Most people don't really understand what the whole internet idea is, in its most basic form. They only realize what it can do for them by the services it offers (web, email, bitorrent etc). When one realizes what the Internet truly offers, communication, then it becomes clear what what the possibilities truly are.
Anything that can be imagined as getting two things talking to each other is the basics of the Internet, everything else is specifics. Wireless, Optical, copper are all mediums for that communication, nothing more, nothing less.
As mediums become more ubiquitous, and as they start to overlap, it just provides greater continuity of the communication which enables forms of communication that were previously impossible without the overlap and continuity.
Something I once discovered for my self (though in a completely unrelated sector), is that if it takes too long to do something, you just don't do it. If it takes 7 days to download a movie (dialup) while it is possible to do it, most people didn't. Now that it takes a couple of hours or less, people are starting to consider it. A couple of years ago, it took 6 hours to encode a CD to MP3, now it takes just a few minutes.
Because of the increase in bandwith, the ubiquitous connection, we are starting to see new means of communication which were impossible only a few years ago. It is inevitable. And things that take days or long hours today, will shortly be available for the average person. Those are the things we should be looking at.
"If we care about the outcome of our decisions - if we want to make the best choice in a given situation"
There is at least one assumption made, that assumption is... amusing at best. Caring assumes something basic about morality. Amoral (no morals) by definition has no such assumption. Simply speaking a-moral = "I don't care".
There are enough people who obviously "don't care" to make the whole rest of that article a moot point. I can give countless examples of people who don't care, or don't care enough to change their behavior to prove that assumption is flawed.
I actually view the internal parts of geeky electronics like seeing a woman without her clothes. An exceptionally well designed electronic goody is much like a exceptionally well put together lady undressed. On the other hand, some hacked together POC is like that 300lb tub naked... eeewwwwww Put your clothes back on!
Who granted those rights, you, someone else? If either, they can be REVOKED. You claim "right" to "sick days", I hate to inform you but you don't have a "right" except by "Agreement" between you and your employer (and sometimes by law). Change Employers or your employer changes the agreement and your rights change. They aren't so unalienable. Now go work in 3rd world county and see if you have the same "rights".
This is the crux of the issue IMHO. All the rights you have come from somewhere, and in the case of Atheists, they come from "agreement" and "man", both of which have long been proven to change over time.
"I don't recall God as written as an American, but the 'life, liberty and happiness' are the American credo."
No, these are the basis for the AMERICAN law, and even the right to REVOTE against tyranny. The basis for these are OUTSIDE of mankind, something Atheists cannot claim for anything.
Notice too, you keep denying any sort of "higher power" in your arguement against that "higher power". Your "there is no god because there is no god" as if it were "self evident". Sorry, but it isn't self evident. I see evidence to the contrary all the time, evidence you would probably ignore, excuse as irrelevant or the rantings of a religious nutjob. However I can assure you that I have complete and full control over my faculties.
"Biblically humans were given life, and kicked out of happiness for taking a liberty (i.e. eating a forbidden fruit). So much for forgiveness and not visiting the sins of the father upon the children, but that's another tale."
Shows your ignorance. There is a HUGE level of forgiveness in that "story" one that points to redemption. Further there is a great deal of mercy that is also shown in that story. But since it is just a "story" and "mythology" to you, you don't actually know what the story is or even how it ends.
"Claiming that only from God came those ideals really is demeaning, in that people like Confucious who hadn't read the Bible still managed to come out with morality independantly, yet you would take that away from them."
Actually, you don't know anything about me, or my views on comparative religions. And this is not my view of why they have the same ideals.:-D
"Everything past that is pretty much exploration and codifying that concept as it applies to various facets of life."
Uh huh. Tyrants also use the same principles to rule tyrannically. The trains run on time, was one of the mottos of Fascism. There is no "moral authority" to over rule the tyrannical "order" since it is just "codifying" the concept.
"They did have some uncredited knowledge only contemporarily relearned"
You just dismissed divine revelation because it doesn't fit your doctrine. How about during the dark ages, and the massive plagues that spread through Europe, the Jews who kept Kosher had much lower mortality rates? Or that the first use of anesthesia is found in that scripture? Uncredited knowledge? Hardly, you just don't like the credit as it is given.
