out of the clouds and put all to rights. Everyone who claims the Hand would just touch us in a bad place are pawns of the Great Satan, Karl Marx!
Seriously, there are people right here on Slashdot who think that way. You can spot them easily because they all get serious wood when you say the name "Ron Paul."
The orgasm releases neurotransmitters that are similar to cocaine. Perhaps those vaccinated against cocaine would never have orgasms, or reduced orgasms. In fact, dopamine is critical for a lot of enjoyment. Maybe this will spawn a 'deadheading' procedure. Piss off the wrong person or government and you will never enjoy anything ever again. You wouldn't even want revenge, there would be no joy in it.
On the other hand, a sperm vaccine would be a nice alternative to having your tubes tied. Of course, there's the nightmare scenario where this treatment latches onto a live bit of cholera or whatever and spreads, neutering all humans.
The internal policeman is not instilled by the state. It comes from the dream of the world, and we let it in because that is what makes the most sense at the time. We agree to it. It's one part of a three part mental virus consisting of the judge or cop, the victim or scapegoat, and the book of the law. The cop judges everything, us and everything else, according to the book of the law, and doles out punishment to the scapegoat. We accept this virus because we are taught we are fundamentally bad and need to be controlled to be good. We are taught that we will be punished, and tat it's better to punish ourselves than to wait for someone else to do it, because then we are still in control.
No true scientist ever thinks a problem is done, that an answer is final. Science does not describe reality, it predicts results. Far all we know, it could be garden gnomes making things happen. As long as our equations make accurate predictions, the real cause is unimportant.
I was a hardcore activist with Earth First, Food Not Bombs, Homes Not Jails, and the IWW for years. We do live in a highly controlled and oppressive society. Of course, no one can be oppressed unless they've oppressed themselves first. And we aren't quite North Korea, it's important to make those distinctions lest on get lost in hyperbole-land.
No untestable hypothesis has value. If a hypothesis is testable, it is not metaphysical. Oh, and we aren't eternal creatures or fragments of the infinite. First, we arise from conditions, and when the conditions supporting our existence change, we will cease to be. Second, we aren't fragments of the infinite because we are not separate from the infinite. A fragment is something broken, removed from the whole. That's not what we are.
Okay, this is fun. Two can play this game. I never said you threatened him, I told you not to threaten him.
I can weasel out of that far more easily than you can weasel out of "Hey Zed: I could hurt you." You claimed you could hurt him. End of story. Your Star Trek analogy is just dumb. Transporters don't exist, therefore talking about them on a fictional show is not claiming they could actually work. People who say "I could hurt you" actually do go on to hurt people quite often.
Man, arguing with you is like matching wits with a brain damaged orangutan. You never know when you've lost, but everyone else here does. You are a laughing stock. When we see a post with your name on it, we know there is going to be something stupid in it, and we know that you are going to try to weasel out of that stupid thing, and we know it is going to be damned amusing to watch the intellectual contortions you go through.
Because it is. Sorry, there's no nicer way to put it. Saying you could hurt someone is pathetic and childish. Calling someone pathetic and childish is not the same as saying you could hurt them.
I know what you wrote, why don't you reread what I wrote? I never said you made a threat. I said you made a claim you could hurt him, which you did. You wrote "Hey Zed: I could hurt you," which is not a threat, but still a very stupid thing to say.
You know why it's marked funny? Because you said it, and the idea of you facing off against Zed is hilarious. It would be like an ugly old junkyard dog tearing apart an overweight poodle.
Okay, whatever. You said : "Zed: I could hurt you." You were trying to be funny, I get it now. It wasn't, it was almost as pathetic as his posturing. Because the fact is, in a fair fight he would mess you up good. His ability to beat people up is still a silly thing for him to mention, but for you to claim you could hurt someone is just laughable.
Now people here are calling you on just how laughable it was. And not in a "laughing with you" kind of way.
