I'm not saying if someone smokes, they would make a good leader. I AM saying that you are wrong to make the opposite link: just because someone smokes, does not mean that they are unfit to lead. I am using history as an example of how brilliance often means other aspects of a personality are a bit odd... and many great minds, and many great leaders, would fit that mold. Some of them have even smoked.
I am further saying that a truly "stable" personality is not, generally, attracted to politics in the first place. The cost-benefit is not there for anyone with a "normal" value system. So I would not agree that smoking in particular is a sign of a personality any more or less stable than others running for office.
I can buy that, but consider the alternative. What we have is a nation of middle managers elected to power by not being too controversial. Doesn't seem to really be doing all that well for us. Our founding fathers, for example, were not "mentally stable". They were visionaries. Many were idealists even. Certainly they all had character defects. But, they were effective leaders, were they not?
What are the chances of true leadership coming from "stable" people? Of any real vision?
Sure, you get crazies too. Certainly we need to be discriminating in our instability selection. But I would suspect the only person would who run for president would be considered mentally unstable by the rest of us, by definition. No one "stable" needs that much power nor would be willing to sacrifice to wager on getting it.
"mentally unstable" does not mean any particular illness, after all. Just because someone has some issue doesn't mean the rest of us cannot benefit from it. It certainly doesn't mean they are unable to be diplomatic when they need to be. In fact, some of the most unstable people in the world... true sociopaths... are master manipulators. You could even argue that we WANT sociopathic diplomats. Don't let them make decisions... no no.. but definitely let them negotiate.
For leaders, different brands of insanity are warranted. If their mind is so loud with ideas they need to smoke to quiet it down... so be it. dumb reason to judge anyone.
and I quit, by the way;) I am much less productive now. Though that may just be summer... we'll see in the fall.
lots of brilliant people would be called "mentally ill". do you want to eliminate them all from positions of leadership?
In fact, brilliant people may be being driven crazy dealing with the rest of us dumbasses, and need to smoke to stay calm, so they... can... explain... it... one...more....time.....you...asshole!!
Perhaps we should ONLY elect smokers, and let them do their geniusy goodness.
I cite faults with the bible because you cite faults with the Quran as proof that islam is the problem, and I say the christian text is just as flawed and does not mean that all christianity is on the same level of ridiculous fundamentalist, literal crap.. JUST AS all islam is not on the same level. There is more than one problem here, but the root of it is not islam as a whole.
But if you wonder why the moderates don't rise up, first, move somewhere, where other countries have spent your entire life, and the entire lives of your parents generally messing about, overthrowing your governments, supporting dictators, changing boundaries, and fighting other non-islam countries using your nations as proxies and battlegrounds.
Then, tell me how excited you are about risking your life and limb and your entire family standing up to what is the equivalent of a massive, organized fundamentalist crime family... who is the only major organized group also fighting these people messing with your entire region for decades instead of selling your entire country to them. Personally I don't fault them for not trying to rise up.. they have enough to worry about as it is, with the fundamentalists in their back yard and all, and they certainly have no reason to love the west. But not for any islamic reason.. just for pure, nationalistic reasons.
I don't really see ANY christian groups standing up to christian fundamentalists anyway. The big difference is fundies over here don't TYPICALLY blow things up.. except that day in oklahoma city. I didn't see a big wave of christians erupt to fight white supremacy after that though, did you? Did I miss it? Does that not count because it was smaller, or because the guy blowing stuff up was white, or christian? But some Muslims do it, and it's Islam's fault, even when most followers of islam don't blow things up?
Now I know, He "wasn't a christian" by whatever standard you want to use. well, the followers of islam say that about other sects as well. moderates say that about fundamentalists all the time. They just don't have a pope or major leader to call Time magazine and make a statement.
all fundamentalists cite texts better than more mainstream members of similar religious faiths... fundamentalists generally believe nothing of value is outside of their own religion. Moderate practitioners realize that other things might have some revlevance and do not spend all day quoting religious texts.
So go ahead and judge christianity by the same standard you are judging Islam by. Go Ahead! This is just some quick googling.
Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house.
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Now, there are christian sects who actually take this as literally as you and the fundies take the Quran. take the fun fellow over at godhatesfags.com is that fair to the moderates who do not practice this form of christianity and who realize that perhaps not every line of the bible should be interpeted literally?
You can continue if you like, but I see nothing different, except in degree, that I see in fundamentalist christian sects as well.. using the bible to justify anything they like. Sometimes.. like, say, in torturing and killing prisoners... we do that even without the bible saying it's ok.
You can act like fundamentalist Islam is the only Islam, if you like. It definitely has some power. But it would seem that, much like here, they gain their power by offerring simple, black and white answers in a very complex and painful situation.
Personally, I'm not interested in your bigotry, narrow mindedness or your propaganda.
how about a 13 year old? a hundred or so years ago, here in america, you would still be looking to get married around then.
