Let me teach you something about dialog: You don't know jack shit.
When you say things like, "your attitude is best summarized as oblivious," you are not dialoging.
It does not matter how calmly you say it, and a conversation is not a staring contest.
In the performance art of debate, it's all about: "How do I appear before others?" In this case, "keeping your cool," like a mad-dog establishing dominance, appearing in control, the vestiges (means "clothing") of control-- those are things you focus on. That's 180 away from conversation.
In a deliberation, in a dialog, passion and frustration are okay. They are not indicators of intelligence, quite to the contrary: They mean you're intelligent enough to know that things matter.
Are you here to prove dominance, self-control, and make a show of intelligence? Or are you here to share your heart and mind? Because those choices are going to put you in radically different directions -- unless your heart and thought is to prove dominance.
...and fighting those who would coopt and abuse this fear in others.
Exactly. So speak out when you see the eyes on the signs in the bus.
If you yourself aren't against it, have the courtesy to understand those who are.
Asking people to look out for suspicious behaviour sounds omnimous but you should anyways. Like if you saw someone drop a suitcase by a bridge or bus depot and walk away, wouldn't you think to at least get the persons attention to get the bag they forgot, and if they didn't respond, maybe there was a reason?
No. Frankly, you should not. Not unless, you're calling out to the person who left the bag by accident, out of genuine concern that they get their bag back.
Here's the thing: Let me make some new common sense: Attitude and mindset matter. Attitude and mindset determine how people think, how they relate with others, and so on.
If everybody is looking out for suspicious behavior, thinking to call the cops, and making the kinds of arguments you are, then we're headed in totally the wrong direction. We need a world of care, goodwill, freedom, and love, not one of fear, paranoia, reporting, and the panopticon. You're right, it does sound ominous, and we don't need that kind of thing here.
We need clarity of intent: Community, care, heart, cooperation, generosity.
We can't hold that, while thinking, "I've got to be on the lookout for anything that might be suspicious."
So I say: "No." Even looking out for suspicious behavior, it's not going to work. The person who wants to kill you or destroy the bridge will find a way. They will just not walk away, before using the bomb. They'll have someone else deliver the bomb.
There is no security, save security in the social fabric itself.
Not only can you restart the boss fights, but you can say, "You know what, I really want to go back to the beginning of this whole level, and pay a little more attention to building up."
And then further, you can just, "You know, I don't want to even be in this level at all. Take me outta here. I'm going to go to the forest, and turn onions into a bunch of napalm."
...and some of the boss battles are basically guaranteed slowdown.
Oh yes, I was quite grateful for that feature.
If you aren't hooked by Odin Sphere's unique visual style, then you'll be grabbed by its classic sentimentality and tough-as-nails difficulty. -- Gamespot review
I have no idea what Gamespot is talking about. This is a cakewalk. Progress is practically guaranteed.
Etrian Odyssey is hard. The original Starflight is hard as nails.
My girlfriend and daughter beg me to play Odin Sphere every single day. I'd rather be programming, but invariably: "Lioooon, would you play Odin Sphere?"
It's a beautiful and gorgeous game. I highly recommend it to all story gamers (Final Fantasy and the like.) Also to puzzlers, because inventory management & alchemy (making potions) is pretty involving.
Yes, it's weird-- read the Penny Arcade comic on it. It's not actually as weird as they made it out to be, once you acclimate to it. But, yes: You grow plants made out of the souls of the people you've killed, and then turn them into salads at the Pooka village kitchen, thus leveling up your hit points.
When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.
So, several of us are considering working on that right now, at this moment. We're just off the phone with David Korten. While it seems we won't be able to work with him directly, we're thinking about making a wiki seeded with the works of David Korten,Anodea Judith,Paul Hawken,Michael Dowd, and,......well, just whoever wants to show up and collaborate, using Tom Atlee's storycology project as a frame.
I don't know that a single common view can develop by wiki, but I think a lot of major threads can be identified, mapped, collected, and promoted, and I do see a basic coherence to much of the work going on today in activist, Open Source work, economics, neurology, science, and so on-- there is a zeitgeist.
Normal discussion forums have to be read from beginning to end to make sense. A wiki statically records the present state of a conversation in summary form so that anyone can pick up from there if they don't have time to read all of what's been said before, which is kind of like what a politician's platform does. It seems like it should be possible to figure out how to make that work... or a fun experiment to try.
I got all excited when I saw a political wiki and thought "maybe this is it". But it wasn't, and I figured I'd at least record the fact that I had hoped it might be.