Pudge, you work here. You just claimed that you could hurt someone, on your company's web site.
Well, of course you could hurt him. Anyone could. Anyone could hurt anyone else. All it takes is a l;ack of caring, some motivation, some ether, and a car battery. No one sane brags about it. And no one with hopes of furthering their career says anything so juvenile on their own company website.
Now, what he said was that he would pay for the ring, and fight you legally. Knowing the two of you, I would put my money on him. No question. I would absolutely love to see the two of you face off in a ring. Whoever loses, the rest of us win.
It sounds as if you think of human beings a fundamentally mysterious, outside the bounds of science. How can science possibly strip us of our humanity? All it does is provide an explanation of what humanity actually means. If that actuality is not what you romanticized humanity to be, I can see how that might be disillusioning, but science can't strip anything of something it actually has. All it can strip away is what people falsely think it has.
Reductionist science? What is that? How is this an attempt to convince people their dreams have no worth? What does state approval have to do with anything? Are you really that anti-science?
Do you live within an oppressive environment? I mean, North Korea, say? Do you know what people's dreams are like there? Maybe they have nightmares all the time.
Not that I'm saying that this hypothesis about dreams has any merit. But any kind of mystical or metaphysical hypothesis for dreams has even less merit.
You don't even believe in global warming, you hypocrite! You put down environmentalists left and right, yet here you trot out vague environmental threats to justify your position. I'm not an engineer either, but I understand far more about these things than you do.
You don't think anyone even thought about how much water this would take? That's only like the most obvious question to ask. It's so idiotic that you bring something obvious like that up and expect to be lauded as insightful for it. You aren't being insightful, you are bringing up the most obvious point.
I've figured you out. There is a reason you won't let an argument die. There's a reason you post idiotic trash. You are a very, very lonely person, and you will do anything for some attention. Christ on a pogo stick, man, just ask. Don't be so damn confrontational. You stir shit just to get a response, not because you believe anything you write. That's why you write things that directly contradict other things you've written. You don't even care enough to stay consistent.
If you admit you're lonely and stir shit just to get a response, I'll keep talking with you. Otherwise I'll never post anything in response to anything you write, no matter how idiotic it is and how badly you need correcting. I will ignore you fully and completely.
I love how you say my arguments are unconvincing. Which ones? You refute nothing I've said. You have no idea of the scales involved. You are not an engineer. You are not trained in economics, nor in civil planning. You show your ignorance in everything you write. You make assumptions and treat them like they are self evidently true.
The thing is, the person you responded too said that more study was needed. I'm saying more study is needed. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. Your objections add nothing to the discussion. No one is advocating any kind of "let's just get 'er done" madness, that's just you putting words in our mouths.
You are not smarter than the people making these proposals. The idea that you have thought through the consequences and they have not is the kind of intellectual arrogance one usually only finds in teenagers. These are engineers we are talking about. Are you an engineer? I know that you aren't. No engineer would make the idiotic claims and simple mistakes you've made in your analysis. You are a blowhard with an agenda and no practical experience or knowledge.
Every Slashdot story about tech has idiots like you bringing up obvious fucking points as if the people who come up with these sorts of ideas are complete morons who can't put two and two together. The only reason you do it is to try to make yourself look smart, but that only works at places like digg where the audience are idiots too. Here, people see shit like that and they laugh at you.
Where did you see anything about a clergyman or a bureaucrat? Marriage is a ceremony where you and a partner confirm and celebrate your love, possibly in front of friends. If a clergyman was involved, that was a personal choice to put the celebration in a religious context. No one said the clergyman was there to sanctify their togetherness, if he was there it was because the two people involved already have religious feelings and likely most of their friends and family do too. If this was a state sanctified marriage, more than likely the bureaucrat was there to sanctify the tax write off, not their love.
In short, you are trying to make some silly point about individualism by pissing all over something that obviously made this guy happy. That's a really crass and disrespectful thing to do.
