Is it just me, or do Maxtor's IDE drives die at 18 months without fail?
With the oft-misused, favorable-looking MTBF ratings that are released along with many manufaturers' drives, they should be offering more than 3 yrs in some cases, if only to back up the (mostly) baseless implication of the MTBF ratings. It's only fair to get an exchange, since a consumer could get stuck with a crappy batch, i.e. an unfair burden of the failure statistic. I wonder if they will be keeping old lines running longer or exchanging broken drives with newer models... maybe I should just RTFA.
That Kropotkin anecdote is pretty popular. I haven't met too many libertarians who actually have him on the bookshelf (at least, not for long). Which of his works are you recommending? I recall seeing the anecdote about Siberia from a collection of communist writings... Kropotkin ended up an advocate of what is today called libertarian socialism, which is not exactly the same as American libertarianism.
> That should be enough to counter your "whole recorded history" illusion. Let me > guess, you went to government run school? Talk about a conflict of interest in > teaching peaceful human history.
Norway is probably a better real-world example than even Iceland.
P.S. - gp's schooling has nothing to do with his argument - ad hominem circumstantial. There's really no justification for that - there's no property at stake here;)
> Had you "recapped" sooner, much wasted effort would have been avoided.
I don't make it a habit of repeating myself. It seems more like we had an issue with common vocabulary. That's hardly anyone's sole fault.
> I have re-read your postings, and I have yet to see you propose > any program or policy which you define as "left" that the > US government is on the "right" of in anything except inertia.
Posse Comitatus. Habeas Corpus. Restrictions on search and seizure. Protections for consumers. Right to choose. Free speech. These are all left/liberal policies. Recently, the effective center has tolerated attacks on most, if not all, of these things. Most of them have nothing at all to do with socialist economics.
> Please reconsider your self-defined "libertarian socialist", since I see > no reconciliation of the two opposed terms
Umm... I didn't make this up. It's much older than I am. And nothing personal, but I don't see how your unwillingness to reconcile (small-l) libertarian principles with (small-s) socialism makes any difference - for instance, I could argue that I can't reconcile the notion of liberty with the capitalist notion of property, and therefore party Libertarianism is non-sensical - of course, that wouldn't be very valid on its own, since I don't defend the statement to any useful degree.
> Your "line" and "point" thing is rather absurd, as anyone who looks at > the Nolan chart will see. Any combination of economic or social control > is defined by a point, unless your definition means that someone is > continuously changing their mind which could indeed create a line.
Graphing socialism as a line is only an absurdity if you don't acknowledge the existence of a libertarian socialist philosophy. A line on the graph has nothing to do with a "changing mind." Suffice it to say that the described line represents a spectrum of people sharing the same economic principles but different social principles.
> Democrats are constantly waffling, so their position is exactly as you > state!
This is of the same brand of oversimplified political propaganda I objected to in the first place. It really has no use in an attempt at a factual discussion. If you want intelligent votes (real converts), you'll have to do better than blanket statements.
You said my statement about government being right-shifted is absurd. If you're right, it is cause for retraction. But you still haven't convinced me, and here's why:
> Then look at your own definitions of "left", which is socialist.
Can you quote me on that? I used the classical definition of left, which is not socialist. "Assume the french parliament definition of right/left." Socialists can be liberal - eg, libertarian socialists. I think the problem is that you're interchanging the names of parties (e.g. WWII Nazi Party, US Socialist Party, etc) with the definitions of political philosophies. They are not the same thing. For instance, the platform of the Libertarian Party of the US does not represent socialist libertarianism. But both still are anti-statist, e.g. on the left.
> by your logic the US government has slid "left". > Yet at the same time you assert that "statist" is "right".
By my logic, which rests on my definition, and not yours, gov't has slipped right. Yes, yes, we've established our definitions are conflicting, though I've been quite consistent. If it will end the confusion, let's just say that it has slipped toward increased personal rights interference, if it's the Nolan nomenclature you prefer.
> I can find nothing in your writings (yes, I did read them) which defines > what YOU mean by "left". That is why I started this sequence by trying to > define "left" because you had not done any of it.
I thank you for explaining yours, but as I've said, I wasn't using yours, mainly because I don't think it's correct. So it doesn't make sense to proceed as if I had been using any other definition but my own.