"I've already read the Bible a few times, from Genesis to Revelations,"
Yet you miss the very point of mercy and forgiveness found in the story you quoted above. How come I saw it, and you didn't?
"Yet from the perspective of the atheist, that's exactly what those Biblical 'rights' are: rights man granted himself."
You granted yourself the right to life, liberty (true freedom) and Happiness? Hardly a view of an atheist. That would make you your own creator, but I remember that has always been the case, man has always wanted to be "as god".
Funny how a book more that 3000 years old accurately portrays man's most basic nature, even if you consider it mythology. They were a lot smarter back then.
I'd be happy to have a theological discussion on Torah and the rest of the scriptures if you want, but somehow I don't see you as wanting to do the research and actually read the thing.
Optimal situations rarely are. This is why some people cannot fathom evil (like Hitler) until it is too late and they are in the gas chamber. Some people are evil, and the pareto-optimal situation is no longer "optimal". When one person ONLY cares about self maximization then that portion of Game theory fails. And in any given group of people, the likelyhood of having such an individual within that group grows as the group grows.
In addition, pareto-optimal theory doesn't really take into account competing groups increasing efficiency over a group that has no competition.
Of course, there are all sorts of other variations on game theory that can come into play if you are going to go down that road. But all of that is besides the point. In one of my theory classes, the teacher taught us one of his most important axioms, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not even close".
So what do you do when someone is gaming the whole system by not playing by the rules you think they should? Oh I know, ban them from the game (gulag , feed them to lions, hang em high....).
"I would say that 'treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself' is a concept that can be appreciated by everyone"
Why? Why should anyone do anything other than what is "best" for them and them alone?
"However, it all comes down to game theory in the end; the only difference between theists and atheists in this respect is that theists are factoring the fear of hell into the equation."
Nope, that is you just rationalizing being atheistic. I don't believe in "eternal torment" of hell. Sorry but that is a pagan belief. When face with this life, and this life only, the only possible outcome for behavior is pure unadulterated (pun intended) Hedonism. Get what you can, while you can, and screw (pun intended) everyone else. What does it matter that you or anyone else lived or dies?
"It depends on whether you believe life starts at birth or conception. These are not arbitrarily-chosen points, remember. There's also the issue of premature babies and resuscitation to consider."
Exactly my point. So, when does "life" begin? (when the children have moved out and the dog has died)
"Some of the worst are also strictly religious."
So, religion has no part in deciding what form of government is good or bad, just like everything else. Wow, we agree
Yup. Subjective nomenclature is key to understanding. I know plenty of people who would classify me as "irrational" based solely upon the idea that I happen to believe in a Creator, and therefore, according to your definition (loose of course), I am now subject to the whims and laws that pertain to irrational animals, meaning I wouldn't have the rights you claim for "rational animal" for whatever reason that society decided.
And don't say it cannot happen because that is exactly what happens to people who end up in "Re-education camps" in communistic societies.
Using a previous comment, babies could be "aborted" because the are not "rational". And what about animals that boarder upon Rational (Koko the Gorilla) for example? Do we grant limited "human" rights to them?
"No "Creator" can grant you anything, because no such being exists, or can exist."
What is your basis for that conclusion? Because YOU have no proof? I have plenty of evidence that I could show you, but you wouldn't believe it.
"If you're being "good" because you're being threatened to behave that way, that's not morality, it's cowardice. If you're being "good" because "God told me so", that's not morality, that's insanity."
Thank you for just proving my point about "rational animals". You have just classified me as someone who is "not rational" but "insane". Now I refer you back to my previous post, on defining what is and what isn't "good" or "bad", thank you very much.
And I wonder how you feel about pure darwinism and "survival of the fittest" since that is based on pure "science" (unprovable theory). What I think is "good" may not be what you think is "good", and what is "good" for me, may not be "good" for you. What is "good" for society may not be "good" for any one of us. So, who gets to decide what is and what isn't good, and how do we measure and balance the two? You realize that this is the whole basis for Communism and Socialism, right? You do know that our property rights and even our form of government is based upon these "religions" you so dispise, right? You think the bill of rights was 10 by chance? How about just the second ammendment?
And so you know, I am probably outside of you idea of religious wackos being nothing like anyone you have probably met or even heard about.