You failed badly in your analysis. Someone called you on it, and instead of admitting that you're wrong, you dig yourself in deeper. Do you want everyone to think you're stupid?
First, you have no idea what the capital cost of construction will be.
Second, the GP already said "that's what a lifecycle cost analysis is for." Duh.
Third, you have no idea how much water will be used. It will almost certainly be more than millions of gallons. Four hundred people use a million gallons of water in a day, for personal use, energy production, and industry. Per capita water use in the US is about 2,500 gallons a day. Your estimations are so far off base as to be laughable.
Fourth, that's not the point. We can easily use runoff from the roads, which is already contaminated and unfit for other uses. We can continue to use this source to replace any losses, and again, you have no idea of the magnitude.
You just spout words without understanding or any attempt at honest communication, just to try to sway people to your beliefs. It's disgusting to watch, like a retarded chimp flinging poo at passers by.
Seriously. No sane person with a healthy sex life would devote that much energy to a lousy scam-game. Go out, join a charity or a club that might potentially have members of the opposite sex, actually meet same, and get down to it. I know playing with your "Drunkard Town" is safer, and tricking people into going there is sort of social (demented and sad, but social) but it is ultimately not fulfilling. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
You are stuck in a downward spiral and you want to pull us all in after you. Not gonna happen. The more you obsess over this thing, the more self-loathing you are going to have, and that self loathing is what causes you to obsess over something as utterly dumb as mymincity in the first place. You need to break the cycle and get out into the Big Blue Room a little more often and socialize with some other carbon-units.
You can actually meet people you can talk with face to face. It's possible. Even if you don't get laid, talking with real humans face to face is better than tricking them into looking at your stupid faux-sim-city. And you might even get laid. Go on, try it. I bet you'll be hooking up with decent people and will have forgotten your infantile obsession with mymincity within a month.
And let me be one of the first to jump in. He was an early booster of "Virtual Reality." Not really much of a developer, just a fanboy of the tech who wrote a lot. He cultivated a 'Cyber Surfer Dude" persona and not much else. He's written a few predictions of future tech, and one interesting rant about the future of media, and that's it. He is an elitist blow-hard who has frequently criticized the "wisdom of the masses." He always struck me as one of those hypocrites who don't feel like anyone else should have the power to tell them what to do, even if it's everyone else in the world saying it; but he should have the power to tell every lesser being (i.e. everyone) what to do.
Yes, efficient is a part of the fundamental problem that wheels, and Unix, solves. For wheels, the fundamental problem is: "efficient land transport over many and varied surface types." Find me something better that fits all those criteria.
Now, we have different transport problems, such as air or water. But in an OS, the fundamental problem is simple: schedule available resources efficiently for the processes that need them, and protect resources from processes that shouldn't have them. That is ALL an OS should do. It is a simple problem, like the problem of land transport, and does not lend itself to wild innovation, but to stepwise refinement.
Pray tell, what sort of innovation do you see that supersedes this definition? What do you envision an OS of the future doing? Not the applications themselves, but the OS?
Awesome. Based on your name, I'm guessing you are non-white. What better refutation of the OP's ridiculous hypothesis? I bow to your superior understanding of race and genetics.;-)
I'm not so naive as I made myself out to be, I know the world is full of hateful, small minds, desperate for any sense of superiority because they know themselves to be so inferior. I also know that this is, for most, not by choice or even temperament; but from sad circumstance. Most people behave as they are taught. Knowing that most people are as much victims of their own oppression as the people they lash out at, I try to stand up to oppressive thinking wherever I find it, without being too judgmental.
I've traveled and lived in Europe fairly extensively, for an American, and I have seen how my compatriots act. Quite frankly, we're about as loud, pushy and smugly ignorant as many of the Germans I met. So we're both kind of at the bottom of the barrel. No offense to any Germans out there, I've met plenty of nice Germans too. Usually of the anarchist-punk variety.