> Fact is, that the pure socialist is also a statist
So the statists socialists are the "pure socialists" and anarcho/libertarian socialists are not? Maybe the socialist party thinks so, but non-party socialists might not see it that way. The notion of socialism on your Nolan chart is reduced to only economic theory, not a general ideology. It doesn't make sense to talk about a "pure socialist" ideology - there's logically no such thing in either framework we've been using (classical or Nolan).
> That is also why the opposite of "socialist", the "fascist" is exactly > the same. It's all just about control.
This doesn't justify your conclusion because it's incorrect. Let's use Nolan again if you like. Socialism occupies one side of the market interference axis, and both sides of the personal interference axis. (graph result, a line) Fascism, or authoritarian state capitalism, occupies one side of the market interference axis and one side of the personal interference axis. (graph result, a point). They can't be true opposites, since they in different categories, and they can't be the same because the fascist point doesn't intersect the socialist line.
Maybe I should recap what I was originally saying so as to bring closure to the recursion.
I believe your idea that dems and repubs are the same is false. The real problem creating bills
Re:Takeshi's Castle
on
Is Math A Sport?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Many people cite it as a "non-sport," but synchronized swimming is incredibly difficult, both athletically and otherwise. Here's a way for you to find out:
swim 60 meters underwater. stay underwater 3 out of 5 minutes. train in a pool 7 days a week in addition to a periodized weight regimen and plyometrics.
Those things are just auxiliary. As a prerequisite, you must to have incredible overall swimming skills, cardiovascular and muscular endurance, great strength, agility, balance, discipline and superbly-honed technique.
Nazi may be an abbreviation of "National Socialism", but it's a misnomer. The Nazi party was not socialist, but state capitalist. It's correct to consider Nazis rightist, becaust they were statists. The Communists are true "national socialists." They are also rightist.
Did you really read my post? I never commented about an economic axis, so I'm not "missing" it. Please refer to my original post, where I say "right" and "liberal" in the same context, indicating pretty clearly that I was talking specifically about an authoritarian axis.
> yet fascist is considered "right" while socialist "left".
And the latter part is quite incorrect. As I said, socialism is not intrinsically "left." A million people can say it's left, and they would all of them be incorrect. It's akin to calling both your thumbs "left thumb."
> the original statement that the American Congress is "right" is so absurd.
Your own posts support the idea that it is anything but. Statism = rightism. Dems and Reps are both statists. Congress is therefore skewed right." What about that plain, easy syllogism makes you call its result absurd?
What is absurd is your original statement that dems and republicans are the same and without principle. I pointed out (and so since have you!) that they may be favoring the same side of the authoritarian center, but unlike you, I point out that they do certainly have different principles. To say that they are the same is an oversimplification meant, I guess, to solicit libertarian votes. I even went so far to say that your suggested action is appropriate, even if the reasoning in your post is premised on an inaccuracy.
> The classical liberals are now called libertarian. See [links omitted]
Why should I research something I just said? I don't think you read the post you are replying to closely enough. Here are some quotes from it:
liberal means the opposite of statist... libertarians are liberals... Libertarians' core principles are centered around non-statism
What is ironic is that Nolan was trying to clear up confusing misappropriations of "right" and "left" and here you are still insisting on equating socialists with the left while simultaneously citing Nolan.
Bottom line - I don't care if you retract your original propaganda statement or not. I've already clearly pointed out its flaw to anyone still reading. But unless you come back with a coherent reply as to why American politics are not shifted right, then I'm not retracting my statement about that.
> Secular State is a bad idea, because then you have no core value system. With > everyone having different views on things, which view point is common?
You're begging the question: why is a core value system necessary?
> I don't agree with much of what is being taught (especially as fact when it is NOT). > Mine, yours, taliban, Peta, Nazi, Communist, Secular Humanists?
All the groups you list share the sentiment you state - what's being taught isn't in line with what I "know" to be fact. Here's an idea - how about teaching what you know, and disclaiming it as your version?
> The governments of the world are the greatest sources of evil.
What are your units of measurement? Individuals, corporations, terror groups, political parties, cults, churches, malevolent volcano gods - these are all sources of evil too. Can we abolish them? Should we?
