This would be an example of one of the many New Age gimmicks which serves primarily to make people stop thinking.
In the box of non-orthodox stuff, there's a fairly stark difference between wishful silliness and truthful ideas. For some reason, people have trouble differentiating between the two. I don't get why. Some things just have that "air of lame", and when you look into them, (as I did with the orogone thing) you find out that, yes, they are indeed lame ducks.
But that shouldn't make people from turn off. It's the old logical fallacy: "All cows are animals, therefore all animals are cows."
Or lame ducks.
Some ducks can fly.
But you won't know which ones unless you do some exploring!
After all, learning is fun, and who wants to do as they're told all the time anyway? People are always telling us what is right and wrong to believe and they enforce it with social pressure. Social pressure is for the birds. The lame ones.
And look at everything which has happened while I was away! Miss a few news cycles and Gaza winds up in flames. I wonder if the timing of this even was deliberate. No. Actually, I don't wonder that at all.
The whole situation in Israel and Gaza looks to me like the result of a long and slow mind-programming effort, largely through the use of religion, to annihilate everybody of Semitic blood lines. Jew and Muslim alike.
One possible scenario I see unfolding. . .
The propaganda war being waged by Israel while it bombs Gaza is seen for what it is; (nobody seems to be buying it except those who already owned it), and the world stands well back while Israel is attacked with far more than just home made rockets. The Zionist-owned puppet leaders in the West respond by going to war against the Muslim world, (more so than already), and the destruction of humanity is jump-started.
Destruction of 94% of the world's population. That appears to be the goal, starting with the Semites.
Isn't it weird how the Zionist movement in it's early days used coercion and underhanded tactics to move Jewish communities to one convenient location? All eggs in one basket. Isn't it also weird how some of the more powerful Zionists weren't even Jewish?
I've been telling my Jewish friends for years to stay the heck away from the 'promised land'. I can't see how this can possibly end well.
To get a snippet of some of the thinking circulating in the darker corners, read Dave McGowan's essay with attention to one Dr. Colin Campbell and his advice on the matter of Peak Oil. (Take a look at the list of institutions he's been invited to lecture at.)
Very good. --I'd like to spend the time required to delve into this with proper energy, but it's the holidays at the moment and family is bouncing all over the place. I'm not abandoning this; it's not common that one meets an intelligent person on the other side of the screen. Give me a day or two to get into a proper space and collect some notes; it is clear (as per Occam) that my methods have become sloppy of late. In the mean time, if you can find the time, watch a copy of that old Watergate movie, "All the President's Men." I know it's just a movie, but it is useful for illustrating a couple of points wtr to conspiracies which I'd like to reference.
Not typically within their own country. They are not legally allowed to do it, and the government isn't as good as you think in keeping secrets. Every single time someone in the high levels of government does something like that, a lot of people need to be involved, and it only takes one to blow the whistle. MK Ultra, watergate, warrantless wiretapping...all these things that you're going to use to point at how conspiracies exist are actually arguments against it: all these things are shit that the government couldn't manage to keep secret. It only takes one honest person to leak it.
What a charming and reassuring reality you have constructed for yourself! Do you actually want to have a debate about this designed to learn truth, or do you want to shore up your psychological defenses against scary things and 'win' at all cost? (ie, Truth being irrelevant.)
If you're going to waste my time with panic button arguments until I go away so that you can feel right with the world once more, then please let me know now so that I can save myself the effort. Otherwise, I would be happy to talk this over with you; there are several flaws in your thinking and your examples.
Just let me know.
As per Occam. . , 1. Okay. It's more complicated that looking at his date of birth. 2. Okay. The "Law of Parsimony" is an old idea. It's more complicated than simply saying that because Occam's name is on it means he invented it. I over-simplified to make a point. 3. Excommunicated because he was a rebel, eh? You're going to suggest this, while complaining about my over-simplifying historical data to illustrate a point? Hypocrite.
Do you see a pattern here? --The most simple course of thinking is by no means the most accurate. This is precisely the problem with Occam's Razor.
And as you seem to be arguing this very point. . , what is your problem exactly?
And that's the problem with most conspiracy theories. They don't bother to check the facts before spouting their theories, which leads to the ridicule you dislike so much.
Actually, ALL theories, whether they are about conspiracies or not, are subject to human error and inexactitude. This is why we call them theories and then explore their validity. They are tools for researching the truth, and nothing more. --But for some reason, a special kind of ridicule is expressed and indeed amplified for those who lower charges of corruption at the authorities.
Poppycock, you're simply justifying your own self-satisfied ignorance.
So you disagree with me then? Fair enough.
Like any such tool it's usefullness depends on the accuracy and breadth of the users assumptions. In the 11th century religion and science were the same thing so it's no surprise an 11th century Monk would assume God exists, and that "God did it" is the simplest answer.
Yes, and that was exactly my point. --Which makes me wonder what part of my comment you found objectionable? Was it my tone?
Occam's Razor is a logical tool which is only exacting when used within a closed system of fully known, understood and controlled facts. But the world is not fully known or controlled, rendering it little more than a somewhat helpful rule of thumb for serious researchers feeling their way through difficult problems and who need any kind of help they can grasp. My objection, however, is that it is most often misused (around these parts anyway), as though it were a veritable Wand of Truth to dispense with any ideas which create discomfort in the layman thinker, hence my comment about ignorance. I don't see what you have to disagree with other than my tone, which I admit, was a bit snarly. I apologize for that.
And how many people does it take to find the mechanic?
Depends how big your HR department is when hiring secret agents.
Secret agents exist. We know this. It's not a theory. It's a career path.
Their job is to conspire and execute conspiracies.
And another of their jobs, incidentally, is to perform psyops on the public. --To make people believe convenient things. Things like, "Occam can be used to justify ignorance, despite the fact that he was a 13th century monk who invented his razor to prove the existence of God." And, "People who think about conspiracy theories must be excluded from society and punished with ridicule."
Stuff like that. Only retards and suckers don't grasp this basic notion, which is pretty much everybody.
If you find this hard to understand, then you are a retard or a sucker. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm pointing out the obvious which has been hidden through a clever manipulation of your herd-instincts. Psyops 101. People need to engage that shiny and modern, neo-cortex and stop acting like dumb apes.
Which is simpler? One man having an accident, or several, perhaps dozens of people conspiring to fake said accident? Strictly speaking, an accident is still the 'simpler' theory by Occam's definition.
Compartmentalization is the key to managing a massive secret endeavor without anybody knowing enough to even realize they're part of a conspiracy. You only need a couple of guys at the top to know anything real. Anybody else who learns too much, you can always send on trip in a small plane. . .
