That's my point. It's about as funny as real Jerry Seinfeld material, which is to say, not funny at all. My apologies if you actually find Seinfeld funny, but I was replying to a fellow Seinfeld hater. I am also only refering to his standup, I like the show, even if he is a crappy actor as well as beign a lame comedian.
"What's the deal with dental surgery? It's very painful! They stick things in your mouth. And what's with that sucky tube? It sticks to the side of your mouth and then your mouth fills up with drool."
Now, can you tell me, is that actual Jerry Seinfeld material, or did I just make that up?
Anyone who says "web 2.0" in seriousness is actually saying "Fork over wads of cash and we'll all get rich, rich I tells ya!" These are the people who missed out on or want to relive the glory days of web 1.0, with the Aero chairs and the pinball machines in the lobby. Come to think of it, except for the part where investors lose all their money, that doesn't sound half bad...
New from spun, InnerWeb 3.14159! It will leverage the vertical integration of new paradigms! It's ACID compliant and the googles do everything! It has SOAPy LAMPs filled with Java! It will revolutionize the actualization of empowered reciprocal customer incremental flexibility! It disambiguates the systematized logistical projections, allowing you to gain traction, stay in the loop, level set your mindshare and proactively modularize your mission critical value chain!
If this looks like a good way to make money fast, have I got a great company for you to invest in...
A Zen master walks into a pizzeria: "Luigi, make me one with everything."
Hehe, like your sig. You know the rest, right?
Luigi says, that'll be $17.50. The Zen master hands him a twenty and Luigi hands him the receipt. "Hey, where's my change?" says the Zen master, and Luigi says, "Change comes from within."
Hey, I don't actually think 9/11 was planned and carried out by Americans. I think I was fairly clear about that in my reply. I was simply responding to your question, "what does some random 1962 operation have to do with kooks claiming 9/11 was staged without any valid scrap of evidence whatsoever?" You asked a question, I answered it. It wasn't a random operation, it was a planned and documented US false flag operation that is exactly what the kooks are claiming happened on 9/11.
If common sense keeps you from seeing "the similarities between this actual, documented, nearly implemented plan and what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11." then I'm glad I don't have your brand of common sense. I mean, not to be insulting or anything, but did you fail reading comprehension? You did read the part where I wrote "what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11," right?
Because you obviously did fail reading comprehension, I'll spell it out for you in small words. In 1962, the US Government planned and almost carried out an operation that would have made it look like Castro was a terrorist so the citizens would get behind going to war with him.
With me so far?
Now, some kooks are saying that we carried out an operation that made the Islamist fundamentalists look like terrorists so the citizens would get behind going to war.
Now do you see the similarities? Because I'm not saying the kooks are right. I'm just saying, either you're an idiot for not seeing how the two things are related, or you do see but you are playing disengenous for some unkown reason. I'm guessing the latter, and I'm guessing the reason is that you really, really don't want to think about the fact that documents prove that the US Government almost carried out an attack on it's own people in 1962.
It's not some randome 1962 operation. Let's look at what was specifically proposed:
Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming it on Cuban forces.
Firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base -- reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War -- or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using unmanned drones and fake funerals instead.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type sic planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute sic to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."
Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
It was a false flag operation. It was reported that the only reason it wasn't carried out was that Kennedy rejected the plan. I'm not saying 9/11 was a false flag operation, but you have to be wearing blinders not to see the similarities between this actual, documented, nearly implemented plan and what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11. If the US government nearly did it once, isn't it possible that, under a more hawkish president, we might actually have done what the conspiracies allege?
Yes, the title of the post, "Obligatory Lazarus Long Quotes," was far too vague. Why, I bet most geeks have never even heard of Lazarus Long OR Robert Heinlein.;-)
I work for the State of New Mexico. Governor Richardson has mandated that all state offices use a central blocking system, currently WebSense. Quite a bit is blocked: porn, or course, but also personal sites, blogs, hate sites, games, IM related sites (made installing Jabber here fun), and many others. Oddly, Slashdot is not blocked, neither is Penny Arcade, nor The Onion:-)
For some categories, we have half an hour discretionary time per day we can use for anything but porn, hate sites, etc. Personally, I'm glad my tax dollars aren't being wasted. No! I'm not wasting tax dollars here, as I explained to my supervisor, my visits to slashdot are for "researching industry trends" and "developing valuable contacts in the open source community."
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
And...
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."
Well, that wasn't me that said intelligence is a stupid term in itself. But it is, as there are many kinds of intelligence.