> All men are created equal
Some men have breasts and vaginas then. Seriously, people are not really equal. A lot of us desire liberty, and some even go so far as to afford it to other people with an expectation of reciprocation - this is the benchmark of free civilization, but by no means is it an innate characteristic we all share, but rather, a philosophic tenet. Governments, services, and organization are the present means by which this has been realized to varying degree of success. Maybe it is possible to shed the overhead of governments everywhere and still maintain liberty, but it doesn't make sense to do it solely on the principle that "government is evil."
> Rights exist apart from money, goods and services.
Yes. They are abstract constructs, while goods and services are quite tangible. You can live without liberty (though many agree that it's not worth it), but you cannot live without resources.
> Or it could also be considered "Insightful." Making an insight on a situation.
Insightfulness and trollishness aren't mutually exclusive properties.
> I guess it all depends if you agree with the comment or not, to come to the > conclusion that it's a troll.
Not at all. However, opinion on "insight" does depend on whether one agrees or not, in addition to whether or not the idea of the post is non-obvious.
Lo, and behold your mods for that post - and tell me how what I'm saying doesn't make sense. For the record, I agree with your post to a degree. I also happen think it's a troll by the/. definition.
OK - liberal means the opposite of statist. Liberals are not intrinsically socialist. E.g. anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are liberals but not socialists.
> let's take a look at the socialist party platform >... > These are all very "left" and all very "centrist" in the US.
Assume the french parliament definition of right/left and that a fundamental definition of liberty yields an absolute center (exactly enough government to provide said liberty).
Put together in one platform, the policies you listed are to the right. Such a platform is statist, and it's indicative of a statist political climate (i.e. the effective center where the parties meet is right of the absolute center). Right now, the parties seem to think that their lifeblood (donors, and maybe even voters) want a lot of government. Libertarians' core principles are centered around non-statism, so their platform is naturally less affected by this, but that doesn't mean that the other parties don't have principles - it just means that if liberty is your primary concern, the other parties' differences seem minor compared to the similarities because yours is the only one that still cares primarily about liberty (otherwise, it ceases to be your party).
A political atmosphere in which statism of any kind is favored is shifted to the right. Looking at the two primary parties: one is catering to the right, one is catering to the extreme right. The latter party has a long history of conservatism and statism and has no liberal roots to speak of. The former does, and if the country's gestalt is fixing to put the brakes on conservatism, then that party needs to return to those roots.
I agree that voting libertarian (or at least voting for the least right-wing candidate) would aid greatly in encouraging both big parties to lay off the statist policies like INDUCE. It will probably be democrats who will be able to embrace liberalism more readily and begin voting against this kind of bill, because it's not as big a stretch in ideology for their base. The republicans, on the other hand, can't as aggressively solicit liberal dollars and votes without alienating an equal or greater chunk of their conservative support.
The problem isn't that R's and D's are the same, it's that: mainstream politicians are generally centrists, and the "center" of American politics is skewed to the right such that democrats are no longer very liberal.
also makes it easy to prove when some dolt changed something without notifying anybody. i've found stuff with changed mtimes but different md5 sums that solved aan otherwise inexplicably isolated failure.
I'm not sure he's got the definition wrong. From m-w:
Main Entry: hypocrisy Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -sies Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion 2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
e.g. purporting to believe that companies should be accountable for misdeeds, and then only applying the principle when it suits the/. agenda (i.e. against MS) and ignoring it when it does not (i.e. against Red Hat).
I'm not saying the poster's idea is right, but the use of the word is entirely appropriate in the context of the argument.
Probably true, I apologize. It's admittedly pent-up frustration. Up until recently, I worked with a guy who disparaged laser tag constantly in favor of paintball, and I came to see it as an form of self-aggrandizing elitism that has no real basis. You can always somehow up the ante in a particular activity if you need to, but I don't see that as an absolute indicator of mettle or character. A cool-as-ice paintball player might be nervous at his own divorce proceeding, for example, while a divorce lawyer may not. "Interdisciplinary" grace under pressure is a rare gift, and it's probably not easy to develop with specificity.
I think in the real reason he trumpeted so loudly is because he wanted recognition for skillfully enduring his particular choice of challenge; maybe to take the focus of some other insecurities, who knows. I can appreciate his accomplishment, I just deride the idea that any particular challenge is instrinsically more difficult or noteworthy on its own. There are other factors to consider, like experience, personal limitations and circumstance.