Anyway, Occam's razor is flawed. --It was an argument designed by a 13th century monk to logically prove the existence of God. In short: Every explanation for anything which ever happens is more complicated and contains more steps than simply saying, "God". Thus, according to Occam's razor, God exists. It's a broken argument and the fact that people in the science community use it is embarrassing enough, but thanks to Jodi Foster, people in the much more densely populated, "Church of Science" use it all the time and actually think it means something other than, "I'm right because I allow the world of possibilities to end where my ignorance begins." AKA, "Bullshit".
Here's another way of looking at it. . .
When you measure the various likelihoods of an event happening via Occam, you are limited to your present data set and knowledge of the world. People have the bloody conceit to assume that things which they do not know about are less likely to exist than things they do know about; which is of course, ego-driven nonsense. A three year-old who doesn't know about electron guns and phosphorus but who does know about puppet theaters could use Occam's Razor to deduce some fairly laughable things about television sets.
Just because you can't imagine a thing doesn't mean that thing isn't a possibility, or indeed, a likelihood. Occam's razor is simply a clever way of justifying self-satisfied ignorance.
And THAT is my axe now well-ground to it's own razor's edge. Thank-you for indulging me and Merry Christmas! Jesus died for you! Occam said so.
kdawson is reliable in his ways. And so are the denialists. (Denialists? Hmm. I'm still trying to come up with a proper term for people who hate so much the idea that corruption might exist that they warp their minds with so much denial that insanity in the world actually looks sane to them. Ostriches? Idiots? I don't know. I'll post something when I work it out.)
Anyway, we need them, too! What would Slashdot be without the self-deceiving children of emotionally repressed fathers to provide the low benchmarks on the sanity spectrum?
Flat, that's what! --We need sociopaths and retards around here to provide a grim reminder of the dangers of interrupted development in the frontal lobe. Hug your kids today or face nuclear annihilation forty years down the road!
If Ohio went for Kerry, the economy would have gotten blamed on the Democrats.
Yup. The government has little knowledge of the big-stage events. They just jump when told.
But "Brand Democrat" doesn't fit with the popular understanding of economic failure, which is why the Bush crew was summoned to office.
While McCain would have been a total and complete disaster, the Obama presidency actually has me more stressed out. It's like those spooky and upsetting episodes of TNG where Lor showed up and started hurting people while pretending to be Data.
The thing I find most. . , curious, (I almost said 'maddening') is that I find the same forces live strong inside me. When presented by an obviously superior idea, my first instinct is to look around to see who else is using and benefiting from it. If nobody, then fear and doubt set in and it takes a shit-load of internal chutzpah herding to bring myself to jump. Then, even after it works and life gets that much better, I find I still actually have to sell the idea to others, not so that they'll adopt it themselves, (that's their business, not mine), but rather simply so that I'll not have to suffer ridicule and social exclusion. --Though, the sell job can be achieved quite easily if you know the tricks; herd mentality is automatic, and so the same stupid tricks apply to every cow and they nearly always work. If you have the patience and if you care enough to bother trying. Sometimes it's just easier to ignore people and let them laugh while your water-car burns no gas. (I don't have a water-car, but you see the point).
It's actually very relaxing and fun when my tastes and rationale happens to land on a blockbuster bit of popularity. It's very nice when you can run with the herd and not feel like you're selling yourself short or that you're being a hypocrite. This doesn't happen very often, though, since most consumer-grade popularity is horseshit. I find I grind my teeth at most of the popular crap on the market and it takes a lot of will power to not be actively infuriated with humanity most of the time. The other side, however, is to adopt a condescending, "Awww, look at the silly, charming little hobbits," kind of attitude, which is just as bad because while there is no anger, there is no respect either. It's a tough razor to walk, respecting people and the learning process of life and not judging anybody.
The nice thing, though, is that the 'Long Tail' is actually quite well populated. It's sort of a herd which you can't run with exactly, but which you can really love and respect and have intelligent conversations within. Often, sharing or 'cross-pollinating' your favorite media and ideas is really rewarding. People living in the tail discover and share all kinds of great stuff, and none of it is Harry Potter.
Cool! It is marvelous to see so many published Slashdotters offering hard-won observations and experiences. That makes me feel very proud!
--I've been in this racket pretty much forever, and I only have one cautionary note to offer. . .
Try not to fall into the trap of substituting, "Serious Preparation," for actual work. It's easy to spin away vital energy talking about the project rather than actually doing the project. Reap the rewards when the job is done; I've seen many a promising idea fail to materialize because of this. I've been guilty of it myself more than once, and it's a horrible thing; like miscarrying. --Are you seriously asking what kind of word-processor to use before getting down to work? How many weeks do you plan to blow on that kind of nonsense? You'll start in the New Year, will you? Sure. Just keep telling yourself that until it's time to find a new excuse to avoid jumping into the Void.
Cut it out, silly! Books have been written on napkins, for goodness sake!
Though, to your benefit, it sounds rather as though your project is less a dream than it is a, "Things To Do", which suggests to me that you've already secured a contract. If that's the case then, Good For You! That's no small feat. --And if you've already accepted some money, then you will have by now met your two new best friends and motivational coaches; Deadline Stress and Abject Fear! (This is good thing; I know how hard it can be to get out of bed in the morning to hit the desk without that extra friendly push.)
Beyond that, I will say this: Good luck! You CAN do it! --But ONLY if you get to WORK!
I hope everybody here is pulling for you! Writing a book is a very special and demanding personal challenge and you will need lots of moral support over the coming months. Consider it given. I love writers!
In other words, you can't find a credible study supporting your claims. As predicted. Thanks for confirming that you're dishoenst, rather than just stupid. Now run along and play, son, cuz the adults have important things to talk about.
No, sorry. As I have said from the beginning, I have little interest in acupuncture and certainly no desire to get into a meaningless argument about whether or not it is real. I just don't care. How hard is it for you to understand this? --Well, I already know the answer to that. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to understand this, which goes back to the original claim that I DID make. . .
I made one claim. ONE. --That you are suffering from some psychological limitation or disability which might be broadly termed, "Denial". The denial sufferer cannot tolerate or even comprehend a universe where people do not think exactly like him. This is why you think I care as much as you do about acupuncture and you believe that my primary goal in having this discussion is to 'defend' acupuncture's validity. Hell, it might all be one giant fraud. I DO NOT CARE. But as you have demonstrated, you are not capable of processing this information, as everything must fit into either black or white, (I found your comments about shades of gray in one of your previous posts extremely revealing.)