The fact that there's a lot of genetic variation within, say, the Tutsi tribe, does not mean a Tutsi isn't likely to be more similar (both physically and genetically)to another Tutsi than to a native of Japan.
No, that's exactly what I'm saying. I stretched the truth a little, by genetic variation there are exactly two races: a small tribe in Africa (that coincidentally believes their ancestors came from Sirius) and the rest of us. Skin color and other racial markers are a small component of overall genetics.
Race might not be a myth, per se, but it isn't a useful concept in genetics.
Race is an arbitrary distinction. There is not purity to be maintained. Animals breed with other 'races' all the time. Read about ring species.
I'll uphold your right to say anything you like, but I get the right to state my opinion, too. At first I was shocked that anyone actually felt that way. In my circles, it would be like finding a living dinosaur or a fairy or something. Then I was disgusted, viscerally disgusted that anyone could feel that way. But now I'm just curious as to how anyone could even arrive at that position. It runs so counter to everything I know, scientifically, about genetics, I can't imagine how anyone could find any logic to it.
Do you have close family? Will you be with them this Christmas? Do they feel the same way? I'm not making any more value judgments here, just trying to understand the context.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone wants to live in a dog eat dog world. The whole reason for society is to share risks and rewards in an equitable way. Many of us actually want to look out for the less fortunate. You seem to think anyone advocating that lifestyle is advocating forcing it on you. We aren't, but we would like the option to withdraw the rewards of cooperation from those who don't. You want to be a rugged individualist and make it 'all on your own.' (there's no such thing, but whatever makes you feel good) fine.
But we can create a society without coercion and still keep selfish people like you from profiting off of us. To join the society, you agree never to do business with or help anyone who has not joined. Contract, baby. You agree to give part of your earnings, or work towards helping those who need it, in turn, you will be helped when you need it. It's all free and voluntary and non-coercive and still provides a framework to help the less fortunate while keeping the selfish sharks at bay. Now, you may think free riders would ruin a system like that, but they won't. People get pleasure from contributing. Systems like this work very well, look up the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain.
Canada, and every other country with socialist medicine has a better track record than we do on every important benchmark, like like life expectancy and child mortality. Modern economic research shows that people are motivated more by ideals of fairness and reciprocity than by self interest. We're a species born and bred to be cooperative: we are successful because we cooperate with each other, not because we compete. Competition destroys efficiency, and it de-motivates people. It frightens people into doing things they wouldn't, and not doing the things they'd like. Competition, of the form where someone has to lose in order for others to win, is destructive.
The mnarketplace is NOT a consensus decision. Oner dollar, one vote does not equal consensus. The people with more dollars have more power to determine how the market operates. The network effect and other positive feedback loops ensures that some will rise to the top whether they deserve it or not. Even Adam Smith said that the market must be regulated in order to remain free, because of the built in failure modes. Natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities all create market failures where Pareto optimality is not preserved.
Seriously, there are people right here on Slashdot who think that way. You can spot them easily because they all get serious wood when you say the name "Ron Paul."
The orgasm releases neurotransmitters that are similar to cocaine. Perhaps those vaccinated against cocaine would never have orgasms, or reduced orgasms. In fact, dopamine is critical for a lot of enjoyment. Maybe this will spawn a 'deadheading' procedure. Piss off the wrong person or government and you will never enjoy anything ever again. You wouldn't even want revenge, there would be no joy in it.
On the other hand, a sperm vaccine would be a nice alternative to having your tubes tied. Of course, there's the nightmare scenario where this treatment latches onto a live bit of cholera or whatever and spreads, neutering all humans.
You wouldn't even need a few weeks if you used a proper training montage. Those only take like five minutes.