> You can't even adjust your aim with the "weapon", as you can't see your own > "shots"
Back on topic, your thoughts have made me think of other mods I forgot to mention A roughly-calibrated laser pointer makes the mall-mart guns more fun. (e.g. one sniper per team). A green pointer in sync with the trigger would make for "tracer" beams, though they are more expensive. "force fields" or "nukes" are also a possibility (continuously flood a plane or volume with the appropriate IR signal) but I've never tried anything like that.
If you get a chance, try the Giant NRS series too. The frame geometry had a more familiar feel to me, and they are pretty light. Go to the bigger MTB or adventure races, there are sometimes demos on actual trails, and way more bikes to look at than at your LBS.
I agree that occasionally it's fun, but for some people a true adrenaline rush is scary, uncomfortable, and not sought. I can think of several solid XC riders I know who will not ride anything more narrow than two feet, dismount anywhere near a precipice, and stay off stunts and drops because they value relaxation over white-knuckle adrenaline rushes. It's just not their thing.
> Most runners will tell you that they get a "runner's high" in addition to > getting a great workout. And most experienced mountain bikers will take the > steeper, faster downhill route because they over-stimulate their senses, > casuing an adrenaline rush. The steeper route is just... more fun.
Runner's high is caused by endorphins, not adrenaline (I run distance too, so I'm quite familiar with the sensation). It's much more serene... in technical biking terms, it's what I referred to earlier as "flow." Knowing many very insanely good riders, I think your view of them as adrenaline junkies is a misconception. True extreme bikers (cliff jumpers, etc.) are in a tiny minority. Expert bikers, DH or XC, are rarely going to get an adrenaline rush on anything but the most extreme stuff. These guys can do what they do because they have technical skills and finesse - and adrenaline is the enemy of finesse. Threading a highly technical downhill while jacked up on adrenaline will probably produce a fall. I'd say beginner bikers get more adrenaline rushes on average, because they are more often pushing to try new stuff and practice skills. That's not to say that the majority of bikers don't experience adrenaline jolts occasionally, but you can't pull that shit every ride without breaking a collarbone, because it's riding at the envelope of your ability by definition.
One pursuit is not superior to the other, they are just different - which was my original point. To each his own, and there are ups and downs to both. It depends on what you want. I like to win and/or do my best. I've played paintball a couple of times. My aim and decision making during the games sucked much worse than in the practice rounds because of the adrenaline. I like winning more than I like the rush, so if I were able to develop a detached state of mind and perform better, I think I'd come more often, and I don't think that's atypical at all. A lot of people aim to win or at least compete, and we often stick to what we are good at pursuant to that.
I have been riding a hardtail XC for years, but I think a light dualie with lockout is in my future. There are plenty of stock dual-suspension bikes that are lighter than my hardtail - but I agree that on a 24 hour race, as long as there were no super-technical downhills, a hardtail would be more than sufficient. bumpy paths would favor a dualie, though, even in a long race, unless you really have a lot of upper-body endurance and are a super-efficient shock absorber yourself. it depends on what your strengths are, ultimately. if you're not a finesse rider and you're all legs, a dualie might be faster for you on sustained bumpy singletrack.
Especially poigniant since unicycles and tricycles are an order of magnitude geekier than bicycles.
Speaking of big-O - are you a one-wheeler? If so, what are you riding these days? I've been messing around on a trials uni recently... trying to mount picnic tables without violating local decency laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or do Maxtor's IDE drives die at 18 months without fail?
With the oft-misused, favorable-looking MTBF ratings that are released along with many manufaturers' drives, they should be offering more than 3 yrs in some cases, if only to back up the (mostly) baseless implication of the MTBF ratings. It's only fair to get an exchange, since a consumer could get stuck with a crappy batch, i.e. an unfair burden of the failure statistic. I wonder if they will be keeping old lines running longer or exchanging broken drives with newer models... maybe I should just RTFA.
Graphic performance becomes a major problem - most people could just run long video cables and/or go wireless on the input devices.
Antec cases aren't that bad. There are lots of good designs. What exactly would you envision as your ideal case, aesthetically?