Anyway, to sum things up, I have demonstrated my claim using logic and reasoned responses, offering several examples. And you have proven my claim correct, (again), both with this most recent non-answer and your refusal (inability) to respond to even a single one of the points I made in my previous post. Not a single one! --Saying I am dishonest is just weird, because I said a lot of things and as far as I can tell, they are all true and you have not specified which point you think I am 'lying' about. You have said I am "stupid", which is actually quite cute, as the cry of "Stupid" is the world-famous school-yard approach to dealing with having lost a debate very, very badly. --And now you are stomping off in a huff while saying that you are the adult. All of which, I will point out to complete my little study of you, are classic examples of subjective Denial.
But that's okay. Your "predictions" will always be correct inside a logic-free bubble, which is of course both the joy of denial, and its peril, because to everybody else, you look silly.
Now I WILL run along and play, (despite my clearly being far more mature than you), as the old and calcified have "important" things to talk about. To themselves. (You're alone right now, aren't you? That's the other problem with bubbles.)
Actually, I am not that mature. After all, I am enjoying toying with you. Bullies and thugs are fun to infuriate and confuse. Maybe one day I will grow up.
If you know of an accupuncture study that showed positive results that hasn't been discredited, please give me a URL. But if you had one, you would have, wouldn't you?
Of course, I can understand why you might think I care what you believe, so please allow me to correct this at once. . . I'm not really that interested in acupuncture. There is a slight chance that it doesn't work, but I've seen enough to recognize that it almost certainly, in the right hands, does. But that's not the point here. What I'm fascinated by is your behavior. The amount of denial and anger you and people like you project over these sorts of subjects has always fascinated me. Please note:
calling me names[. ..]
Well let's see now. I called you, "mister". That's not really a bad word. I also described your behavior as, "irrational," which it is and I explained why. Now I did say that delusionals of your type "howl at the world", which I suppose might be taken as an insult. But, honestly, to read your posting style, can anybody blame me?
rather than offering evidence to support your claim that there are studies that haven't been discredited.
As I said, I don't actually care what your level of knowledge is, so I have no motivation to dig up anything for your benefit. In fact, I'd be more than happy for you to remain willfully ignorant. It's sad, but such people are so militant about not exploring beyond their pre-defined worlds that all you can really do is observe. It's like watching a puppy stand on a frizbee while it tries to pick it up. Kind of amusing, and I'm certainly not going to get in the way if I'm not wanted! --I will also point out that I did NOT make the claim you say I did. What I DID say was that your insistence that EVERY study had been invalidated was an irrational claim (because it is both unlikely to be true and unprovable), which is indicative of some kind of psychological denial issue. It's a subtle difference, but important.
Yes, every single one.
--You're REALLY going to cling to that despite the fact that, given the nature of our day to day world, it is impossible to verify such a claim? And we're not talking about quantum probabilities here; we're talking about the existence of research in a world filled with millions of scientists, students and professors churning out hundreds of thousands of papers every year on every imaginable subject. But, yes, this is exactly what you are claiming; executive knowledge about the state of this sea of information. And that, as I pointed out, is the mark of a man trapped in a state of psychological denial who will fight tooth and nail to preserve his world-view rather than remain open to new ideas.
By contrast, a reasonable man wouldn't feel the need to make such a ridiculous, pompous claim. A reasonable man who feels un-threatened by a subject, would be entirely satisfied in saying, "I've never seen a study which proves your point, and I've read a great many of them so I am inclined to believe that I am correct, but if you will offer me other data, I would be happy to consider it." He would NOT say that other data is an impossibility. He would accept that there exists some chance of his not knowing the full truth. This is called, "remaining open". --There is another word for this, and that word is, falsifiable, which IS in fact an important tenet of scientific thinking. A person in denial or threatened by a subject, however, is more inclined to closing himself off to even the possibility of being incorrect, and as such falsifiability is not allowed to exist in his belief system.
--Out of curiosity, I did take a look at Mr. Novella's site. I ran the words, "Dog" "Canine" and "Acupuncture" through his search engine in various combinations. I got back a handful of articles on acupuncture, but nothing mentioning dog studies. Which is funny, because canin
Every single study that shows positive results have been discredited
Oh really? Every single study? It's a big world, mister, lots of labs. Lots of people experimenting and working in this field, --which I should add, has been around for hundreds of years longer than Western civilization. But you're telling me that every single study has been discredited? In every language, too? Every Chinese dialect?
Wow. That's some pretty amazing research ability. What must that effort have cost in time and money? Heck, the transcription and communications budget alone must have been a fortune!
Okay. I'm done throwing dumb sarcasm at you. --I wish you were worth actual reason, but clearly your mind has been beaten and tenderized far too effectively for such things! This post is meant for everybody else. . .
One of the easiest red flags you can look for when trying to determine when people are living in some manner of denial construct is when they claim in sweeping statements an absolute knowledge of something which is impossible to know fully. Any idea or bit of data which is inconsistent with their belief system is considered a personal threat which must be destroyed and/or rationalized out of existence.
This is irrational behavior. Real scientists must accept that no matter how strong their theories, no matter how much corroborating data has been collected, they know that NOTHING is for 100% for certain. Those are simply the rules of reductionist theory. Real scientists combine this, by necessity, into their everyday thinking and would embarrassed to make absolutist statements in full seriousness like the above poster. But because such posters have chosen delusion over real science, (despite their claims), their powers of rationalization are weak at best, and as such sweeping absolutist statements discrediting everything they don't like, amazingly don't sound ridiculous in their own ears. They really do believe themselves because they have been so relentless in pounding away at their own brains with dogma.
You can make the wrong puzzle piece fit if you hit it hard enough and refuse to look too closely at the final picture. But the problem is now that you must work hard to discredit anybody else who looks too closely at the finished picture. In the end, as knowledge grows and people discern more and more for themselves, such delusionals find themselves ever more isolated and desperate, howling at the world.
The real question is why did we ever allow a government sponsored entity to do this?
Because the human race is docile, ignorant and this is just another manipulation to keep us in our little human coops.
The bigger question is, "Why do we allow the government to borrow the entire money supply, at interest, from a private banking consortium (the Fed, and in Canada the bank lending system; every industrialized country does something similar), rather than print it at zero interest ourselves? --When it is well understood at the highest levels that this practice of borrowing the money supply from a small group of wealthy families can only lead to one, inescapable result: Debt Slavery. (How do you pay back interest when the only money in existence was borrowed from the same people you owe? You have to borrow more from the same source to keep the wheel spinning and the debt ballooning until the entire world finally defaults and a small group of bankers ends up owning everything on the whole planet.)"