My belief is that: If there is something really cool, and you can't understand why somebody hasn't done it before, it's because you haven't done it yourself.
Science is the longest sustained meditation into the nature of reality; Reality is what continues to exist, after you cease believing in it.
The discoveries of science are public revelations.
The question is not "do we believe in evolution;" The question is "do we accept it" or not?
What gets me excited is **sacred tellings** of the 13.7 billion year history of the universe.
Meanings and communities are constructions of the brain. And yet, they exist. Psychological realities are empirical realities.
So a sacred understanding of the universe is a valid, and arguably even necessary understanding of the universe; The psychological reality cannot be denied, simply because it is constructed. Psychological realities evolved, just like everything else.
The concept of "heart" describes something material, but not in the chest.
I once spent 4 hours hacking together a symbol indexer for the 10,000+ CPP files in our source code repository. I wrote it in Python. It worked by brute force: "For every directory, for every.h or.cpp or.c file, crack it open, and, line by line, look for all instances of this regex..."
It's a little slow-- 10 seconds to look up all instances of a symbol. And it takes ~3 hours to refresh the full index.
But is saves an enormous amount of time, makes impossible tasks possible, and I have used it every day since. It's been about a 8 months now, and it's been absolutely wonderful.
It would have taken far longer and many more resources to begin to figure out how to hook in Lucerne, or some other heavy duty package.
"The same way other infrastructure gets built. What's the problem?"
"What's the problem?!"
What's the problem?!?
Have you ever tried to institute an infrastructure change?!
Anything that's not a part of daily infrastructure is pretty much out, in pretty much whatever you're doing.
Instituting infrastructure change, especially in something as basic and trivial as "where we get the hot water from," is very hard. It's a combination of social and technical problems, all of which are very hard, and require enormous efforts.
At every turn, it's: "Hey, dude, what are you getting so worked up about. All I want is some hot water. The people in the city North of us, the people in the city South of us, the people in the city West of us, the people in the city East of us, everybody does it (this other way.) So, why you raising a fuss, causing problems, trying to get us to do your crazy scheme, which, incidentally, our organization of people has a laundry list of reasons why it's too expensive, won't work anyways, actually harms the environment,... (so on, and so forth...)"
That's the problem.
"The same way other infrastructure gets built" is usually "there was a need, we happened to do it this other way, from the very beginning." Once the methods get set in place, it is very rare that there's an infrastructure change. There aren't many successful models to go on, to follow.
These things almost always grow by incremental growth, here and there, often times reverted, and nothing else, short of some other mass obsoleting technology appearing around the system that came before (requiring no infrastructure changes,) or a mass social movement.
Yes, he told me that district heating existed in several cities before, and that companies buy buildings that buy co-generation generators built in. (Or something like that; I honestly don't understand half of what he's saying.)
This friend of mine graduated with an engineering degree from Harvey Mudd College, and worked at NASA JPL, and spends every waking hour that he doesn't put to his own company, thinking about energy. I'm sure he'd love to talk with you. He's regularly buying reports, poking out numbers on his calculator, and figuring things out.
Email me, LionKimbro (gmail,) and I'll email you back his phone number.
His thought is presently that society is unlikely to start digging up everywhere, to install these pipes. I seem to recall him saying something about historical reasons, why those places where people have been doing this, had found it economic to do so.
He researches stuff like how to take (stover? I think it's called?) and optimize the cube-making process for cogeneration, or something like that. (Apparently, the stover is dirt cheap, but after you factor in all the transportation, processing into little cubes, and so on, things start to get prohibitive.)
Again, I'm just the messenger. And he just has a question: How do we roll out the piping infrastructure. When does that become cost effective.
An engineering friend of mine is into co-generation, and he asks, "How do we pipe hot stream around to people? How does that infrastructure get built?"
Could you encode a specific pattern at the beginning of a set of entanglements, perhaps: "11001100," to say, "The remaining data was entangled," and then put some data in the rest?
If your initial 8 were NOT 11001100, then you would NOT have meaningful signal in the rest.
If it WERE 11001100, then you would *very likely* have meaningful signal in the rest.
My point exactly. Your consciousness is an attribute of the component of the universe, not a fundamental property of the greater universe.
Eh?!? Who said anything about consciousness? We were talking about desire.
But if you want to have a separate discussion about "what is consciousness and how does it happen," I suppose we could....and if the tree is green...
Green trees?! Heavens, no! Where do you find green trees? I've only seen the brown and green ones.
If part of the universe has desires doesn't mean that the universe proper has desires; and if the tree is green doesn't mean that the universe is green.
