Putting the effort into being a real person with a well-rounded life is lot more effort than either a) blaming it on Aspergers, b) whining that INTJ makes it impossible, or c) becoming a libertarian so you can justify being a selfish loner as a rational choice. Or all three.
Adequacy was a lot of fun when we were running it... it was a good idea to end though IMO, there's nothing worse than something great slowly devolving to the point where you end up hating it. I've not seen anything quite like it around in terms of the range and style of stuff. Going through the headcheese archive on the site brings back memories - it's basically every post by every troll account we had on/. during 2001, I'd forgotten half the accounts I had, and some of my personal favourites:)
The original comment of yours I replied to made the point that free speech on its own wasn't sufficient for protest against government, and required firearms to back it up. I made the point that whether or not the populace is armed does not seem to have much to do with whether or not protests, civil wars and rebellions seem to occur, in part because the government is always going to be bigger and better armed than any individual, and whether the individual is armed or not doesn't do much to change that imbalance. Your last post seems to concur with this and argue against an armed populace as being a counter to a suppressive government.
I'm aware of the circumstances leading up to the Gulf War, but I'm not sure how that makes your point. There have been revolutions in countries with guns, and those without, and in countries with free speech, and those without, and I can't think of any revolution where there hasn't been an arms imbalance to start with, whether no guns vs. guns or guns vs. chemical weapons and tanks. Being armed doesn't seem to be a necessary condition for revolution to occur, nor a firm indicator of its success once begun.
However, I know we disagree on what we mean by "rights", and I'm fairly sure we disagree on whether freedom is something all on its own, or just one particular desirable quality for a society which should be balanced against other goals.
That's where we could spend a dozen posts talking past each other and getting nowhere:)
No, just that my definition of freedom differs from yours. Not even libertarians believe in absolute freedom; different people just draw the line at different places, and prize different aspects of freedom.
They also limit individual operations to Dunbar's number of people, which is likely a large reason for their success - people operate as and feel part of a social unit, and so you minimise feelings of disassociation and free-loading.
You're not making a $24 million proposal either; the fact that no records exist of these meetings on either side and even more so the spec was hashed out in just two days with no consultation of the parties the proposal was for all scream collusion. Your analogy of the architect is close, but even then you'd still be foolish not to have any record of what you asked for in the first place (did you really just recite what you wanted from your head, having made no notes at all?), and in the WV situation it's confused by multiple people and bureaucracy being involved, with all the plausible deniability that entails.
How does any of that show he thought the music of his time was a stinking cesspool of shit as you put it? He started composing as a child and had studied with numerous composers of the day including Haydn by the time he was 20. A couple of years later Wikipedia says "Over the next few years, Beethoven responded to the widespread feeling that he was a successor to the recently deceased Mozart by studying that master's work and writing works with a distinctly Mozartean flavor".
Hmm, sounds like being inspired by a giant in his field to go further, rather than any urge to "replace the stinking cesspools of shit that sully the world, and replace it with beauty".
He certainly may have been cantankerous and touchy, but many great people are, and your own quote gives another good reason - being in constant pain from his abdomen. You also missed the tinnitus he had from his early 20s which made conversations difficult for him. All your quote says is that later in life he supported the Enlightenment and opposed Napoleon. What does that have to do with his career as a composer?
So I see no evidence in favour of your point... I don't usually expect this sort of hyperbole from your points either, they're usually very reasonable.
Passionately wanting to change your field is not the same as having a "dystopian view of the present", which is just a ridiculous blanket statement. Is that better?
Passion is an unreasonable and demanding need to replace the stinking cesspools of shit that sully the world, and replace it with beauty.
Yes, I'm sure Beethoven looked at the music of Mozart and Haydn and thought "These stinking cesspools of shit sully the world!", and that was why he was passionate about his music. It couldn't be that the beauty of their music inspired him to create his own beauty. "On the shoulders of giants" and all that, not "Wading out of the cesspool".
Oh it certainly looks very plausible that there was corruption somewhere in the State Office of Technology (not Homeland Security) - there was no tender, and they should never have accepted the bid - but the Cisco engineer in question can't produce any documentation that backs up his claims that he was just following the spec he'd been given by the state. Given this documentation would exonerate him, it seems telling that he can't provide it - specifications for a $24 million bid don't just go missing...