Obama is just the latest puppet in this game. We seem to go through growth and harvest cycles. People recover, grow strong, develop resources for a period of years, then the Bad Cop comes into power and reaps the harvest. Afterwards, the Good Cop comes back and tills it all under to begin the cycle again. Or at least that's how it appears from a casual glance. The Good Cop is complicit, and Obama, as we can see through his cabinet choices, is marching right along in tune. And all the while, other subtle nooses tighten, forever dumbing people down, ratcheting up the coils of social control and tweaking the system so that the whole thing works ever more effectively.
That's a vital period of social growth. There's some serious brain development going on during that time in a child's life, and as with all brain growth, it is directed by their social connections with other people.
Did Apple hard-sell this idea or did the voting majority of your board members all fail upward through their teacher's training courses?
I could list all the reasons why this is a terrible idea, but it sounds like Apple has already sold you swampland in Florida, so it's not like it can be stopped at this point. Let me guess: "Computer skills are becoming a vital necessity for success in life, and OUR school in order to face the future. .." "Not all children have equal access to computers, but with THIS program. .." Those were the two primary arguments used to sell this thing, right? --That and, "We need to ensure that our program attracts the right kind of demographic, and with an expensive computer program. .." (But that answer is only quietly mentioned.)
Question: Who was it that convinced your board of the computer need? Was it a corporate sell-job, or was it driven by a genuine sense of need? --I know that there was some serious money changing hands in curious ways -and some VERY- annoyed students and teachers at the local university where a similar deal was put together using far over-priced PC laptops.
The end result? Halls and concourses which were once bustling with life and activity and bright eyes ten years ago, are now dead, quiet places filled with dull-eyed and confused-looking young people in far fewer numbers, quietly clicking on their portable computers.
Great.
The classes themselves are dead spaces. Teachers can expect to look out at a wall of laptop lids and kids paying barely half the attention to you they might otherwise. This is not cool. Not at all. I've seen both ends of it, and it's lousy.
The cool students, the ones with natural spirit will survive this travesty, but they will do so because they are not computer nerds and when at home spend as little non-necessary time on their computer as possible, socializing and making their way through the physical world with joy. --Actually, everybody will survive; that's what humans do. They will manage and they will go on to make lives for themselves. But this is not making it easier to become a fully rounded, powerful person. It is making it harder.
School, for all it's many flaws, (and there are SO many; the main one being that kids are grouped by age; ever wonder why groups of kids of all ages hanging out together during the Summer are kind and supportive while kids in school live in so much misery and fear of one another?). . , but for all the flaws, school DOES allow kids to meet lots of other people and learn social lessons. The introduction of computers, unless you handle it very carefully, will dramatically reduce the level of social contact. The kids are already plugged into TV, game systems and personal computers when they are at home. Moderation is what is needed, and enforced conditions where social activities cannot be hidden from.
So given this, the following are my recommendations. ..
Lock down those computers down as much as possible. Let them be word processors and little more.
Give teachers the ability to turn on wireless access with a wand or something. One click and the computer is able to access the network for the duration of the necessary portions of a class, after which it automatically returns to its native locked-down condition. Maybe lift these restrictions after school hours.
If it is possible, alter the program so that the computers are handed out in class rooms and must be handed back at the end of school. A kid should still be responsible for a given computer with his or her name on it, so that they learn to take care of the thing, (I killed a lot of scho
Playing is something of which I approve 100%. I've smashed many a hard drive in imaginative ways. However, that's _after_ sanitizing them of important data, to a degree that I can control.
That's cool. --I have to admit, I woke up feeling grumpy and decided to respond to your post in Dick-Mode. Sorry. It wasn't fair; you made several good points.
I'm always slightly aggravated by people who say, "I need to destroy the data on this drive, but I didn't bother to learn how well software wipes work, so I decided to ignore all of the known data and invent my own procedure based on what I think would be a good idea."
So. . , I decided to ignore all of the known data and invent my own procedure based on what I thought would be a good idea.
Removed ceramic platter. Applied hammer for about thirty seconds. Scattered the resulting handful of dust outside. If I'd wanted to increase the difficulty of data recovery, I suppose I could have destroyed two platters at the same time, but I only had one old drive to play with.
Also, I didn't call it a, 'Procedure'. I called it, 'Playing'.
how can we be sure that this isn't some stupid new viral advertising campaign for a Emmerich movie?
I'm sorry, but I'm fairly certain you meant to write. . .
"how can we be sure that this isn't a viral advertising campaign for some stupid new Emmerich movie?"?
Heck, that even makes your broken article work. Bonus points! (I just watched "Idiocracy" again. For some reason I always become a Grammar Nazi after seeing that film. . . Brr.)
Dude, we could very easily have hung out in the same arcade as kids, except for that animated keyboard machine, ("Thayer's Quest", according to another poster). --Which I do indeed remember marveling at once, although it was in another arcade downtown.
I didn't spend any money on those games when I was young either. AND I was pretty terrible at them, but an arcade in the 80's was a magical mystery tour, to be certain. It always inspired the same kind of feelings as that weird, "Heavy Metal" movie, (which South Park somehow portrayed more accurately than the original). --The smell of pot hanging in the air and the spooky look of some of the patrons, I always felt like there was a reasonable chance of never coming out alive from some of those halls, but that didn't stop me. The games were just too unbelievably wonderful to stay away from.
That is the solution? Common, what the hell are you smoking. If you want puzzles to move up a notch, the solutions isn't to try to "innovate" a overdone old paradime, it's to use the new possiblities 3d graphics, and interactive environments bring. Look at Portal, sure "Use cube to stand on; Jump; Shoot Portal; Jump into portal" just screams entertainment, but it can be done sooo much better, if you crawl out from your hole and look at the possiblities.
Crappy, one-step-closer-to-Idiocracy grammar aside, when you say, "Crawl out of your hole and look at the possibilities," were you suggesting an in-game action?
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha!
That's great.
You could get a whole Douglas Adams sequence out of implied disasters and dramas from warning labels.
-FL
This would be an example of one of the many New Age gimmicks which serves primarily to make people stop thinking.
In the box of non-orthodox stuff, there's a fairly stark difference between wishful silliness and truthful ideas. For some reason, people have trouble differentiating between the two. I don't get why. Some things just have that "air of lame", and when you look into them, (as I did with the orogone thing) you find out that, yes, they are indeed lame ducks.
But that shouldn't make people from turn off. It's the old logical fallacy: "All cows are animals, therefore all animals are cows."
Or lame ducks.
Some ducks can fly.