You are insisting on localization and abstraction and division as the only proper way of talking about the universe. But there's no requirement to look at it that way.
If the wind brushes through the leaves of the tree, it is the universe doing it. And if you desire a girl, it is the universe doing it. And if a worm crawls around, it is the universe doing it.
The universe is the only causal power that exists. If you look through the different layers of causal abstraction, (brain, neurons, parts of neurons, atoms and molecules,) at base, it's just universe, universe, universe.
Compare with a computer: If it runs one program, it is the computer doing it. If it runs another program, it is the computer doing it. It is always the computer doing it. If you run The Sims, it is the computer doing it. If they desire, it is the computer desiring.
If a cat has whiskers, it doesn't mean that the cat is a whisker.
If the universe has desires, it doesn't mean that the universe is a desire.
(That, to me, would seem to be the end-point of your line of reasoning.)
A point I would grant, since I'm not arguing that the universe is a desire.
You would have to somehow segregate all of your body and self and desires from the universe, in order to say, "Oh, this is my own private stuff; I'm somehow exempt from the universe, which is everything else *except* for me."
But, no-- it's not like that. If you think that you're the one in control of yourself, it's only because the mechanisms of the universe have made it so. Anything that you think is "you," is actually just a component of the universe.
All this talk of consiousness and meaning and the perception of beauty is irrelevant nonsense as we haven't the slightest idea of the true nature and function of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
When you say things like, "your attitude is best summarized as oblivious," you are not dialoging.
It does not matter how calmly you say it, and a conversation is not a staring contest.
In the performance art of debate, it's all about: "How do I appear before others?" In this case, "keeping your cool," like a mad-dog establishing dominance, appearing in control, the vestiges (means "clothing") of control-- those are things you focus on. That's 180 away from conversation.
In a deliberation, in a dialog, passion and frustration are okay. They are not indicators of intelligence, quite to the contrary: They mean you're intelligent enough to know that things matter.
Are you here to prove dominance, self-control, and make a show of intelligence? Or are you here to share your heart and mind? Because those choices are going to put you in radically different directions -- unless your heart and thought is to prove dominance.
Exactly. So speak out when you see the eyes on the signs in the bus.
If you yourself aren't against it, have the courtesy to understand those who are.
You make your point for me: you lack the intelligence, or at least the composure, to discuss this topic.
There are real problems with fear-mongering in this country. What are you doing?
If you asked me why, I'd say none of your damn business.
No, you're attitude is: fear mongering.
People are already intelligent. If someone sees someone planting a bomb, they will call the police.
A bag left on a bridge should instill zero fear.
An environment where people are questioned by police if they left a bag somewhere by accident, is a fear-mongering environment.
You need a real education: I'd report you to the relevant government body if I could-- You need to see V.
Asking people to look out for suspicious behaviour sounds omnimous but you should anyways. Like if you saw someone drop a suitcase by a bridge or bus depot and walk away, wouldn't you think to at least get the persons attention to get the bag they forgot, and if they didn't respond, maybe there was a reason?
No. Frankly, you should not. Not unless, you're calling out to the person who left the bag by accident, out of genuine concern that they get their bag back.
Here's the thing: Let me make some new common sense: Attitude and mindset matter. Attitude and mindset determine how people think, how they relate with others, and so on.
If everybody is looking out for suspicious behavior, thinking to call the cops, and making the kinds of arguments you are, then we're headed in totally the wrong direction. We need a world of care, goodwill, freedom, and love, not one of fear, paranoia, reporting, and the panopticon. You're right, it does sound ominous, and we don't need that kind of thing here.
We need clarity of intent: Community, care, heart, cooperation, generosity.
We can't hold that, while thinking, "I've got to be on the lookout for anything that might be suspicious."
So I say: "No." Even looking out for suspicious behavior, it's not going to work. The person who wants to kill you or destroy the bridge will find a way. They will just not walk away, before using the bomb. They'll have someone else deliver the bomb.
There is no security, save security in the social fabric itself.
Not only can you restart the boss fights, but you can say, "You know what, I really want to go back to the beginning of this whole level, and pay a little more attention to building up."
And then further, you can just, "You know, I don't want to even be in this level at all. Take me outta here. I'm going to go to the forest, and turn onions into a bunch of napalm."
Oh yes, I was quite grateful for that feature.
I have no idea what Gamespot is talking about. This is a cakewalk. Progress is practically guaranteed.
Etrian Odyssey is hard. The original Starflight is hard as nails.
Gamers today are soft.
I love Etrian Odyssey, but it's easy.