That Kropotkin anecdote is pretty popular. I haven't met too many libertarians who actually have him on the bookshelf (at least, not for long). Which of his works are you recommending? I recall seeing the anecdote about Siberia from a collection of communist writings... Kropotkin ended up an advocate of what is today called libertarian socialism, which is not exactly the same as American libertarianism.
;)
> That should be enough to counter your "whole recorded history" illusion. Let me
> guess, you went to government run school? Talk about a conflict of interest in
> teaching peaceful human history.
Norway is probably a better real-world example than even Iceland.
P.S. - gp's schooling has nothing to do with his argument - ad hominem circumstantial. There's really no justification for that - there's no property at stake here
oooh, oooh... i know. it's the only reason i looked at this thread. Hint #2:
Counter-intelligence droids.
Does basketball have a military application, any more than synchronized swimming does?
I think the definition of sport has changed a bit since the ancient Greeks were around.
> Had you "recapped" sooner, much wasted effort would have been avoided.
I don't make it a habit of repeating myself. It seems more like we had an issue with common vocabulary. That's hardly anyone's sole fault.
> I have re-read your postings, and I have yet to see you propose
> any program or policy which you define as "left" that the
> US government is on the "right" of in anything except inertia.
Posse Comitatus. Habeas Corpus. Restrictions on search and seizure. Protections for consumers. Right to choose. Free speech. These are all left/liberal policies. Recently, the effective center has tolerated attacks on most, if not all, of these things. Most of them have nothing at all to do with socialist economics.
> Please reconsider your self-defined "libertarian socialist", since I see
> no reconciliation of the two opposed terms
Umm... I didn't make this up. It's much older than I am. And nothing personal, but I don't see how your unwillingness to reconcile (small-l) libertarian principles with (small-s) socialism makes any difference - for instance, I could argue that I can't reconcile the notion of liberty with the capitalist notion of property, and therefore party Libertarianism is non-sensical - of course, that wouldn't be very valid on its own, since I don't defend the statement to any useful degree.
> Your "line" and "point" thing is rather absurd, as anyone who looks at
> the Nolan chart will see. Any combination of economic or social control
> is defined by a point, unless your definition means that someone is
> continuously changing their mind which could indeed create a line.
Graphing socialism as a line is only an absurdity if you don't acknowledge the existence of a libertarian socialist philosophy. A line on the graph has nothing to do with a "changing mind." Suffice it to say that the described line represents a spectrum of people sharing the same economic principles but different social principles.
> Democrats are constantly waffling, so their position is exactly as you
> state!
This is of the same brand of oversimplified political propaganda I objected to in the first place. It really has no use in an attempt at a factual discussion. If you want intelligent votes (real converts), you'll have to do better than blanket statements.
> You don't have to retract any statement.
You said my statement about government being right-shifted is absurd. If you're right, it is cause for retraction. But you still haven't convinced me, and here's why:
> Then look at your own definitions of "left", which is socialist.
Can you quote me on that? I used the classical definition of left, which is not socialist.
"Assume the french parliament definition of right/left." Socialists can be liberal - eg, libertarian socialists. I think the problem is that you're interchanging the names of parties (e.g. WWII Nazi Party, US Socialist Party, etc) with the definitions of political philosophies. They are not the same thing. For instance, the platform of the Libertarian Party of the US does not represent socialist libertarianism. But both still are anti-statist, e.g. on the left.
> by your logic the US government has slid "left".
> Yet at the same time you assert that "statist" is "right".
By my logic, which rests on my definition, and not yours, gov't has slipped right. Yes, yes, we've established our definitions are conflicting, though I've been quite consistent. If it will end the confusion, let's just say that it has slipped toward increased personal rights interference, if it's the Nolan nomenclature you prefer.
> I can find nothing in your writings (yes, I did read them) which defines
> what YOU mean by "left". That is why I started this sequence by trying to
> define "left" because you had not done any of it.
Did you read these parts? In the first post, it's fairly well-implied what definition I'm using:
"politics is skewed to the right such that democrats are no longer very liberal.". If right != liberal, then left = liberal.
I then explicitly stated what definition I was using, so as to erase any confusion (or so I thought). Quoting myself again: "Assume the french parliament definition of right/left."
I did so at your request: "First, define "liberal". It has come to mean someone who advocates the policies of the "left", embodied substantially in the socialist manifesto."