The second link in the article is much better than the first, there's plenty of irregularties all round, the report blames both sides of the deal for failings.
There are plenty of people who are passionate about the field they are in, but have little interest in the world outside of it. True polymaths are exceedingly rare and getting more so as knowledge increases and specialises. Wanting to change your field is not the same as a "dystopian view of the present", which is just a ridiculous blanket statement.
Really? Being a passionate programmer requires a "dystopian view of the present"? You can't be motivated by pure intellectual challenge, or find the world pretty much ok as it is but want to make something new or better? Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty of other motivations people have that don't make them sound like they think they're some kind of outlaw superhero with a Destiny to save the world single-handedly by coding Perl in their mum's basement.
So? Even assuming your theory of corruption on WV's side is correct, how does that absolve Cisco of any blame? Both giving and taking a bribe are wrong, as are selling and receiving stolen goods, and colluding on an inflated purchase still requires two people to collude. Unless you're claiming that every single person involved at Cisco was actually dumb enough to not realise how inflated their bid was... I mean, recommending a router that can handle 1000 VoIP connections (and not spotting that you've not included the actual VoIP modules required) for a branch library in a rural town with less than a dozen phones is just such an easy mistake to make!
Why would they provide you the means to whine about them on their own site? I haven't seen forums or "tick here to say we're shit" on 99% of corporate, charity or personal sites I've ever visited. If you don't like it, ignore it, or do your complaining elsewhere.
People also sometimes don't know that there are things they might like because they haven't tried them! This isn't a revolutionary concept in human understanding.
The video I watched a few days ago had mostly computing people - Bill Gates and Gabe Newell are the ones I can remember, but there were several others, all talking about coding and what they love about it. It seemed quite decent at appealing to their target audience, unlike most of the suggestions I've read so far on this story... I mean, Scheme? Maybe we should have RMS talking about it while eating his own toe cheese?
That argument is pretty much the same as claiming an unlocked door makes theft the fault of the home-owner i.e. you're blaming the victim and absolving the perpetrator of any responsibility. If someone makes a poor decision, you still have to choose whether to take advantage of it or not.
You seem to be unable to distinguish "being able to get away with something" and a moral imperative. Nor understand anything about long-term consequences. Something even your average sociopath could manage...
All four of your simplistic rules fail when applied to actual humans in the actual real world, although it may apply to a world of homo economicus i.e. a world of identical sociopaths. It ignores any number of irrational behaviours that people's brains are wired for, ignores any effect of risk, ignores any effect of altruistic behaviour, ignores any long-term planning or perspective (even a sociopath might consider reputation and consequences!), ignores the many cultures where gift giving and receiving have been hugely important, and in fact ignores circumstance, context and individuality at all!
And saying people will be more careful with their own money is not even necessarily true - a lot of people would be much more careful if looking after say their friends' money than their own, especially if you're bad at managing finances! How much care they spend on other's money depends on a number of variables, including how close they are to the money's owner, the consequences of failure, the chance of failure and the amount of money itself. There's been a ton of research on these questions in the field of behavioural economics recently, and the answers aren't as simple as "people are rational narcissists".
Actually we're getting pretty good at figuring this out - I would recommend checking Dan Areily's talks on behavioural economics on TED, there's been a lot of research into this over the last 15 years or so. It's fascinating stuff - for instance people would rather earn $20K when their neighbours earn $10K than earn $50K when their neighbours earn $100K. This isn't in anyway what traditional economics and "rational actors" predict, people judge almost everything relative to other things, not against any absolute scale. There's plenty more stuff about motivation, rewards and happiness that's been studied.
This seems like an amazing development, but just today we've had a story about Monsanto and how well their error correction is going despite haivng the best in Western thinking availalble to them. Why should we trust that IBM's procedures are any better?
Slashdot Mirror
Putting the effort into being a real person with a well-rounded life is lot more effort than either a) blaming it on Aspergers, b) whining that INTJ makes it impossible, or c) becoming a libertarian so you can justify being a selfish loner as a rational choice. Or all three.