The internal policeman is not instilled by the state. It comes from the dream of the world, and we let it in because that is what makes the most sense at the time. We agree to it. It's one part of a three part mental virus consisting of the judge or cop, the victim or scapegoat, and the book of the law. The cop judges everything, us and everything else, according to the book of the law, and doles out punishment to the scapegoat. We accept this virus because we are taught we are fundamentally bad and need to be controlled to be good. We are taught that we will be punished, and tat it's better to punish ourselves than to wait for someone else to do it, because then we are still in control.
No true scientist ever thinks a problem is done, that an answer is final. Science does not describe reality, it predicts results. Far all we know, it could be garden gnomes making things happen. As long as our equations make accurate predictions, the real cause is unimportant.
I was a hardcore activist with Earth First, Food Not Bombs, Homes Not Jails, and the IWW for years. We do live in a highly controlled and oppressive society. Of course, no one can be oppressed unless they've oppressed themselves first. And we aren't quite North Korea, it's important to make those distinctions lest on get lost in hyperbole-land.
No untestable hypothesis has value. If a hypothesis is testable, it is not metaphysical. Oh, and we aren't eternal creatures or fragments of the infinite. First, we arise from conditions, and when the conditions supporting our existence change, we will cease to be. Second, we aren't fragments of the infinite because we are not separate from the infinite. A fragment is something broken, removed from the whole. That's not what we are.
Okay, this is fun. Two can play this game. I never said you threatened him, I told you not to threaten him.
I can weasel out of that far more easily than you can weasel out of "Hey Zed: I could hurt you." You claimed you could hurt him. End of story. Your Star Trek analogy is just dumb. Transporters don't exist, therefore talking about them on a fictional show is not claiming they could actually work. People who say "I could hurt you" actually do go on to hurt people quite often.
Man, arguing with you is like matching wits with a brain damaged orangutan. You never know when you've lost, but everyone else here does. You are a laughing stock. When we see a post with your name on it, we know there is going to be something stupid in it, and we know that you are going to try to weasel out of that stupid thing, and we know it is going to be damned amusing to watch the intellectual contortions you go through.
Because it is. Sorry, there's no nicer way to put it. Saying you could hurt someone is pathetic and childish. Calling someone pathetic and childish is not the same as saying you could hurt them.
How can you deny what you wrote?
You said: "Hey Zed: I could hurt you."
You are so out of touch, it is scary.
I know what you wrote, why don't you reread what I wrote? I never said you made a threat. I said you made a claim you could hurt him, which you did. You wrote "Hey Zed: I could hurt you," which is not a threat, but still a very stupid thing to say.
You know why it's marked funny? Because you said it, and the idea of you facing off against Zed is hilarious. It would be like an ugly old junkyard dog tearing apart an overweight poodle.
Okay, whatever. You said : "Zed: I could hurt you." You were trying to be funny, I get it now. It wasn't, it was almost as pathetic as his posturing. Because the fact is, in a fair fight he would mess you up good. His ability to beat people up is still a silly thing for him to mention, but for you to claim you could hurt someone is just laughable.
Now people here are calling you on just how laughable it was. And not in a "laughing with you" kind of way.
Pudge, you work here. You just claimed that you could hurt someone, on your company's web site.
Well, of course you could hurt him. Anyone could. Anyone could hurt anyone else. All it takes is a l;ack of caring, some motivation, some ether, and a car battery. No one sane brags about it. And no one with hopes of furthering their career says anything so juvenile on their own company website.
Now, what he said was that he would pay for the ring, and fight you legally. Knowing the two of you, I would put my money on him. No question. I would absolutely love to see the two of you face off in a ring. Whoever loses, the rest of us win.
It sounds as if you think of human beings a fundamentally mysterious, outside the bounds of science. How can science possibly strip us of our humanity? All it does is provide an explanation of what humanity actually means. If that actuality is not what you romanticized humanity to be, I can see how that might be disillusioning, but science can't strip anything of something it actually has. All it can strip away is what people falsely think it has.
Reductionist science? What is that? How is this an attempt to convince people their dreams have no worth? What does state approval have to do with anything? Are you really that anti-science?