My girlfriend and daughter beg me to play Odin Sphere every single day. I'd rather be programming, but invariably: "Lioooon, would you play Odin Sphere?"
It's a beautiful and gorgeous game. I highly recommend it to all story gamers (Final Fantasy and the like.) Also to puzzlers, because inventory management & alchemy (making potions) is pretty involving.
Yes, it's weird-- read the Penny Arcade comic on it. It's not actually as weird as they made it out to be, once you acclimate to it. But, yes: You grow plants made out of the souls of the people you've killed, and then turn them into salads at the Pooka village kitchen, thus leveling up your hit points.
I'm presently halfway through the Pooka prince's first set. (A little bit past that video, actually, is where I'm at.)
not lbt ..?
Comrad Torvalds, then?
..?
Citizen Torvalds? Author of "the Hive Mind Liberty Core of Love?"
Or maybe, "Mr. Torvalds, Liberty Core Janitor"
Why does the military get all the cool names?!
We should appoint Linus Torvalds to the rank of Major General.
And instead of "GNU/Linux," call it "the Hive Mind Liberty Core."
Yesssss...
Actually, ...
... ...well, just whoever wants to show up and collaborate, using Tom Atlee's storycology project as a frame.
When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.
So, several of us are considering working on that right now, at this moment. We're just off the phone with David Korten. While it seems we won't be able to work with him directly, we're thinking about making a wiki seeded with the works of David Korten, Anodea Judith, Paul Hawken, Michael Dowd, and,
I don't know that a single common view can develop by wiki, but I think a lot of major threads can be identified, mapped, collected, and promoted, and I do see a basic coherence to much of the work going on today in activist, Open Source work, economics, neurology, science, and so on-- there is a zeitgeist.
Normal discussion forums have to be read from beginning to end to make sense. A wiki statically records the present state of a conversation in summary form so that anyone can pick up from there if they don't have time to read all of what's been said before, which is kind of like what a politician's platform does. It seems like it should be possible to figure out how to make that work... or a fun experiment to try.
Well, you may want to consider our research into LackOfReworking in wiki. See also: CategoryReworking.
That said, I've never seen a better medium for making sense of the world.
I got all excited when I saw a political wiki and thought "maybe this is it". But it wasn't, and I figured I'd at least record the fact that I had hoped it might be.
My belief is that: If there is something really cool, and you can't understand why somebody hasn't done it before, it's because you haven't done it yourself.
I'd like to invite you to share your idea or vision with us on CommunityWiki, because it sounds like something we may be able to do something with.
May I recommend... ...Who is Fourier?
(It's a math book, not a biography.)
I got a *lot* out of this book. (Read the reviews on Amazon, as well.)
If I see you at the Seattle party, I can lend it to you.
Science is the longest sustained meditation into the nature of reality; Reality is what continues to exist, after you cease believing in it.
The discoveries of science are public revelations.
The question is not "do we believe in evolution;" The question is "do we accept it" or not?
What gets me excited is **sacred tellings** of the 13.7 billion year history of the universe.
Meanings and communities are constructions of the brain. And yet, they exist. Psychological realities are empirical realities.
So a sacred understanding of the universe is a valid, and arguably even necessary understanding of the universe; The psychological reality cannot be denied, simply because it is constructed. Psychological realities evolved, just like everything else.
The concept of "heart" describes something material, but not in the chest.
I once spent 4 hours hacking together a symbol indexer for the 10,000+ CPP files in our source code repository. I wrote it in Python. It worked by brute force: "For every directory, for every .h or .cpp or .c file, crack it open, and, line by line, look for all instances of this regex..."
It's a little slow-- 10 seconds to look up all instances of a symbol. And it takes ~3 hours to refresh the full index.
But is saves an enormous amount of time, makes impossible tasks possible, and I have used it every day since. It's been about a 8 months now, and it's been absolutely wonderful.
It would have taken far longer and many more resources to begin to figure out how to hook in Lucerne, or some other heavy duty package.
Honestly, it sounds like you've just given up.
Maybe you should apply to Olin.
"The same way other infrastructure gets built. What's the problem?"
... (so on, and so forth...)"
"What's the problem?!"
What's the problem?!?
Have you ever tried to institute an infrastructure change?!
Anything that's not a part of daily infrastructure is pretty much out, in pretty much whatever you're doing.
Instituting infrastructure change, especially in something as basic and trivial as "where we get the hot water from," is very hard. It's a combination of social and technical problems, all of which are very hard, and require enormous efforts.