But you won't know which ones unless you do some exploring!
After all, learning is fun, and who wants to do as they're told all the time anyway? People are always telling us what is right and wrong to believe and they enforce it with social pressure. Social pressure is for the birds. The lame ones.
-FL
And I suppose you figure the Zionists are using the Piece of Eden to control people's minds too, eh?
Piece of Eden?
Well now! There's a new one for me. Not even in Wikipedia. Guess I'll have to go digging to figure out your reference.
That being the case, when you say mind-control, who are you suggesting that it's (presumably not) directed at? Jews or everybody else?
-FL
Ah! Back home again.
And look at everything which has happened while I was away! Miss a few news cycles and Gaza winds up in flames. I wonder if the timing of this even was deliberate. No. Actually, I don't wonder that at all.
The whole situation in Israel and Gaza looks to me like the result of a long and slow mind-programming effort, largely through the use of religion, to annihilate everybody of Semitic blood lines. Jew and Muslim alike.
One possible scenario I see unfolding. . .
The propaganda war being waged by Israel while it bombs Gaza is seen for what it is; (nobody seems to be buying it except those who already owned it), and the world stands well back while Israel is attacked with far more than just home made rockets. The Zionist-owned puppet leaders in the West respond by going to war against the Muslim world, (more so than already), and the destruction of humanity is jump-started.
Destruction of 94% of the world's population. That appears to be the goal, starting with the Semites.
Isn't it weird how the Zionist movement in it's early days used coercion and underhanded tactics to move Jewish communities to one convenient location? All eggs in one basket. Isn't it also weird how some of the more powerful Zionists weren't even Jewish?
I've been telling my Jewish friends for years to stay the heck away from the 'promised land'. I can't see how this can possibly end well.
To get a snippet of some of the thinking circulating in the darker corners, read Dave McGowan's essay with attention to one Dr. Colin Campbell and his advice on the matter of Peak Oil. (Take a look at the list of institutions he's been invited to lecture at.)
-FL
Very good. --I'd like to spend the time required to delve into this with proper energy, but it's the holidays at the moment and family is bouncing all over the place. I'm not abandoning this; it's not common that one meets an intelligent person on the other side of the screen. Give me a day or two to get into a proper space and collect some notes; it is clear (as per Occam) that my methods have become sloppy of late. In the mean time, if you can find the time, watch a copy of that old Watergate movie, "All the President's Men." I know it's just a movie, but it is useful for illustrating a couple of points wtr to conspiracies which I'd like to reference.
Cheers!
-FL
Not typically within their own country. They are not legally allowed to do it, and the government isn't as good as you think in keeping secrets. Every single time someone in the high levels of government does something like that, a lot of people need to be involved, and it only takes one to blow the whistle. MK Ultra, watergate, warrantless wiretapping...all these things that you're going to use to point at how conspiracies exist are actually arguments against it: all these things are shit that the government couldn't manage to keep secret. It only takes one honest person to leak it.
What a charming and reassuring reality you have constructed for yourself! Do you actually want to have a debate about this designed to learn truth, or do you want to shore up your psychological defenses against scary things and 'win' at all cost? (ie, Truth being irrelevant.)
If you're going to waste my time with panic button arguments until I go away so that you can feel right with the world once more, then please let me know now so that I can save myself the effort. Otherwise, I would be happy to talk this over with you; there are several flaws in your thinking and your examples.
Just let me know.
As per Occam. . ,
1. Okay. It's more complicated that looking at his date of birth.
2. Okay. The "Law of Parsimony" is an old idea. It's more complicated than simply saying that because Occam's name is on it means he invented it. I over-simplified to make a point.
3. Excommunicated because he was a rebel, eh? You're going to suggest this, while complaining about my over-simplifying historical data to illustrate a point? Hypocrite.
Do you see a pattern here? --The most simple course of thinking is by no means the most accurate. This is precisely the problem with Occam's Razor.
And as you seem to be arguing this very point. . , what is your problem exactly?
And that's the problem with most conspiracy theories. They don't bother to check the facts before spouting their theories, which leads to the ridicule you dislike so much.
Actually, ALL theories, whether they are about conspiracies or not, are subject to human error and inexactitude. This is why we call them theories and then explore their validity. They are tools for researching the truth, and nothing more. --But for some reason, a special kind of ridicule is expressed and indeed amplified for those who lower charges of corruption at the authorities.
This should bear examination.
Are you willing to examine it?
-FL
Poppycock, you're simply justifying your own self-satisfied ignorance.
So you disagree with me then? Fair enough.
Like any such tool it's usefullness depends on the accuracy and breadth of the users assumptions. In the 11th century religion and science were the same thing so it's no surprise an 11th century Monk would assume God exists, and that "God did it" is the simplest answer.
Yes, and that was exactly my point. --Which makes me wonder what part of my comment you found objectionable? Was it my tone?
Occam's Razor is a logical tool which is only exacting when used within a closed system of fully known, understood and controlled facts. But the world is not fully known or controlled, rendering it little more than a somewhat helpful rule of thumb for serious researchers feeling their way through difficult problems and who need any kind of help they can grasp. My objection, however, is that it is most often misused (around these parts anyway), as though it were a veritable Wand of Truth to dispense with any ideas which create discomfort in the layman thinker, hence my comment about ignorance. I don't see what you have to disagree with other than my tone, which I admit, was a bit snarly. I apologize for that.
-FL
And how many people does it take to find the mechanic?
Depends how big your HR department is when hiring secret agents.
Secret agents exist. We know this. It's not a theory. It's a career path.
Their job is to conspire and execute conspiracies.
And another of their jobs, incidentally, is to perform psyops on the public. --To make people believe convenient things. Things like, "Occam can be used to justify ignorance, despite the fact that he was a 13th century monk who invented his razor to prove the existence of God." And, "People who think about conspiracy theories must be excluded from society and punished with ridicule."
Stuff like that. Only retards and suckers don't grasp this basic notion, which is pretty much everybody.
If you find this hard to understand, then you are a retard or a sucker. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm pointing out the obvious which has been hidden through a clever manipulation of your herd-instincts. Psyops 101. People need to engage that shiny and modern, neo-cortex and stop acting like dumb apes.
-FL
Which is simpler? One man having an accident, or several, perhaps dozens of people conspiring to fake said accident? Strictly speaking, an accident is still the 'simpler' theory by Occam's definition.
Compartmentalization is the key to managing a massive secret endeavor without anybody knowing enough to even realize they're part of a conspiracy. You only need a couple of guys at the top to know anything real. Anybody else who learns too much, you can always send on trip in a small plane. . .