Adequacy was a lot of fun when we were running it... it was a good idea to end though IMO, there's nothing worse than something great slowly devolving to the point where you end up hating it. I've not seen anything quite like it around in terms of the range and style of stuff. Going through the headcheese archive on the site brings back memories - it's basically every post by every troll account we had on /. during 2001, I'd forgotten half the accounts I had, and some of my personal favourites :)
Ha, that's a good one, could have made a lovely article just out of that gem over on adequacy.org back in the day :)
The original comment of yours I replied to made the point that free speech on its own wasn't sufficient for protest against government, and required firearms to back it up. I made the point that whether or not the populace is armed does not seem to have much to do with whether or not protests, civil wars and rebellions seem to occur, in part because the government is always going to be bigger and better armed than any individual, and whether the individual is armed or not doesn't do much to change that imbalance. Your last post seems to concur with this and argue against an armed populace as being a counter to a suppressive government.
I'm aware of the circumstances leading up to the Gulf War, but I'm not sure how that makes your point. There have been revolutions in countries with guns, and those without, and in countries with free speech, and those without, and I can't think of any revolution where there hasn't been an arms imbalance to start with, whether no guns vs. guns or guns vs. chemical weapons and tanks. Being armed doesn't seem to be a necessary condition for revolution to occur, nor a firm indicator of its success once begun.
I define it the same as you.
However, I know we disagree on what we mean by "rights", and I'm fairly sure we disagree on whether freedom is something all on its own, or just one particular desirable quality for a society which should be balanced against other goals.
That's where we could spend a dozen posts talking past each other and getting nowhere :)
No, just that my definition of freedom differs from yours. Not even libertarians believe in absolute freedom; different people just draw the line at different places, and prize different aspects of freedom.
And yet all those millions of Iraqis with AK-47s didn't change anything in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Maybe your analysis is a little lacking?
They also limit individual operations to Dunbar's number of people, which is likely a large reason for their success - people operate as and feel part of a social unit, and so you minimise feelings of disassociation and free-loading.
I hadn't claimed in the first place that the fault with all Cisco's; my point was that there was blame to go round on both sides.
Easy tiger, it's not the end of the world to be wrong.
You're not making a $24 million proposal either; the fact that no records exist of these meetings on either side and even more so the spec was hashed out in just two days with no consultation of the parties the proposal was for all scream collusion. Your analogy of the architect is close, but even then you'd still be foolish not to have any record of what you asked for in the first place (did you really just recite what you wanted from your head, having made no notes at all?), and in the WV situation it's confused by multiple people and bureaucracy being involved, with all the plausible deniability that entails.
How does any of that show he thought the music of his time was a stinking cesspool of shit as you put it? He started composing as a child and had studied with numerous composers of the day including Haydn by the time he was 20. A couple of years later Wikipedia says "Over the next few years, Beethoven responded to the widespread feeling that he was a successor to the recently deceased Mozart by studying that master's work and writing works with a distinctly Mozartean flavor".
Hmm, sounds like being inspired by a giant in his field to go further, rather than any urge to "replace the stinking cesspools of shit that sully the world, and replace it with beauty".
He certainly may have been cantankerous and touchy, but many great people are, and your own quote gives another good reason - being in constant pain from his abdomen. You also missed the tinnitus he had from his early 20s which made conversations difficult for him. All your quote says is that later in life he supported the Enlightenment and opposed Napoleon. What does that have to do with his career as a composer?
So I see no evidence in favour of your point... I don't usually expect this sort of hyperbole from your points either, they're usually very reasonable.
Passionately wanting to change your field is not the same as having a "dystopian view of the present", which is just a ridiculous blanket statement. Is that better?
Yes, I'm sure Beethoven looked at the music of Mozart and Haydn and thought "These stinking cesspools of shit sully the world!", and that was why he was passionate about his music. It couldn't be that the beauty of their music inspired him to create his own beauty. "On the shoulders of giants" and all that, not "Wading out of the cesspool".