Yeah, I suppose COMFORT and SAFETY are the major reasons we can't change email. I guess I am a wimp. Okay kids, no safety seats for you, because that is too difficult and it's okay according to the guys over at slashdot.
Yeah, because email and cars are exactly the same.
Modded "flamebait". I should have expected no less. Can't actually expect have a decent discussion with fundamentalist atheist any more with fundamentalist wackos of any religion.
I do suppose it is flamebait. But any discussion on theology or atheology is necessarily is "flamebait" to some.
The idea that Atheists are more/less moral than any other "group" is insane. Which was my whole point anyway.
"what I heard (but I could be wrong on that one), the US has enough land to sustain only about 1/10 of it's population considering its current way of life."
One of the few things the US still exports (productively anyway) is food crops. Of course, the wingnuts on the edges of the country dispise "flyover" country, and all the huge fields of crops that grow by hard working "religious nuts". So, it is not surprising that such ignorance abounds in the ivory towers of the megapolis beltways.
Bill would get 95% of all votes, think it wasn't enough. In fact, the only person available on the ballot would be Bill, and only people who know about how to write their own code would be able to figure out how to vote for someone else.
Vote for Bill Gates for Dictator of the Peoples Republic of Amerika!
Oh, and whose "morals" do you want to apply? Mine? I doubt you'd like it. Yours? I doubt I'd like it.
An atheist by definition ought to be amoral at least for everyone else.
Define Theft (include RIAA/MPAA ) Who's definition of "theft" and "stealing" do you want to ascribe to?
Define Murder. Does it include 9mo near term abortions? How about 3mo old babies. How about 6 month pregnancy? Where does an atheist draw the mythical line in the sand, and can they give a "logical" reason that is any better than any other mythical line in the sand.
How about Euthenasia? Who desides? What about killing off all the people who are a drain on society, the Mentally Challenged? Physically Challenged?
Perhaps we should offer up Christians and Jews to the lions because they are "less enlightened" than the "moral atheists". Or perhaps just Tibetans and Falun Gong?
The biggest problem atheist have, is that atheism by definition has no moral compass, no absolute, even theoretical, to base anything on. And one thing I do know, is that man can justify just about anything in his own mind given time enough to think on it.
Really, we've had "atheist" governments, and contrary to popular mythology they were (are) among the worst in regards to "human rights". The US of A, in spite of all our problems has at least one thing going for it.... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Take away the Creator, and you have no "unalienable rights", only "rights" that man grants to himself. I can assure you that when man can grant rights, he will take them away when its convenient or worse, for convenience sake.
I've made reasonable suggestions for the problem, only to have the standard "this won't work" template with the appropriate "its too hard" check boxes marked off.
You see, the thing that needs to happen, is EMAIL has got to change. Period. End of story. It will eventually change, we can either MANAGE the change or let the change manage us. Which means someone, somewhere is going to have to pick the least objectionably solution out there or else someone (usually with power/money) will pick it for us, and we'll probably won't like it for one of the reasons listed on the template listed above.
I don't have the expertise to actually code anything, I'm sure I can draw up an minimally objectionable framework on a new email system that deals with the spam problem. Just pick which objections from the template that are least objectionable.
Personally I would like it if people who are not as large as I am (6'5" 270lbs) wouldn't ascribe a one-size-fits-all sort of mentality. I don't fit in most cars, especially the pseudo-hybrid ultra compact ones. Trust me when I say this, one size doesn't fit all. I want an SUV (or other suitably large vehicle) if only so that I can fit into it.
air guitar making noise? air guitar, by definition is.... made of air. The only sound it should actually make is the wooosh of the hand through the air.
Like I said before, not funny anymore (perhaps it never was, except in my own mind).
Slashdot Mirror
Eh? Okay time flies when you're having fun. ;-) Not all of us had top of the line PIIIs when CD ripping became cool. Ahhh good times.
Most people don't really understand what the whole internet idea is, in its most basic form. They only realize what it can do for them by the services it offers (web, email, bitorrent etc). When one realizes what the Internet truly offers, communication, then it becomes clear what what the possibilities truly are.
Anything that can be imagined as getting two things talking to each other is the basics of the Internet, everything else is specifics. Wireless, Optical, copper are all mediums for that communication, nothing more, nothing less.