Anyway, Occam's razor is flawed. --It was an argument designed by a 13th century monk to logically prove the existence of God. In short: Every explanation for anything which ever happens is more complicated and contains more steps than simply saying, "God". Thus, according to Occam's razor, God exists. It's a broken argument and the fact that people in the science community use it is embarrassing enough, but thanks to Jodi Foster, people in the much more densely populated, "Church of Science" use it all the time and actually think it means something other than, "I'm right because I allow the world of possibilities to end where my ignorance begins." AKA, "Bullshit".
Here's another way of looking at it. . .
When you measure the various likelihoods of an event happening via Occam, you are limited to your present data set and knowledge of the world. People have the bloody conceit to assume that things which they do not know about are less likely to exist than things they do know about; which is of course, ego-driven nonsense. A three year-old who doesn't know about electron guns and phosphorus but who does know about puppet theaters could use Occam's Razor to deduce some fairly laughable things about television sets.
Just because you can't imagine a thing doesn't mean that thing isn't a possibility, or indeed, a likelihood. Occam's razor is simply a clever way of justifying self-satisfied ignorance.
And THAT is my axe now well-ground to it's own razor's edge. Thank-you for indulging me and Merry Christmas! Jesus died for you! Occam said so.
-FL
kdawson posted this story.
Isn't that shocking.
kdawson is reliable in his ways. And so are the denialists. (Denialists? Hmm. I'm still trying to come up with a proper term for people who hate so much the idea that corruption might exist that they warp their minds with so much denial that insanity in the world actually looks sane to them. Ostriches? Idiots? I don't know. I'll post something when I work it out.)
Anyway, we need them, too! What would Slashdot be without the self-deceiving children of emotionally repressed fathers to provide the low benchmarks on the sanity spectrum?
Flat, that's what! --We need sociopaths and retards around here to provide a grim reminder of the dangers of interrupted development in the frontal lobe. Hug your kids today or face nuclear annihilation forty years down the road!
-FL
Is it a "W" or an "M"?
If Ohio went for Kerry, the economy would have gotten blamed on the Democrats.
Yup. The government has little knowledge of the big-stage events. They just jump when told.
But "Brand Democrat" doesn't fit with the popular understanding of economic failure, which is why the Bush crew was summoned to office.
While McCain would have been a total and complete disaster, the Obama presidency actually has me more stressed out. It's like those spooky and upsetting episodes of TNG where Lor showed up and started hurting people while pretending to be Data.
-FL
I can't see any positive way to spin this.
"In his grave," seems to be working well enough for the administration.
Helluva retirement plan.
-FL
Your observations match mine.
The thing I find most. . , curious, (I almost said 'maddening') is that I find the same forces live strong inside me. When presented by an obviously superior idea, my first instinct is to look around to see who else is using and benefiting from it. If nobody, then fear and doubt set in and it takes a shit-load of internal chutzpah herding to bring myself to jump. Then, even after it works and life gets that much better, I find I still actually have to sell the idea to others, not so that they'll adopt it themselves, (that's their business, not mine), but rather simply so that I'll not have to suffer ridicule and social exclusion. --Though, the sell job can be achieved quite easily if you know the tricks; herd mentality is automatic, and so the same stupid tricks apply to every cow and they nearly always work. If you have the patience and if you care enough to bother trying. Sometimes it's just easier to ignore people and let them laugh while your water-car burns no gas. (I don't have a water-car, but you see the point).
It's actually very relaxing and fun when my tastes and rationale happens to land on a blockbuster bit of popularity. It's very nice when you can run with the herd and not feel like you're selling yourself short or that you're being a hypocrite. This doesn't happen very often, though, since most consumer-grade popularity is horseshit. I find I grind my teeth at most of the popular crap on the market and it takes a lot of will power to not be actively infuriated with humanity most of the time. The other side, however, is to adopt a condescending, "Awww, look at the silly, charming little hobbits," kind of attitude, which is just as bad because while there is no anger, there is no respect either. It's a tough razor to walk, respecting people and the learning process of life and not judging anybody.
The nice thing, though, is that the 'Long Tail' is actually quite well populated. It's sort of a herd which you can't run with exactly, but which you can really love and respect and have intelligent conversations within. Often, sharing or 'cross-pollinating' your favorite media and ideas is really rewarding. People living in the tail discover and share all kinds of great stuff, and none of it is Harry Potter.
-FL
Cool! It is marvelous to see so many published Slashdotters offering hard-won observations and experiences. That makes me feel very proud!
--I've been in this racket pretty much forever, and I only have one cautionary note to offer. . .
Try not to fall into the trap of substituting, "Serious Preparation," for actual work. It's easy to spin away vital energy talking about the project rather than actually doing the project. Reap the rewards when the job is done; I've seen many a promising idea fail to materialize because of this. I've been guilty of it myself more than once, and it's a horrible thing; like miscarrying. --Are you seriously asking what kind of word-processor to use before getting down to work? How many weeks do you plan to blow on that kind of nonsense? You'll start in the New Year, will you? Sure. Just keep telling yourself that until it's time to find a new excuse to avoid jumping into the Void.
Cut it out, silly! Books have been written on napkins, for goodness sake!
Though, to your benefit, it sounds rather as though your project is less a dream than it is a, "Things To Do", which suggests to me that you've already secured a contract. If that's the case then, Good For You! That's no small feat. --And if you've already accepted some money, then you will have by now met your two new best friends and motivational coaches; Deadline Stress and Abject Fear! (This is good thing; I know how hard it can be to get out of bed in the morning to hit the desk without that extra friendly push.)
Beyond that, I will say this: Good luck! You CAN do it! --But ONLY if you get to WORK!
I hope everybody here is pulling for you! Writing a book is a very special and demanding personal challenge and you will need lots of moral support over the coming months. Consider it given. I love writers!
-FL
In other words, you can't find a credible study supporting your claims. As predicted. Thanks for confirming that you're dishoenst, rather than just stupid. Now run along and play, son, cuz the adults have important things to talk about.
No, sorry. As I have said from the beginning, I have little interest in acupuncture and certainly no desire to get into a meaningless argument about whether or not it is real. I just don't care. How hard is it for you to understand this? --Well, I already know the answer to that. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to understand this, which goes back to the original claim that I DID make. . .
I made one claim. ONE. --That you are suffering from some psychological limitation or disability which might be broadly termed, "Denial". The denial sufferer cannot tolerate or even comprehend a universe where people do not think exactly like him. This is why you think I care as much as you do about acupuncture and you believe that my primary goal in having this discussion is to 'defend' acupuncture's validity. Hell, it might all be one giant fraud. I DO NOT CARE. But as you have demonstrated, you are not capable of processing this information, as everything must fit into either black or white, (I found your comments about shades of gray in one of your previous posts extremely revealing.)