At every turn, it's: "Hey, dude, what are you getting so worked up about. All I want is some hot water. The people in the city North of us, the people in the city South of us, the people in the city West of us, the people in the city East of us, everybody does it (this other way.) So, why you raising a fuss, causing problems, trying to get us to do your crazy scheme, which, incidentally, our organization of people has a laundry list of reasons why it's too expensive, won't work anyways, actually harms the environment,
That's the problem.
"The same way other infrastructure gets built" is usually "there was a need, we happened to do it this other way, from the very beginning." Once the methods get set in place, it is very rare that there's an infrastructure change. There aren't many successful models to go on, to follow.
These things almost always grow by incremental growth, here and there, often times reverted, and nothing else, short of some other mass obsoleting technology appearing around the system that came before (requiring no infrastructure changes,) or a mass social movement.
Yes, he told me that district heating existed in several cities before, and that companies buy buildings that buy co-generation generators built in. (Or something like that; I honestly don't understand half of what he's saying.)
This friend of mine graduated with an engineering degree from Harvey Mudd College, and worked at NASA JPL, and spends every waking hour that he doesn't put to his own company, thinking about energy. I'm sure he'd love to talk with you. He's regularly buying reports, poking out numbers on his calculator, and figuring things out.
Email me, LionKimbro (gmail,) and I'll email you back his phone number.
His thought is presently that society is unlikely to start digging up everywhere, to install these pipes. I seem to recall him saying something about historical reasons, why those places where people have been doing this, had found it economic to do so.
He researches stuff like how to take (stover? I think it's called?) and optimize the cube-making process for cogeneration, or something like that. (Apparently, the stover is dirt cheap, but after you factor in all the transportation, processing into little cubes, and so on, things start to get prohibitive.)
Again, I'm just the messenger. And he just has a question: How do we roll out the piping infrastructure. When does that become cost effective.
An engineering friend of mine is into co-generation, and he asks, "How do we pipe hot stream around to people? How does that infrastructure get built?"
We'd all benefit if participation in tech fields (as well as the rest of society) was wholly meritocratic.
There's something very wrong with this statement, and I can't quite put my finger on it.
Could you encode a specific pattern at the beginning of a set of entanglements, perhaps: "11001100," to say, "The remaining data was entangled," and then put some data in the rest?
If your initial 8 were NOT 11001100, then you would NOT have meaningful signal in the rest.
If it WERE 11001100, then you would *very likely* have meaningful signal in the rest.
Could that work?
My point exactly. Your consciousness is an attribute of the component of the universe, not a fundamental property of the greater universe.
...and if the tree is green...
Eh?!? Who said anything about consciousness? We were talking about desire.
But if you want to have a separate discussion about "what is consciousness and how does it happen," I suppose we could.
Green trees?! Heavens, no! Where do you find green trees? I've only seen the brown and green ones.
If part of the universe has desires doesn't mean that the universe proper has desires; and if the tree is green doesn't mean that the universe is green.
You are insisting on localization and abstraction and division as the only proper way of talking about the universe. But there's no requirement to look at it that way.
If the wind brushes through the leaves of the tree, it is the universe doing it. And if you desire a girl, it is the universe doing it. And if a worm crawls around, it is the universe doing it.
The universe is the only causal power that exists. If you look through the different layers of causal abstraction, (brain, neurons, parts of neurons, atoms and molecules,) at base, it's just universe, universe, universe.
Compare with a computer: If it runs one program, it is the computer doing it. If it runs another program, it is the computer doing it. It is always the computer doing it. If you run The Sims, it is the computer doing it. If they desire, it is the computer desiring.
If a cat has whiskers, it doesn't mean that the cat is a whisker.
If the universe has desires, it doesn't mean that the universe is a desire.
(That, to me, would seem to be the end-point of your line of reasoning.)
A point I would grant, since I'm not arguing that the universe is a desire.
You would have to somehow segregate all of your body and self and desires from the universe, in order to say, "Oh, this is my own private stuff; I'm somehow exempt from the universe, which is everything else *except* for me."
But, no-- it's not like that. If you think that you're the one in control of yourself, it's only because the mechanisms of the universe have made it so. Anything that you think is "you," is actually just a component of the universe.
All this talk of consiousness and meaning and the perception of beauty is irrelevant nonsense as we haven't the slightest idea of the true nature and function of the universe.
How does that follow?
By even considering that something can "benefit" or "detriment" the universe you are essentially anthropomorphizing it.
Hey! It's fair game, since the universe anthropomorphized itself.
The desires of all living things are the desires of the universe. How can it be any other way?