I thank you for explaining yours, but as I've said, I wasn't using yours, mainly because I don't think it's correct. So it doesn't make sense to proceed as if I had been using any other definition but my own.
> Fact is, that the pure socialist is also a statist
So the statists socialists are the "pure socialists" and anarcho/libertarian socialists are not? Maybe the socialist party thinks so, but non-party socialists might not see it that way. The notion of socialism on your Nolan chart is reduced to only economic theory, not a general ideology. It doesn't make sense to talk about a "pure socialist" ideology - there's logically no such thing in either framework we've been using (classical or Nolan).
> That is also why the opposite of "socialist", the "fascist" is exactly
> the same. It's all just about control.
This doesn't justify your conclusion because it's incorrect. Let's use Nolan again if you like. Socialism occupies one side of the market interference axis, and both sides of the personal interference axis. (graph result, a line) Fascism, or authoritarian state capitalism, occupies one side of the market interference axis and one side of the personal interference axis. (graph result, a point). They can't be true opposites, since they in different categories, and they can't be the same because the fascist point doesn't intersect the socialist line.
Maybe I should recap what I was originally saying so as to bring closure to the recursion.
I believe your idea that dems and repubs are the same is false. The real problem creating bills
Many people cite it as a "non-sport," but synchronized swimming is incredibly difficult, both athletically and otherwise. Here's a way for you to find out:
swim 60 meters underwater.
stay underwater 3 out of 5 minutes.
train in a pool 7 days a week in addition to a periodized weight regimen and plyometrics.
Those things are just auxiliary. As a prerequisite, you must to have incredible overall swimming skills, cardiovascular and muscular endurance, great strength, agility, balance, discipline and superbly-honed technique.
Oh, and another correction:
Nazi may be an abbreviation of "National Socialism", but it's a misnomer. The Nazi party was not socialist, but state capitalist. It's correct to consider Nazis rightist, becaust they were statists. The Communists are true "national socialists." They are also rightist.
Did you really read my post? I never commented about an economic axis, so I'm not "missing" it. Please refer to my original post, where I say "right" and "liberal" in the same context, indicating pretty clearly that I was talking specifically about an authoritarian axis.
... ...
> yet fascist is considered "right" while socialist "left".
And the latter part is quite incorrect. As I said, socialism is not intrinsically "left." A million people can say it's left, and they would all of them be incorrect. It's akin to calling both your thumbs "left thumb."
> the original statement that the American Congress is "right" is so absurd.
Your own posts support the idea that it is anything but. Statism = rightism. Dems and Reps are both statists. Congress is therefore skewed right." What about that plain, easy syllogism makes you call its result absurd?
What is absurd is your original statement that dems and republicans are the same and without principle. I pointed out (and so since have you!) that they may be favoring the same side of the authoritarian center, but unlike you, I point out that they do certainly have different principles. To say that they are the same is an oversimplification meant, I guess, to solicit libertarian votes. I even went so far to say that your suggested action is appropriate, even if the reasoning in your post is premised on an inaccuracy.
> The classical liberals are now called libertarian. See [links omitted]
Why should I research something I just said? I don't think you read the post you are replying to closely enough. Here are some quotes from it:
liberal means the opposite of statist
libertarians are liberals
Libertarians' core principles are centered around non-statism
What is ironic is that Nolan was trying to clear up confusing misappropriations of "right" and "left" and here you are still insisting on equating socialists with the left while simultaneously citing Nolan.
Bottom line - I don't care if you retract your original propaganda statement or not. I've already clearly pointed out its flaw to anyone still reading. But unless you come back with a coherent reply as to why American politics are not shifted right, then I'm not retracting my statement about that.
> Secular State is a bad idea, because then you have no core value system. With
> everyone having different views on things, which view point is common?
You're begging the question: why is a core value system necessary?
> I don't agree with much of what is being taught (especially as fact when it is NOT).
> Mine, yours, taliban, Peta, Nazi, Communist, Secular Humanists?
All the groups you list share the sentiment you state - what's being taught isn't in line with what I "know" to be fact. Here's an idea - how about teaching what you know, and disclaiming it as your version?
> The governments of the world are the greatest sources of evil.
What are your units of measurement? Individuals, corporations, terror groups, political parties, cults, churches, malevolent volcano gods - these are all sources of evil too. Can we abolish them? Should we?