Do you live within an oppressive environment? I mean, North Korea, say? Do you know what people's dreams are like there? Maybe they have nightmares all the time.
Not that I'm saying that this hypothesis about dreams has any merit. But any kind of mystical or metaphysical hypothesis for dreams has even less merit.
You don't even believe in global warming, you hypocrite! You put down environmentalists left and right, yet here you trot out vague environmental threats to justify your position. I'm not an engineer either, but I understand far more about these things than you do.
You don't think anyone even thought about how much water this would take? That's only like the most obvious question to ask. It's so idiotic that you bring something obvious like that up and expect to be lauded as insightful for it. You aren't being insightful, you are bringing up the most obvious point.
I've figured you out. There is a reason you won't let an argument die. There's a reason you post idiotic trash. You are a very, very lonely person, and you will do anything for some attention. Christ on a pogo stick, man, just ask. Don't be so damn confrontational. You stir shit just to get a response, not because you believe anything you write. That's why you write things that directly contradict other things you've written. You don't even care enough to stay consistent.
If you admit you're lonely and stir shit just to get a response, I'll keep talking with you. Otherwise I'll never post anything in response to anything you write, no matter how idiotic it is and how badly you need correcting. I will ignore you fully and completely.
I love how you say my arguments are unconvincing. Which ones? You refute nothing I've said. You have no idea of the scales involved. You are not an engineer. You are not trained in economics, nor in civil planning. You show your ignorance in everything you write. You make assumptions and treat them like they are self evidently true.
The thing is, the person you responded too said that more study was needed. I'm saying more study is needed. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. Your objections add nothing to the discussion. No one is advocating any kind of "let's just get 'er done" madness, that's just you putting words in our mouths.
You are not smarter than the people making these proposals. The idea that you have thought through the consequences and they have not is the kind of intellectual arrogance one usually only finds in teenagers. These are engineers we are talking about. Are you an engineer? I know that you aren't. No engineer would make the idiotic claims and simple mistakes you've made in your analysis. You are a blowhard with an agenda and no practical experience or knowledge.
Every Slashdot story about tech has idiots like you bringing up obvious fucking points as if the people who come up with these sorts of ideas are complete morons who can't put two and two together. The only reason you do it is to try to make yourself look smart, but that only works at places like digg where the audience are idiots too. Here, people see shit like that and they laugh at you.
Where did you see anything about a clergyman or a bureaucrat? Marriage is a ceremony where you and a partner confirm and celebrate your love, possibly in front of friends. If a clergyman was involved, that was a personal choice to put the celebration in a religious context. No one said the clergyman was there to sanctify their togetherness, if he was there it was because the two people involved already have religious feelings and likely most of their friends and family do too. If this was a state sanctified marriage, more than likely the bureaucrat was there to sanctify the tax write off, not their love.
In short, you are trying to make some silly point about individualism by pissing all over something that obviously made this guy happy. That's a really crass and disrespectful thing to do.
By the way, are you single?
You failed badly in your analysis. Someone called you on it, and instead of admitting that you're wrong, you dig yourself in deeper. Do you want everyone to think you're stupid?
First, you have no idea what the capital cost of construction will be.
Second, the GP already said "that's what a lifecycle cost analysis is for." Duh.
Third, you have no idea how much water will be used. It will almost certainly be more than millions of gallons. Four hundred people use a million gallons of water in a day, for personal use, energy production, and industry. Per capita water use in the US is about 2,500 gallons a day. Your estimations are so far off base as to be laughable.
Fourth, that's not the point. We can easily use runoff from the roads, which is already contaminated and unfit for other uses. We can continue to use this source to replace any losses, and again, you have no idea of the magnitude.
You just spout words without understanding or any attempt at honest communication, just to try to sway people to your beliefs. It's disgusting to watch, like a retarded chimp flinging poo at passers by.