Anyway, to sum things up, I have demonstrated my claim using logic and reasoned responses, offering several examples. And you have proven my claim correct, (again), both with this most recent non-answer and your refusal (inability) to respond to even a single one of the points I made in my previous post. Not a single one! --Saying I am dishonest is just weird, because I said a lot of things and as far as I can tell, they are all true and you have not specified which point you think I am 'lying' about. You have said I am "stupid", which is actually quite cute, as the cry of "Stupid" is the world-famous school-yard approach to dealing with having lost a debate very, very badly. --And now you are stomping off in a huff while saying that you are the adult. All of which, I will point out to complete my little study of you, are classic examples of subjective Denial.
But that's okay. Your "predictions" will always be correct inside a logic-free bubble, which is of course both the joy of denial, and its peril, because to everybody else, you look silly.
Now I WILL run along and play, (despite my clearly being far more mature than you), as the old and calcified have "important" things to talk about. To themselves. (You're alone right now, aren't you? That's the other problem with bubbles.)
Actually, I am not that mature. After all, I am enjoying toying with you. Bullies and thugs are fun to infuriate and confuse. Maybe one day I will grow up.
Cheers!
-FL
If you know of an accupuncture study that showed positive results that hasn't been discredited, please give me a URL. But if you had one, you would have, wouldn't you?
Of course, I can understand why you might think I care what you believe, so please allow me to correct this at once. . . I'm not really that interested in acupuncture. There is a slight chance that it doesn't work, but I've seen enough to recognize that it almost certainly, in the right hands, does. But that's not the point here. What I'm fascinated by is your behavior. The amount of denial and anger you and people like you project over these sorts of subjects has always fascinated me. Please note:
calling me names[. . .]
Well let's see now. I called you, "mister". That's not really a bad word. I also described your behavior as, "irrational," which it is and I explained why. Now I did say that delusionals of your type "howl at the world", which I suppose might be taken as an insult. But, honestly, to read your posting style, can anybody blame me?
rather than offering evidence to support your claim that there are studies that haven't been discredited.
As I said, I don't actually care what your level of knowledge is, so I have no motivation to dig up anything for your benefit. In fact, I'd be more than happy for you to remain willfully ignorant. It's sad, but such people are so militant about not exploring beyond their pre-defined worlds that all you can really do is observe. It's like watching a puppy stand on a frizbee while it tries to pick it up. Kind of amusing, and I'm certainly not going to get in the way if I'm not wanted! --I will also point out that I did NOT make the claim you say I did. What I DID say was that your insistence that EVERY study had been invalidated was an irrational claim (because it is both unlikely to be true and unprovable), which is indicative of some kind of psychological denial issue. It's a subtle difference, but important.
Yes, every single one.
--You're REALLY going to cling to that despite the fact that, given the nature of our day to day world, it is impossible to verify such a claim? And we're not talking about quantum probabilities here; we're talking about the existence of research in a world filled with millions of scientists, students and professors churning out hundreds of thousands of papers every year on every imaginable subject. But, yes, this is exactly what you are claiming; executive knowledge about the state of this sea of information. And that, as I pointed out, is the mark of a man trapped in a state of psychological denial who will fight tooth and nail to preserve his world-view rather than remain open to new ideas.
By contrast, a reasonable man wouldn't feel the need to make such a ridiculous, pompous claim. A reasonable man who feels un-threatened by a subject, would be entirely satisfied in saying, "I've never seen a study which proves your point, and I've read a great many of them so I am inclined to believe that I am correct, but if you will offer me other data, I would be happy to consider it." He would NOT say that other data is an impossibility. He would accept that there exists some chance of his not knowing the full truth. This is called, "remaining open". --There is another word for this, and that word is, falsifiable, which IS in fact an important tenet of scientific thinking. A person in denial or threatened by a subject, however, is more inclined to closing himself off to even the possibility of being incorrect, and as such falsifiability is not allowed to exist in his belief system.
--Out of curiosity, I did take a look at Mr. Novella's site. I ran the words, "Dog" "Canine" and "Acupuncture" through his search engine in various combinations. I got back a handful of articles on acupuncture, but nothing mentioning dog studies. Which is funny, because canin
Every single study that shows positive results have been discredited
Oh really? Every single study? It's a big world, mister, lots of labs. Lots of people experimenting and working in this field, --which I should add, has been around for hundreds of years longer than Western civilization. But you're telling me that every single study has been discredited? In every language, too? Every Chinese dialect?
Wow. That's some pretty amazing research ability. What must that effort have cost in time and money? Heck, the transcription and communications budget alone must have been a fortune!
Okay. I'm done throwing dumb sarcasm at you. --I wish you were worth actual reason, but clearly your mind has been beaten and tenderized far too effectively for such things! This post is meant for everybody else. . .
One of the easiest red flags you can look for when trying to determine when people are living in some manner of denial construct is when they claim in sweeping statements an absolute knowledge of something which is impossible to know fully. Any idea or bit of data which is inconsistent with their belief system is considered a personal threat which must be destroyed and/or rationalized out of existence.
This is irrational behavior. Real scientists must accept that no matter how strong their theories, no matter how much corroborating data has been collected, they know that NOTHING is for 100% for certain. Those are simply the rules of reductionist theory. Real scientists combine this, by necessity, into their everyday thinking and would embarrassed to make absolutist statements in full seriousness like the above poster. But because such posters have chosen delusion over real science, (despite their claims), their powers of rationalization are weak at best, and as such sweeping absolutist statements discrediting everything they don't like, amazingly don't sound ridiculous in their own ears. They really do believe themselves because they have been so relentless in pounding away at their own brains with dogma.
You can make the wrong puzzle piece fit if you hit it hard enough and refuse to look too closely at the final picture. But the problem is now that you must work hard to discredit anybody else who looks too closely at the finished picture. In the end, as knowledge grows and people discern more and more for themselves, such delusionals find themselves ever more isolated and desperate, howling at the world.
-FL
The real question is why did we ever allow a government sponsored entity to do this?
Because the human race is docile, ignorant and this is just another manipulation to keep us in our little human coops.