> All men are created equal
Some men have breasts and vaginas then. Seriously, people are not really equal. A lot of us desire liberty, and some even go so far as to afford it to other people with an expectation of reciprocation - this is the benchmark of free civilization, but by no means is it an innate characteristic we all share, but rather, a philosophic tenet. Governments, services, and organization are the present means by which this has been realized to varying degree of success. Maybe it is possible to shed the overhead of governments everywhere and still maintain liberty, but it doesn't make sense to do it solely on the principle that "government is evil."
> Rights exist apart from money, goods and services.
Yes. They are abstract constructs, while goods and services are quite tangible. You can live without liberty (though many agree that it's not worth it), but you cannot live without resources.
> Or it could also be considered "Insightful." Making an insight on a situation.
/. definition.
Insightfulness and trollishness aren't mutually exclusive properties.
> I guess it all depends if you agree with the comment or not, to come to the
> conclusion that it's a troll.
Not at all. However, opinion on "insight" does depend on whether one agrees or not, in addition to whether or not the idea of the post is non-obvious.
Lo, and behold your mods for that post - and tell me how what I'm saying doesn't make sense. For the record, I agree with your post to a degree. I also happen think it's a troll by the
> The comment was made quite tongue-in-cheek, to possibly stimulate some
> discussion here.
That is a pretty good definition of trolling.
Not sure why you were modded troll here. Oh well.
...
> define "liberal".
OK - liberal means the opposite of statist. Liberals are not intrinsically socialist. E.g. anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are liberals but not socialists.
> let's take a look at the socialist party platform
>
> These are all very "left" and all very "centrist" in the US.
Assume the french parliament definition of right/left and that a fundamental definition of liberty yields an absolute center (exactly enough government to provide said liberty).
Put together in one platform, the policies you listed are to the right. Such a platform is statist, and it's indicative of a statist political climate (i.e. the effective center where the parties meet is right of the absolute center). Right now, the parties seem to think that their lifeblood (donors, and maybe even voters) want a lot of government. Libertarians' core principles are centered around non-statism, so their platform is naturally less affected by this, but that doesn't mean that the other parties don't have principles - it just means that if liberty is your primary concern, the other parties' differences seem minor compared to the similarities because yours is the only one that still cares primarily about liberty (otherwise, it ceases to be your party).
A political atmosphere in which statism of any kind is favored is shifted to the right. Looking at the two primary parties: one is catering to the right, one is catering to the extreme right. The latter party has a long history of conservatism and statism and has no liberal roots to speak of. The former does, and if the country's gestalt is fixing to put the brakes on conservatism, then that party needs to return to those roots.
I agree that voting libertarian (or at least voting for the least right-wing candidate) would aid greatly in encouraging both big parties to lay off the statist policies like INDUCE. It will probably be democrats who will be able to embrace liberalism more readily and begin voting against this kind of bill, because it's not as big a stretch in ideology for their base. The republicans, on the other hand, can't as aggressively solicit liberal dollars and votes without alienating an equal or greater chunk of their conservative support.
The problem isn't that R's and D's are the same, it's that: mainstream politicians are generally centrists, and the "center" of American politics is skewed to the right such that democrats are no longer very liberal.
also makes it easy to prove when some dolt changed something without notifying anybody. i've found stuff with changed mtimes but different md5 sums that solved aan otherwise inexplicably isolated failure.
A collection of different live and rescue CDs - RIP, Knoppix, mandrake move, and a USB key.
for monitoring/paging and secure intersite data exchange:
fetchmail (say what you want, it works for what i do)
nc
gpg
base64
curl and wget
good old cron, or self-referencing shell scripts
these tools can get you alot, using only SMTP as a transfer protocol. avoid asking the NOC to turn the firewall into swiss cheese.
free shell if you want it...
I'm not sure he's got the definition wrong. From m-w:
/. agenda (i.e. against MS) and ignoring it when it does not (i.e. against Red Hat).
Main Entry: hypocrisy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
e.g. purporting to believe that companies should be accountable for misdeeds, and then only applying the principle when it suits the
I'm not saying the poster's idea is right, but the use of the word is entirely appropriate in the context of the argument.