Seriously. No sane person with a healthy sex life would devote that much energy to a lousy scam-game. Go out, join a charity or a club that might potentially have members of the opposite sex, actually meet same, and get down to it. I know playing with your "Drunkard Town" is safer, and tricking people into going there is sort of social (demented and sad, but social) but it is ultimately not fulfilling. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
You are stuck in a downward spiral and you want to pull us all in after you. Not gonna happen. The more you obsess over this thing, the more self-loathing you are going to have, and that self loathing is what causes you to obsess over something as utterly dumb as mymincity in the first place. You need to break the cycle and get out into the Big Blue Room a little more often and socialize with some other carbon-units.
You can actually meet people you can talk with face to face. It's possible. Even if you don't get laid, talking with real humans face to face is better than tricking them into looking at your stupid faux-sim-city. And you might even get laid. Go on, try it. I bet you'll be hooking up with decent people and will have forgotten your infantile obsession with mymincity within a month.
And let me be one of the first to jump in. He was an early booster of "Virtual Reality." Not really much of a developer, just a fanboy of the tech who wrote a lot. He cultivated a 'Cyber Surfer Dude" persona and not much else. He's written a few predictions of future tech, and one interesting rant about the future of media, and that's it. He is an elitist blow-hard who has frequently criticized the "wisdom of the masses." He always struck me as one of those hypocrites who don't feel like anyone else should have the power to tell them what to do, even if it's everyone else in the world saying it; but he should have the power to tell every lesser being (i.e. everyone) what to do.
In short, he's the Eric Raymond of VR.
Yes, efficient is a part of the fundamental problem that wheels, and Unix, solves. For wheels, the fundamental problem is: "efficient land transport over many and varied surface types." Find me something better that fits all those criteria.
Now, we have different transport problems, such as air or water. But in an OS, the fundamental problem is simple: schedule available resources efficiently for the processes that need them, and protect resources from processes that shouldn't have them. That is ALL an OS should do. It is a simple problem, like the problem of land transport, and does not lend itself to wild innovation, but to stepwise refinement.
Pray tell, what sort of innovation do you see that supersedes this definition? What do you envision an OS of the future doing? Not the applications themselves, but the OS?
Uh, does that mean what I think it means? I weigh about 80 kilos, would they beam a 58 watt signal at my head? That seems awfully high...
Awesome. Based on your name, I'm guessing you are non-white. What better refutation of the OP's ridiculous hypothesis? I bow to your superior understanding of race and genetics. ;-)
I'm not so naive as I made myself out to be, I know the world is full of hateful, small minds, desperate for any sense of superiority because they know themselves to be so inferior. I also know that this is, for most, not by choice or even temperament; but from sad circumstance. Most people behave as they are taught. Knowing that most people are as much victims of their own oppression as the people they lash out at, I try to stand up to oppressive thinking wherever I find it, without being too judgmental.
I've traveled and lived in Europe fairly extensively, for an American, and I have seen how my compatriots act. Quite frankly, we're about as loud, pushy and smugly ignorant as many of the Germans I met. So we're both kind of at the bottom of the barrel. No offense to any Germans out there, I've met plenty of nice Germans too. Usually of the anarchist-punk variety.
Race might not be a myth, per se, but it isn't a useful concept in genetics.
Race is an arbitrary distinction. There is not purity to be maintained. Animals breed with other 'races' all the time. Read about ring species.
I'll uphold your right to say anything you like, but I get the right to state my opinion, too. At first I was shocked that anyone actually felt that way. In my circles, it would be like finding a living dinosaur or a fairy or something. Then I was disgusted, viscerally disgusted that anyone could feel that way. But now I'm just curious as to how anyone could even arrive at that position. It runs so counter to everything I know, scientifically, about genetics, I can't imagine how anyone could find any logic to it.
Do you have close family? Will you be with them this Christmas? Do they feel the same way? I'm not making any more value judgments here, just trying to understand the context.
That's disgusting. I can't believe anyone feels that way in the 21st century.