Like it or not, the term social intelligence is widely used and recognized. Googlefight puts it at about 50 million hits versus 96 million for social skills, so it is at least in the same order of magnititude of use.
You may want to read more on Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences before dismissing the idea as mere semantic obfuscation. The idea of multiple types of intelligence is very mainstream in cognitive science. It does not dilute the meaning of the word intelligence, it makes it more specific.
To be fair, the critiques of Gardner's work mirror your own critiques of the idea, i.e. it is ad hoc and redefines the word intelligence to mean something more along the lines of skill or ability. But intelligence has always meant skill or ability, just a very narrow range of skills and abilities. A refutation of Gardner's ideas should address why only certain skills or abilities should be labelled "intelligent."
Good job not falling for my trolling, by the way. It's troll thursday, I can't help myself!
I really am that good. The only thing my gigantic intellect has yet to figure out is, why is the world not bowing at my feet? Ah, you're all just too stupid to recognize my brilliance.;-)
There is more to social intelligence than empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel and understand the feelings of others. It definitely helps with social intelligence but it isn't required. Psychopaths have no empathy, but some of them are very good at manipulating others, which is another part of social intelligence. As is the ability to figure out a path through society towards a particular goal.
Musical talent is also different from musical intelligence. On can have innate talent with a particular instrument, and we call that musical talent. But one can have that without the ability to compose pleasing or original compositions, which is more a function of musical intelligence.
There are many, many facets to intelligence. I suspect from your vehement response towards this idea that you identify strongly with one type of intelligence and base much of your self worth on being intellgent in that particular way. Anything that broadens the definition of intelligence makes you less special in your own mind. It shakes the foundations of your self esteem and therefore must be stopped.
If I came off as insulting people who are ready and willing to die for me and my family, I apologize. I'm a liberal but I come from a military family and I don't want to be one of those liberals. I just think that violence, although sometimes necessary, should never be glorified. I am not talking about the average soldier (or cop, for that matter) who really is a good sheepdog. I'm talking about the wolves in sheepdog's clothing at the top who tell that soldier which wolves to kill.
I've read Starship Troopers and The Road to Damascus, as well as pretty much everything by David Drake. I like wargames. I read about historical battles, strategy, and tactics. I came across as a little strident and one-sided because I was trying to make a point. I just think that many wolves like to puff up their egos and keep the sheep in line with stories about how great it is to be a sheepdog.
So if you think I'm just another hippy peacnik who's disrespecting the military, I'm not. I'm presenting an honest critique of the use of violence, and the ultimate goals of the leaders who claim to want to protect us. Again, there's a reason that most of humanity's greatest spiritual leaders have advocated some kind of non-violence.
Anyone can become a member of the dominant group by playing the game well enough and adopting the behaviors of the dominant group. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought all white men were in the dominant group. They kind of are, as witnessed by the fact that racisit poor white trash can still feel superior to much more successful blacks, for instance. But there are still dominant and subordinant groups inside the larger dominant culture. And most people are on the bottom. Classism and wealth based discrimination is and always has been the major issue, race, cultural background and religion are just erdh herrings.
That was probably it then! What I remember typing in was a dumbed down version of Eliza written in BASIC that I found in the back of a magazine. It worked exactly as you say, which is pretty much how Eliza works, only Eliza knowe far more phrases. Good times, good times.
Let's just get it over with. Monetize everything. Every social interaction should be monetized. How many times have you had a conversation where the other party just wasn't holding up their end? Charge 'em! Sex? Whoever has the most fun, charge 'em! Air, water? Monetize the crap out of those! Let's put a fence around every goddamn thing in the universe and make money off of it. It was free before? Who cares! Tragedy of the commons, man, tragedy of the commons. Everything should be owned. Every possible combination of letters, numbers, muscial notes, symbols, everything. Put a meter in everyone's head, when they even think about your intellectual property, charge 'em!
Want to slit your wrists from living in a disconnected, hollow, completely monetized world? As in life, so in death: charge 'em! Charge 'em to live, charge 'em to die, charge 'em for every goddamn second in between.
Bow down to the almighty dollar, oops, I mean charge 'em to bow down to the almighty dollar.
There are only wolves and sheep. A sheepdog is what sheep call their own wolves. A wolf is what sheep call other sheep's sheepdogs. The wolves pretend they are sheepdogs, their to fight the wolves and protect the sheep. But they are all just intent on eating the sheep. The sheep think they need a sheepdog to protect them from the wolves, but they conveniently ignore the fact that sheep keep disappearing and the sheepdog keeps coming back with a bloody muzzle. Funny how the ones who usually die are the sheep.