> you initially came off a bit dismissive/cynical
Probably true, I apologize. It's admittedly pent-up frustration. Up until recently, I worked with a guy who disparaged laser tag constantly in favor of paintball, and I came to see it as an form of self-aggrandizing elitism that has no real basis. You can always somehow up the ante in a particular activity if you need to, but I don't see that as an absolute indicator of mettle or character. A cool-as-ice paintball player might be nervous at his own divorce proceeding, for example, while a divorce lawyer may not. "Interdisciplinary" grace under pressure is a rare gift, and it's probably not easy to develop with specificity.
I think in the real reason he trumpeted so loudly is because he wanted recognition for skillfully enduring his particular choice of challenge; maybe to take the focus of some other insecurities, who knows. I can appreciate his accomplishment, I just deride the idea that any particular challenge is instrinsically more difficult or noteworthy on its own. There are other factors to consider, like experience, personal limitations and circumstance.
> You can't even adjust your aim with the "weapon", as you can't see your own
> "shots"
Back on topic, your thoughts have made me think of other mods I forgot to mention A roughly-calibrated laser pointer makes the mall-mart guns more fun. (e.g. one sniper per team). A green pointer in sync with the trigger would make for "tracer" beams, though they are more expensive. "force fields" or "nukes" are also a possibility (continuously flood a plane or volume with the appropriate IR signal) but I've never tried anything like that.
If you get a chance, try the Giant NRS series too. The frame geometry had a more familiar feel to me, and they are pretty light. Go to the bigger MTB or adventure races, there are sometimes demos on actual trails, and way more bikes to look at than at your LBS.
> But it certainly helps.
I agree that occasionally it's fun, but for some people a true adrenaline rush is scary, uncomfortable, and not sought. I can think of several solid XC riders I know who will not ride anything more narrow than two feet, dismount anywhere near a precipice, and stay off stunts and drops because they value relaxation over white-knuckle adrenaline rushes. It's just not their thing.
> Most runners will tell you that they get a "runner's high" in addition to
> getting a great workout. And most experienced mountain bikers will take the
> steeper, faster downhill route because they over-stimulate their senses,
> casuing an adrenaline rush. The steeper route is just... more fun.
Runner's high is caused by endorphins, not adrenaline (I run distance too, so I'm quite familiar with the sensation). It's much more serene... in technical biking terms, it's what I referred to earlier as "flow." Knowing many very insanely good riders, I think your view of them as adrenaline junkies is a misconception. True extreme bikers (cliff jumpers, etc.) are in a tiny minority. Expert bikers, DH or XC, are rarely going to get an adrenaline rush on anything but the most extreme stuff. These guys can do what they do because they have technical skills and finesse - and adrenaline is the enemy of finesse. Threading a highly technical downhill while jacked up on adrenaline will probably produce a fall. I'd say beginner bikers get more adrenaline rushes on average, because they are more often pushing to try new stuff and practice skills. That's not to say that the majority of bikers don't experience adrenaline jolts occasionally, but you can't pull that shit every ride without breaking a collarbone, because it's riding at the envelope of your ability by definition.
One pursuit is not superior to the other, they are just different - which was my original point. To each his own, and there are ups and downs to both. It depends on what you want. I like to win and/or do my best. I've played paintball a couple of times. My aim and decision making during the games sucked much worse than in the practice rounds because of the adrenaline. I like winning more than I like the rush, so if I were able to develop a detached state of mind and perform better, I think I'd come more often, and I don't think that's atypical at all. A lot of people aim to win or at least compete, and we often stick to what we are good at pursuant to that.
I have been riding a hardtail XC for years, but I think a light dualie with lockout is in my future. There are plenty of stock dual-suspension bikes that are lighter than my hardtail - but I agree that on a 24 hour race, as long as there were no super-technical downhills, a hardtail would be more than sufficient. bumpy paths would favor a dualie, though, even in a long race, unless you really have a lot of upper-body endurance and are a super-efficient shock absorber yourself. it depends on what your strengths are, ultimately. if you're not a finesse rider and you're all legs, a dualie might be faster for you on sustained bumpy singletrack.
Especially poigniant since unicycles and tricycles are an order of magnitude geekier than bicycles.
Speaking of big-O - are you a one-wheeler? If so, what are you riding these days? I've been messing around on a trials uni recently... trying to mount picnic tables without violating local decency laws.