As mediums become more ubiquitous, and as they start to overlap, it just provides greater continuity of the communication which enables forms of communication that were previously impossible without the overlap and continuity.
Something I once discovered for my self (though in a completely unrelated sector), is that if it takes too long to do something, you just don't do it. If it takes 7 days to download a movie (dialup) while it is possible to do it, most people didn't. Now that it takes a couple of hours or less, people are starting to consider it. A couple of years ago, it took 6 hours to encode a CD to MP3, now it takes just a few minutes.
Because of the increase in bandwith, the ubiquitous connection, we are starting to see new means of communication which were impossible only a few years ago. It is inevitable. And things that take days or long hours today, will shortly be available for the average person. Those are the things we should be looking at.
From that article.
... amusing at best. Caring assumes something basic about morality. Amoral (no morals) by definition has no such assumption. Simply speaking a-moral = "I don't care".
"If we care about the outcome of our decisions - if we want to make the best choice in a given situation"
There is at least one assumption made, that assumption is
There are enough people who obviously "don't care" to make the whole rest of that article a moot point. I can give countless examples of people who don't care, or don't care enough to change their behavior to prove that assumption is flawed.
Care to try again?
"Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization"
;)
That was right after the gun control advocates got organized. I'm all for "gun control" and for banning weapons. Government should lead by example.
I actually view the internal parts of geeky electronics like seeing a woman without her clothes. An exceptionally well designed electronic goody is much like a exceptionally well put together lady undressed. On the other hand, some hacked together POC is like that 300lb tub naked ... eeewwwwww Put your clothes back on!
"One need not be a god to recognise 'rights'"
:-D
Who granted those rights, you, someone else? If either, they can be REVOKED. You claim "right" to "sick days", I hate to inform you but you don't have a "right" except by "Agreement" between you and your employer (and sometimes by law). Change Employers or your employer changes the agreement and your rights change. They aren't so unalienable. Now go work in 3rd world county and see if you have the same "rights".
This is the crux of the issue IMHO. All the rights you have come from somewhere, and in the case of Atheists, they come from "agreement" and "man", both of which have long been proven to change over time.
"I don't recall God as written as an American, but the 'life, liberty and happiness' are the American credo."
No, these are the basis for the AMERICAN law, and even the right to REVOTE against tyranny. The basis for these are OUTSIDE of mankind, something Atheists cannot claim for anything.
Notice too, you keep denying any sort of "higher power" in your arguement against that "higher power". Your "there is no god because there is no god" as if it were "self evident". Sorry, but it isn't self evident. I see evidence to the contrary all the time, evidence you would probably ignore, excuse as irrelevant or the rantings of a religious nutjob. However I can assure you that I have complete and full control over my faculties.
"Biblically humans were given life, and kicked out of happiness for taking a liberty (i.e. eating a forbidden fruit). So much for forgiveness and not visiting the sins of the father upon the children, but that's another tale."
Shows your ignorance. There is a HUGE level of forgiveness in that "story" one that points to redemption. Further there is a great deal of mercy that is also shown in that story. But since it is just a "story" and "mythology" to you, you don't actually know what the story is or even how it ends.
"Claiming that only from God came those ideals really is demeaning, in that people like Confucious who hadn't read the Bible still managed to come out with morality independantly, yet you would take that away from them."
Actually, you don't know anything about me, or my views on comparative religions. And this is not my view of why they have the same ideals.
"Everything past that is pretty much exploration and codifying that concept as it applies to various facets of life."
Uh huh. Tyrants also use the same principles to rule tyrannically. The trains run on time, was one of the mottos of Fascism. There is no "moral authority" to over rule the tyrannical "order" since it is just "codifying" the concept.
"They did have some uncredited knowledge only contemporarily relearned"
You just dismissed divine revelation because it doesn't fit your doctrine. How about during the dark ages, and the massive plagues that spread through Europe, the Jews who kept Kosher had much lower mortality rates? Or that the first use of anesthesia is found in that scripture? Uncredited knowledge? Hardly, you just don't like the credit as it is given.
"I've already read the Bible a few times, from Genesis to Revelations,"
Yet you miss the very point of mercy and forgiveness found in the story you quoted above. How come I saw it, and you didn't?