Arguably, the world was an even more violent place when, say, Jesus or Buddha lived, yet neither one of them argued for violence as a solution. Maybe there's a reason that few of humanities greatest spiritual leaders ever advocated violence. The path away from violence is not paved with more violence.
We aren't sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves. We are human beings. If every human being on the planet refused to be subjugated, and was willing to die, not kill, for their beliefs, there would be little violence and no war. You say we aren't there yet, and I agree, but I don't think more violence is the correct solution.
Passé means exactly the opposite of the original poster's intent. It means out of style. I think he meant de rigueur: Required by the current fashion or custom; socially obligatory.
Looks like I bad-touched a poor mod right on his hero fantasy. Naughty spun. Bad, naughty spun. Sheepdogs really, really need to believe they aren't just another sort of wolf. And they will rip the throat out of any sheep that tells them otherwise. Sheep gotta know their place.
There is no ultimate point to anything. It just is. However, to say there's no point is to ignore the fact that we create the point. Mythologies are our creations, they give us meaning that we make. But we don't need a mythology to make meaning. A Buddhist koan asks: why did bodhidarma bring Buddhism to the east (china)? The question is really asking, what is the point of life? If there is no point, as Buddhism seems to state, why spread Buddhism? The most famous answer is "Three pounds of rice." Think about it.
The ACLU is a conservative organization. It seeks to protect and uphold the constitution like a conservative rather than change things like a liberal. Try learning the actual meanings of political buzzwords, and maybe educating yourself about which organizations uphold what ideals. You may be surprised that the world isn't as conveniently black and white as you'd like it to be.
Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 0, Troll
So sheepdogs are on top. Funny, an essay written by a sheepdog, putting them on top, with no checks or balances. What's to keep a sheepdog from turning into a wolf? What if the sheep don't want any fucking sheepdogs, should the sheepdogs force their protection on the sheep? What are sheepdogs without sheep and their need for protection? Nothing but furrier wolves. Maybe the sheepdogs and the wolves are in cahoots, pretending to fight each other to keep the sheep too scared to notice that sheepdogs don't eat grass, either.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my point. It's about as funny as real Jerry Seinfeld material, which is to say, not funny at all. My apologies if you actually find Seinfeld funny, but I was replying to a fellow Seinfeld hater. I am also only refering to his standup, I like the show, even if he is a crappy actor as well as beign a lame comedian.
"What's the deal with dental surgery? It's very painful! They stick things in your mouth. And what's with that sucky tube? It sticks to the side of your mouth and then your mouth fills up with drool."
Now, can you tell me, is that actual Jerry Seinfeld material, or did I just make that up?
Anyone who says "web 2.0" in seriousness is actually saying "Fork over wads of cash and we'll all get rich, rich I tells ya!" These are the people who missed out on or want to relive the glory days of web 1.0, with the Aero chairs and the pinball machines in the lobby. Come to think of it, except for the part where investors lose all their money, that doesn't sound half bad...
New from spun, InnerWeb 3.14159! It will leverage the vertical integration of new paradigms! It's ACID compliant and the googles do everything! It has SOAPy LAMPs filled with Java! It will revolutionize the actualization of empowered reciprocal customer incremental flexibility! It disambiguates the systematized logistical projections, allowing you to gain traction, stay in the loop, level set your mindshare and proactively modularize your mission critical value chain!
If this looks like a good way to make money fast, have I got a great company for you to invest in...
A Zen master walks into a pizzeria: "Luigi, make me one with everything."
Hehe, like your sig. You know the rest, right?
Luigi says, that'll be $17.50. The Zen master hands him a twenty and Luigi hands him the receipt. "Hey, where's my change?" says the Zen master, and Luigi says, "Change comes from within."
Hey, I don't actually think 9/11 was planned and carried out by Americans. I think I was fairly clear about that in my reply. I was simply responding to your question, "what does some random 1962 operation have to do with kooks claiming 9/11 was staged without any valid scrap of evidence whatsoever?" You asked a question, I answered it. It wasn't a random operation, it was a planned and documented US false flag operation that is exactly what the kooks are claiming happened on 9/11.
If common sense keeps you from seeing "the similarities between this actual, documented, nearly implemented plan and what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11." then I'm glad I don't have your brand of common sense. I mean, not to be insulting or anything, but did you fail reading comprehension? You did read the part where I wrote "what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11," right?