The bigger question is, "Why do we allow the government to borrow the entire money supply, at interest, from a private banking consortium (the Fed, and in Canada the bank lending system; every industrialized country does something similar), rather than print it at zero interest ourselves? --When it is well understood at the highest levels that this practice of borrowing the money supply from a small group of wealthy families can only lead to one, inescapable result: Debt Slavery. (How do you pay back interest when the only money in existence was borrowed from the same people you owe? You have to borrow more from the same source to keep the wheel spinning and the debt ballooning until the entire world finally defaults and a small group of bankers ends up owning everything on the whole planet.)"
Obama is just the latest puppet in this game. We seem to go through growth and harvest cycles. People recover, grow strong, develop resources for a period of years, then the Bad Cop comes into power and reaps the harvest. Afterwards, the Good Cop comes back and tills it all under to begin the cycle again. Or at least that's how it appears from a casual glance. The Good Cop is complicit, and Obama, as we can see through his cabinet choices, is marching right along in tune. And all the while, other subtle nooses tighten, forever dumbing people down, ratcheting up the coils of social control and tweaking the system so that the whole thing works ever more effectively.
-FL
6th to 12th grade? Are you people insane???
Kids aged 11 to 17?
That's a vital period of social growth. There's some serious brain development going on during that time in a child's life, and as with all brain growth, it is directed by their social connections with other people.
Did Apple hard-sell this idea or did the voting majority of your board members all fail upward through their teacher's training courses?
I could list all the reasons why this is a terrible idea, but it sounds like Apple has already sold you swampland in Florida, so it's not like it can be stopped at this point. Let me guess: "Computer skills are becoming a vital necessity for success in life, and OUR school in order to face the future. . ." "Not all children have equal access to computers, but with THIS program. . ." Those were the two primary arguments used to sell this thing, right? --That and, "We need to ensure that our program attracts the right kind of demographic, and with an expensive computer program. . ." (But that answer is only quietly mentioned.)
Question: Who was it that convinced your board of the computer need? Was it a corporate sell-job, or was it driven by a genuine sense of need? --I know that there was some serious money changing hands in curious ways -and some VERY- annoyed students and teachers at the local university where a similar deal was put together using far over-priced PC laptops.
The end result? Halls and concourses which were once bustling with life and activity and bright eyes ten years ago, are now dead, quiet places filled with dull-eyed and confused-looking young people in far fewer numbers, quietly clicking on their portable computers.
Great.
The classes themselves are dead spaces. Teachers can expect to look out at a wall of laptop lids and kids paying barely half the attention to you they might otherwise. This is not cool. Not at all. I've seen both ends of it, and it's lousy.
The cool students, the ones with natural spirit will survive this travesty, but they will do so because they are not computer nerds and when at home spend as little non-necessary time on their computer as possible, socializing and making their way through the physical world with joy. --Actually, everybody will survive; that's what humans do. They will manage and they will go on to make lives for themselves. But this is not making it easier to become a fully rounded, powerful person. It is making it harder.
School, for all it's many flaws, (and there are SO many; the main one being that kids are grouped by age; ever wonder why groups of kids of all ages hanging out together during the Summer are kind and supportive while kids in school live in so much misery and fear of one another?). . , but for all the flaws, school DOES allow kids to meet lots of other people and learn social lessons. The introduction of computers, unless you handle it very carefully, will dramatically reduce the level of social contact. The kids are already plugged into TV, game systems and personal computers when they are at home. Moderation is what is needed, and enforced conditions where social activities cannot be hidden from.
So given this, the following are my recommendations. . .
Lock down those computers down as much as possible. Let them be word processors and little more.
Give teachers the ability to turn on wireless access with a wand or something. One click and the computer is able to access the network for the duration of the necessary portions of a class, after which it automatically returns to its native locked-down condition. Maybe lift these restrictions after school hours.
If it is possible, alter the program so that the computers are handed out in class rooms and must be handed back at the end of school. A kid should still be responsible for a given computer with his or her name on it, so that they learn to take care of the thing, (I killed a lot of scho
Playing is something of which I approve 100%. I've smashed many a hard drive in imaginative ways. However, that's _after_ sanitizing them of important data, to a degree that I can control.
That's cool. --I have to admit, I woke up feeling grumpy and decided to respond to your post in Dick-Mode. Sorry. It wasn't fair; you made several good points.
-FL
Thanks for the correction anyways. The world needs some Grammar Nazis :-)
I was just being an over-clever dick. No insult intended.
Cheers!
-FL
I'm always slightly aggravated by people who say, "I need to destroy the data on this drive, but I didn't bother to learn how well software wipes work, so I decided to ignore all of the known data and invent my own procedure based on what I think would be a good idea."
So. . , I decided to ignore all of the known data and invent my own procedure based on what I thought would be a good idea.
Removed ceramic platter. Applied hammer for about thirty seconds. Scattered the resulting handful of dust outside. If I'd wanted to increase the difficulty of data recovery, I suppose I could have destroyed two platters at the same time, but I only had one old drive to play with.
Also, I didn't call it a, 'Procedure'. I called it, 'Playing'.
But each to his own.
-FL
how can we be sure that this isn't some stupid new viral advertising campaign for a Emmerich movie?
I'm sorry, but I'm fairly certain you meant to write. . .
"how can we be sure that this isn't a viral advertising campaign for some stupid new Emmerich movie?"?
Heck, that even makes your broken article work. Bonus points! (I just watched "Idiocracy" again. For some reason I always become a Grammar Nazi after seeing that film. . . Brr.)
-FL
Dude, we could very easily have hung out in the same arcade as kids, except for that animated keyboard machine, ("Thayer's Quest", according to another poster). --Which I do indeed remember marveling at once, although it was in another arcade downtown.
I didn't spend any money on those games when I was young either. AND I was pretty terrible at them, but an arcade in the 80's was a magical mystery tour, to be certain. It always inspired the same kind of feelings as that weird, "Heavy Metal" movie, (which South Park somehow portrayed more accurately than the original). --The smell of pot hanging in the air and the spooky look of some of the patrons, I always felt like there was a reasonable chance of never coming out alive from some of those halls, but that didn't stop me. The games were just too unbelievably wonderful to stay away from.
Have you read this article?
Nostalgia for 30-something geeks!
-FL
That is the solution? Common, what the hell are you smoking. If you want puzzles to move up a notch, the solutions isn't to try to "innovate" a overdone old paradime, it's to use the new possiblities 3d graphics, and interactive environments bring. Look at Portal, sure "Use cube to stand on; Jump; Shoot Portal; Jump into portal" just screams entertainment, but it can be done sooo much better, if you crawl out from your hole and look at the possiblities.
Crappy, one-step-closer-to-Idiocracy grammar aside, when you say, "Crawl out of your hole and look at the possibilities," were you suggesting an in-game action?
-FL