"Yet from the perspective of the atheist, that's exactly what those Biblical 'rights' are: rights man granted himself."
You granted yourself the right to life, liberty (true freedom) and Happiness? Hardly a view of an atheist. That would make you your own creator, but I remember that has always been the case, man has always wanted to be "as god".
Funny how a book more that 3000 years old accurately portrays man's most basic nature, even if you consider it mythology. They were a lot smarter back then.
I'd be happy to have a theological discussion on Torah and the rest of the scriptures if you want, but somehow I don't see you as wanting to do the research and actually read the thing.
"pareto-optimal situation is Co-op/Co-op"
....).
Optimal situations rarely are. This is why some people cannot fathom evil (like Hitler) until it is too late and they are in the gas chamber. Some people are evil, and the pareto-optimal situation is no longer "optimal". When one person ONLY cares about self maximization then that portion of Game theory fails. And in any given group of people, the likelyhood of having such an individual within that group grows as the group grows.
In addition, pareto-optimal theory doesn't really take into account competing groups increasing efficiency over a group that has no competition.
Of course, there are all sorts of other variations on game theory that can come into play if you are going to go down that road. But all of that is besides the point. In one of my theory classes, the teacher taught us one of his most important axioms, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not even close".
So what do you do when someone is gaming the whole system by not playing by the rules you think they should? Oh I know, ban them from the game (gulag , feed them to lions, hang em high
"I would say that 'treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself' is a concept that can be appreciated by everyone"
Why? Why should anyone do anything other than what is "best" for them and them alone?
"However, it all comes down to game theory in the end; the only difference between theists and atheists in this respect is that theists are factoring the fear of hell into the equation."
Nope, that is you just rationalizing being atheistic. I don't believe in "eternal torment" of hell. Sorry but that is a pagan belief. When face with this life, and this life only, the only possible outcome for behavior is pure unadulterated (pun intended) Hedonism. Get what you can, while you can, and screw (pun intended) everyone else. What does it matter that you or anyone else lived or dies?
"It depends on whether you believe life starts at birth or conception. These are not arbitrarily-chosen points, remember. There's also the issue of premature babies and resuscitation to consider."
Exactly my point. So, when does "life" begin? (when the children have moved out and the dog has died)
"Some of the worst are also strictly religious."
So, religion has no part in deciding what form of government is good or bad, just like everything else. Wow, we agree
"a rational animal."
Yup. Subjective nomenclature is key to understanding. I know plenty of people who would classify me as "irrational" based solely upon the idea that I happen to believe in a Creator, and therefore, according to your definition (loose of course), I am now subject to the whims and laws that pertain to irrational animals, meaning I wouldn't have the rights you claim for "rational animal" for whatever reason that society decided.
And don't say it cannot happen because that is exactly what happens to people who end up in "Re-education camps" in communistic societies.
Using a previous comment, babies could be "aborted" because the are not "rational". And what about animals that boarder upon Rational (Koko the Gorilla) for example? Do we grant limited "human" rights to them?
"No "Creator" can grant you anything, because no such being exists, or can exist."
What is your basis for that conclusion? Because YOU have no proof? I have plenty of evidence that I could show you, but you wouldn't believe it.
"If you're being "good" because you're being threatened to behave that way, that's not morality, it's cowardice. If you're being "good" because "God told me so", that's not morality, that's insanity."
Thank you for just proving my point about "rational animals". You have just classified me as someone who is "not rational" but "insane". Now I refer you back to my previous post, on defining what is and what isn't "good" or "bad", thank you very much.
And I wonder how you feel about pure darwinism and "survival of the fittest" since that is based on pure "science" (unprovable theory). What I think is "good" may not be what you think is "good", and what is "good" for me, may not be "good" for you. What is "good" for society may not be "good" for any one of us. So, who gets to decide what is and what isn't good, and how do we measure and balance the two? You realize that this is the whole basis for Communism and Socialism, right? You do know that our property rights and even our form of government is based upon these "religions" you so dispise, right? You think the bill of rights was 10 by chance? How about just the second ammendment?
And so you know, I am probably outside of you idea of religious wackos being nothing like anyone you have probably met or even heard about.
You sir, are either very funny or very scary.