Because you obviously did fail reading comprehension, I'll spell it out for you in small words. In 1962, the US Government planned and almost carried out an operation that would have made it look like Castro was a terrorist so the citizens would get behind going to war with him.
With me so far?
Now, some kooks are saying that we carried out an operation that made the Islamist fundamentalists look like terrorists so the citizens would get behind going to war.
Now do you see the similarities? Because I'm not saying the kooks are right. I'm just saying, either you're an idiot for not seeing how the two things are related, or you do see but you are playing disengenous for some unkown reason. I'm guessing the latter, and I'm guessing the reason is that you really, really don't want to think about the fact that documents prove that the US Government almost carried out an attack on it's own people in 1962.
It was a false flag operation. It was reported that the only reason it wasn't carried out was that Kennedy rejected the plan. I'm not saying 9/11 was a false flag operation, but you have to be wearing blinders not to see the similarities between this actual, documented, nearly implemented plan and what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11. If the US government nearly did it once, isn't it possible that, under a more hawkish president, we might actually have done what the conspiracies allege?
Natural nuclear reactors have existed in the past, in Oklo, Gabon. So uranium in its natural state can get very warm if it's concentrated enough.
Yes, the title of the post, "Obligatory Lazarus Long Quotes," was far too vague. Why, I bet most geeks have never even heard of Lazarus Long OR Robert Heinlein. ;-)
I work for the State of New Mexico. Governor Richardson has mandated that all state offices use a central blocking system, currently WebSense. Quite a bit is blocked: porn, or course, but also personal sites, blogs, hate sites, games, IM related sites (made installing Jabber here fun), and many others. Oddly, Slashdot is not blocked, neither is Penny Arcade, nor The Onion :-)
For some categories, we have half an hour discretionary time per day we can use for anything but porn, hate sites, etc. Personally, I'm glad my tax dollars aren't being wasted. No! I'm not wasting tax dollars here, as I explained to my supervisor, my visits to slashdot are for "researching industry trends" and "developing valuable contacts in the open source community."
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
And...
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."
Look, I'm just saying, we can't have runaway cosmic inflation tearing space to shreds. We need to secure space while we still... Wait... what?
Well, that wasn't me that said intelligence is a stupid term in itself. But it is, as there are many kinds of intelligence.
Like it or not, the term social intelligence is widely used and recognized. Googlefight puts it at about 50 million hits versus 96 million for social skills, so it is at least in the same order of magnititude of use.
You may want to read more on Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences before dismissing the idea as mere semantic obfuscation. The idea of multiple types of intelligence is very mainstream in cognitive science. It does not dilute the meaning of the word intelligence, it makes it more specific.
To be fair, the critiques of Gardner's work mirror your own critiques of the idea, i.e. it is ad hoc and redefines the word intelligence to mean something more along the lines of skill or ability. But intelligence has always meant skill or ability, just a very narrow range of skills and abilities. A refutation of Gardner's ideas should address why only certain skills or abilities should be labelled "intelligent."
Good job not falling for my trolling, by the way. It's troll thursday, I can't help myself!
Brilliance without confidence will get you nowhere. Confidence without brilliance is much more likely to succeed at life. Sad, but true.
I really am that good. The only thing my gigantic intellect has yet to figure out is, why is the world not bowing at my feet? Ah, you're all just too stupid to recognize my brilliance. ;-)
There is more to social intelligence than empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel and understand the feelings of others. It definitely helps with social intelligence but it isn't required. Psychopaths have no empathy, but some of them are very good at manipulating others, which is another part of social intelligence. As is the ability to figure out a path through society towards a particular goal.
Musical talent is also different from musical intelligence. On can have innate talent with a particular instrument, and we call that musical talent. But one can have that without the ability to compose pleasing or original compositions, which is more a function of musical intelligence.
There are many, many facets to intelligence. I suspect from your vehement response towards this idea that you identify strongly with one type of intelligence and base much of your self worth on being intellgent in that particular way. Anything that broadens the definition of intelligence makes you less special in your own mind. It shakes the foundations of your self esteem and therefore must be stopped.
If I came off as insulting people who are ready and willing to die for me and my family, I apologize. I'm a liberal but I come from a military family and I don't want to be one of those liberals. I just think that violence, although sometimes necessary, should never be glorified. I am not talking about the average soldier (or cop, for that matter) who really is a good sheepdog. I'm talking about the wolves in sheepdog's clothing at the top who tell that soldier which wolves to kill.