Oh it certainly looks very plausible that there was corruption somewhere in the State Office of Technology (not Homeland Security) - there was no tender, and they should never have accepted the bid - but the Cisco engineer in question can't produce any documentation that backs up his claims that he was just following the spec he'd been given by the state. Given this documentation would exonerate him, it seems telling that he can't provide it - specifications for a $24 million bid don't just go missing...
The second link in the article is much better than the first, there's plenty of irregularties all round, the report blames both sides of the deal for failings.
There are plenty of people who are passionate about the field they are in, but have little interest in the world outside of it. True polymaths are exceedingly rare and getting more so as knowledge increases and specialises. Wanting to change your field is not the same as a "dystopian view of the present", which is just a ridiculous blanket statement.
Really? Being a passionate programmer requires a "dystopian view of the present"? You can't be motivated by pure intellectual challenge, or find the world pretty much ok as it is but want to make something new or better? Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty of other motivations people have that don't make them sound like they think they're some kind of outlaw superhero with a Destiny to save the world single-handedly by coding Perl in their mum's basement.
So? Even assuming your theory of corruption on WV's side is correct, how does that absolve Cisco of any blame? Both giving and taking a bribe are wrong, as are selling and receiving stolen goods, and colluding on an inflated purchase still requires two people to collude. Unless you're claiming that every single person involved at Cisco was actually dumb enough to not realise how inflated their bid was... I mean, recommending a router that can handle 1000 VoIP connections (and not spotting that you've not included the actual VoIP modules required) for a branch library in a rural town with less than a dozen phones is just such an easy mistake to make!
Why would they provide you the means to whine about them on their own site? I haven't seen forums or "tick here to say we're shit" on 99% of corporate, charity or personal sites I've ever visited. If you don't like it, ignore it, or do your complaining elsewhere.
People also sometimes don't know that there are things they might like because they haven't tried them! This isn't a revolutionary concept in human understanding.
The video I watched a few days ago had mostly computing people - Bill Gates and Gabe Newell are the ones I can remember, but there were several others, all talking about coding and what they love about it. It seemed quite decent at appealing to their target audience, unlike most of the suggestions I've read so far on this story... I mean, Scheme? Maybe we should have RMS talking about it while eating his own toe cheese?
Linky to code.org video
That argument is pretty much the same as claiming an unlocked door makes theft the fault of the home-owner i.e. you're blaming the victim and absolving the perpetrator of any responsibility. If someone makes a poor decision, you still have to choose whether to take advantage of it or not.
You seem to be unable to distinguish "being able to get away with something" and a moral imperative. Nor understand anything about long-term consequences. Something even your average sociopath could manage...
All four of your simplistic rules fail when applied to actual humans in the actual real world, although it may apply to a world of homo economicus i.e. a world of identical sociopaths. It ignores any number of irrational behaviours that people's brains are wired for, ignores any effect of risk, ignores any effect of altruistic behaviour, ignores any long-term planning or perspective (even a sociopath might consider reputation and consequences!), ignores the many cultures where gift giving and receiving have been hugely important, and in fact ignores circumstance, context and individuality at all!
And saying people will be more careful with their own money is not even necessarily true - a lot of people would be much more careful if looking after say their friends' money than their own, especially if you're bad at managing finances! How much care they spend on other's money depends on a number of variables, including how close they are to the money's owner, the consequences of failure, the chance of failure and the amount of money itself. There's been a ton of research on these questions in the field of behavioural economics recently, and the answers aren't as simple as "people are rational narcissists".
Actually we're getting pretty good at figuring this out - I would recommend checking Dan Areily's talks on behavioural economics on TED, there's been a lot of research into this over the last 15 years or so. It's fascinating stuff - for instance people would rather earn $20K when their neighbours earn $10K than earn $50K when their neighbours earn $100K. This isn't in anyway what traditional economics and "rational actors" predict, people judge almost everything relative to other things, not against any absolute scale. There's plenty more stuff about motivation, rewards and happiness that's been studied.
This seems like an amazing development, but just today we've had a story about Monsanto and how well their error correction is going despite haivng the best in Western thinking availalble to them. Why should we trust that IBM's procedures are any better?