Yeah, I suppose COMFORT and SAFETY are the major reasons we can't change email. I guess I am a wimp. Okay kids, no safety seats for you, because that is too difficult and it's okay according to the guys over at slashdot.
Yeah, because email and cars are exactly the same.
Modded "flamebait". I should have expected no less. Can't actually expect have a decent discussion with fundamentalist atheist any more with fundamentalist wackos of any religion.
I do suppose it is flamebait. But any discussion on theology or atheology is necessarily is "flamebait" to some.
The idea that Atheists are more/less moral than any other "group" is insane. Which was my whole point anyway.
"what I heard (but I could be wrong on that one), the US has enough land to sustain only about 1/10 of it's population considering its current way of life."
One of the few things the US still exports (productively anyway) is food crops. Of course, the wingnuts on the edges of the country dispise "flyover" country, and all the huge fields of crops that grow by hard working "religious nuts". So, it is not surprising that such ignorance abounds in the ivory towers of the megapolis beltways.
Bill would get 95% of all votes, think it wasn't enough. In fact, the only person available on the ballot would be Bill, and only people who know about how to write their own code would be able to figure out how to vote for someone else.
Vote for Bill Gates for Dictator of the Peoples Republic of Amerika!
Why Be "Moral"
.... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Oh, and whose "morals" do you want to apply? Mine? I doubt you'd like it. Yours? I doubt I'd like it.
An atheist by definition ought to be amoral at least for everyone else.
Define Theft (include RIAA/MPAA ) Who's definition of "theft" and "stealing" do you want to ascribe to?
Define Murder. Does it include 9mo near term abortions? How about 3mo old babies. How about 6 month pregnancy? Where does an atheist draw the mythical line in the sand, and can they give a "logical" reason that is any better than any other mythical line in the sand.
How about Euthenasia? Who desides? What about killing off all the people who are a drain on society, the Mentally Challenged? Physically Challenged?
Perhaps we should offer up Christians and Jews to the lions because they are "less enlightened" than the "moral atheists". Or perhaps just Tibetans and Falun Gong?
The biggest problem atheist have, is that atheism by definition has no moral compass, no absolute, even theoretical, to base anything on. And one thing I do know, is that man can justify just about anything in his own mind given time enough to think on it.
Really, we've had "atheist" governments, and contrary to popular mythology they were (are) among the worst in regards to "human rights". The US of A, in spite of all our problems has at least one thing going for it
Take away the Creator, and you have no "unalienable rights", only "rights" that man grants to himself. I can assure you that when man can grant rights, he will take them away when its convenient or worse, for convenience sake.
Yeah, because they are exactly the same thing. One is a EMAIL protocol, the other is fitting a large person into a car. Exactly the same thing.
Idiot.
I've made reasonable suggestions for the problem, only to have the standard "this won't work" template with the appropriate "its too hard" check boxes marked off.
You see, the thing that needs to happen, is EMAIL has got to change. Period. End of story. It will eventually change, we can either MANAGE the change or let the change manage us. Which means someone, somewhere is going to have to pick the least objectionably solution out there or else someone (usually with power/money) will pick it for us, and we'll probably won't like it for one of the reasons listed on the template listed above.
I don't have the expertise to actually code anything, I'm sure I can draw up an minimally objectionable framework on a new email system that deals with the spam problem. Just pick which objections from the template that are least objectionable.
Personally I would like it if people who are not as large as I am (6'5" 270lbs) wouldn't ascribe a one-size-fits-all sort of mentality. I don't fit in most cars, especially the pseudo-hybrid ultra compact ones. Trust me when I say this, one size doesn't fit all. I want an SUV (or other suitably large vehicle) if only so that I can fit into it.
NO, more like "Badgers badgers badger badger badgers"
Which is not to be confused with www.badgerbadgerbadger.com
The "we can't change anything because it is too hard waaaaaaa" post.
Thank you for being a wimp.
"Someone should just give this guy a hobby."
Dallas Mavericks
Anarchist Cookbook
Seriously the smoke bombs alone are worth it.
air guitar making noise? air guitar, by definition is .... made of air. The only sound it should actually make is the wooosh of the hand through the air.
Like I said before, not funny anymore (perhaps it never was, except in my own mind).
I was referring to the comment, not the dupe. I suppose that it is no longer funny now that I have to explain it.