I've read Starship Troopers and The Road to Damascus, as well as pretty much everything by David Drake. I like wargames. I read about historical battles, strategy, and tactics. I came across as a little strident and one-sided because I was trying to make a point. I just think that many wolves like to puff up their egos and keep the sheep in line with stories about how great it is to be a sheepdog.
So if you think I'm just another hippy peacnik who's disrespecting the military, I'm not. I'm presenting an honest critique of the use of violence, and the ultimate goals of the leaders who claim to want to protect us. Again, there's a reason that most of humanity's greatest spiritual leaders have advocated some kind of non-violence.
Anyone can become a member of the dominant group by playing the game well enough and adopting the behaviors of the dominant group. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought all white men were in the dominant group. They kind of are, as witnessed by the fact that racisit poor white trash can still feel superior to much more successful blacks, for instance. But there are still dominant and subordinant groups inside the larger dominant culture. And most people are on the bottom. Classism and wealth based discrimination is and always has been the major issue, race, cultural background and religion are just erdh herrings.
That was probably it then! What I remember typing in was a dumbed down version of Eliza written in BASIC that I found in the back of a magazine. It worked exactly as you say, which is pretty much how Eliza works, only Eliza knowe far more phrases. Good times, good times.
Let's just get it over with. Monetize everything. Every social interaction should be monetized. How many times have you had a conversation where the other party just wasn't holding up their end? Charge 'em! Sex? Whoever has the most fun, charge 'em! Air, water? Monetize the crap out of those! Let's put a fence around every goddamn thing in the universe and make money off of it. It was free before? Who cares! Tragedy of the commons, man, tragedy of the commons. Everything should be owned. Every possible combination of letters, numbers, muscial notes, symbols, everything. Put a meter in everyone's head, when they even think about your intellectual property, charge 'em!
Want to slit your wrists from living in a disconnected, hollow, completely monetized world? As in life, so in death: charge 'em! Charge 'em to live, charge 'em to die, charge 'em for every goddamn second in between.
Bow down to the almighty dollar, oops, I mean charge 'em to bow down to the almighty dollar.
There are only wolves and sheep. A sheepdog is what sheep call their own wolves. A wolf is what sheep call other sheep's sheepdogs. The wolves pretend they are sheepdogs, their to fight the wolves and protect the sheep. But they are all just intent on eating the sheep. The sheep think they need a sheepdog to protect them from the wolves, but they conveniently ignore the fact that sheep keep disappearing and the sheepdog keeps coming back with a bloody muzzle. Funny how the ones who usually die are the sheep.
Arguably, the world was an even more violent place when, say, Jesus or Buddha lived, yet neither one of them argued for violence as a solution. Maybe there's a reason that few of humanities greatest spiritual leaders ever advocated violence. The path away from violence is not paved with more violence.
We aren't sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves. We are human beings. If every human being on the planet refused to be subjugated, and was willing to die, not kill, for their beliefs, there would be little violence and no war. You say we aren't there yet, and I agree, but I don't think more violence is the correct solution.
Passé means exactly the opposite of the original poster's intent. It means out of style. I think he meant de rigueur: Required by the current fashion or custom; socially obligatory.
Looks like I bad-touched a poor mod right on his hero fantasy. Naughty spun. Bad, naughty spun. Sheepdogs really, really need to believe they aren't just another sort of wolf. And they will rip the throat out of any sheep that tells them otherwise. Sheep gotta know their place.
There is no ultimate point to anything. It just is. However, to say there's no point is to ignore the fact that we create the point. Mythologies are our creations, they give us meaning that we make. But we don't need a mythology to make meaning. A Buddhist koan asks: why did bodhidarma bring Buddhism to the east (china)? The question is really asking, what is the point of life? If there is no point, as Buddhism seems to state, why spread Buddhism? The most famous answer is "Three pounds of rice." Think about it.
The ACLU is a conservative organization. It seeks to protect and uphold the constitution like a conservative rather than change things like a liberal. Try learning the actual meanings of political buzzwords, and maybe educating yourself about which organizations uphold what ideals. You may be surprised that the world isn't as conveniently black and white as you'd like it to be.
So sheepdogs are on top. Funny, an essay written by a sheepdog, putting them on top, with no checks or balances. What's to keep a sheepdog from turning into a wolf? What if the sheep don't want any fucking sheepdogs, should the sheepdogs force their protection on the sheep? What are sheepdogs without sheep and their need for protection? Nothing but furrier wolves. Maybe the sheepdogs and the wolves are in cahoots, pretending to fight each other to keep the sheep too scared to notice that sheepdogs don't eat grass, either.