Or you could go back to ancient greece and rome, where it was completely normal for a 54 year old man to have sex with 9 year old boys. They still did some good stuff for us too.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm not even saying mohammed did or didn't do what you say he did... but if he did, he's in pretty solid company, historically speaking.
Perhaps you shouldn't judge people in other cultures and times by the values you have been trained to hold by your own?
this is very interesting, and you make some excellent points!
but a few points of clarification;
when I say quantum mechanics "leaves the door open" for non deterministic, "free will"... that's what I mean. It doesn't prove it, but currently it's the only thing I'm aware of that is not conclusively deterministic. You're absolutely right that it very well may be deterministic in a way we don't understand yet! But we haven't proven that yet. And I don't see any reason to ASSUME it's deterministic. There very well may be something BEYOND determinism ENTIRELY.. that we can't really even conceive of yet. Think of the world before the concept of zero was invented... "nothing" would still be there in mind... something is not here anymore, right, that's recognizable... but it was not really UNDERSTOOD the way it is now that we have a concept of zero. likewise, we may have some idea of "random"... but not really understand what it is.
You say it's obvious that intelligence exists. I am not sure. If "intelligence" is just deterministic, then there is nothing I would call intelligence. There is complexity, but provided you knew the "master algorithm", you could predict every action of every person in every situation. Naturally in cases such as in chaotic systems, we can know the algorthim and NOT predict things because we'd still need to know the starting state... so in practical terms, maybe we'd never get to the actual prediction stage.
But whether we can USE it (for prediction) or not doesn't mean much, except perhaps that the day won't come that we all know exactly what's going to happen all the stime... but still, either we are deterministic, partially deterministic, or not deterministic. I think it's obvious we "learn" and therefor, an arguement can be made that we are obviously at least partially deterministic. As you say, "in interaction" with our environment.
I suppose I would term "intelligence" as something that must be non-deterministic in part, not just complex. Otherwise, what is intelligence? If you are just a reactionary automaton, what need is there for any additional descriptor such as "intelligence", you're just a more complicated robot. no? Is "intelligence" then just some arbitrary gradiant from single input cause and effect to what... ten input? a hundred? a million? a hundred million inputs to form one output? In capacity, or in actual usage?
Perhaps... this is a fledgling idea... "intelligence" could be simply a mechanism by which an entity decided when to use deterministic logic of whatever complexity, VS random action? For instance, maybe I apply all I have learned to making this decision.. or maybe I just guess, or flip a coin, literally. Which randomizes my own determinism... in a way. I suppose not TRULY random.. but effectively..
I dunno.. but I can ramble with the best of them too;)
I guess I should have said, what if it only appears random, not called the notion of randomness into question. Lots of things seem random to us and now, these days, we know they are not truly random, they are just complex... so complex, they might as well be random to Joe Blow on the street. I don't see any reason why the apparently random actions of the quantum world necessarily have to BE random, instead of just misunderstood.
Testable? Perhaps not. Knowable? Perhaps not. But never more than perhaps;)
I"m not saying it IS of course.. that's quite a leap. But, it is the only thing we know of so far that is not purely determnisitic and COULD, perhaps, just maybe, allow for free will to be a reality. And since it SEEMS like free will IS a reality... well, perhaps it's worth thinking about;)
I have wondered that for a very long time, and for me the idea of (and I am NO expert of course!) quantum mechanics still leaves the door open for intelligence of some kind... non-determinism is what is needed, otherwise we're all just very complex automatons.
Obviously some of our behaviour is deterministic, but I'm still not sure it ALL is, and quantum theory is the only place that allows for non-deterministic behaviour.
That's fine, but the important thing is, if you live within your means, you probably don't have to care what's on your credit report, because you don't borrow money, ever, unless you buy a house. If you buy a house and you have shit credit, it matters less, because you will only buy the house with a proper down payment. Walking in to get a loan with a load of cash ready to go inspires confidence. Especially if you can show it wasn't a windfall.
I don't really care what he thinks is right. he's an idiot. he's proven this non stop since he took office. Hey, look at that, you're right, I'm a leftie! Must be so hard being a chest thumping red blooded republican these days with a figurehead such as you're stuck with right now.
Truman's the winner, with 1913 in his two terms. to compare this to one termers, let's call it 950/term. Johnson, term and a half, 640/term Nixon, about 575/term for his truncated period.. Eisenhower, 550/term Carter, 530 ford: 3 years, one more year would have given him 508/term Kennedy, 472 total Clinton, about 200/term Reagan, only 196/term HW Bush, only 75.
Now, clinton and reagan are pardoning almost exactly the same rate of people. only HW bush beat them.
Still calling it "spin"??? "Misleading"? I don't like clinton myself, but to claim he was some pardoning machine, compared to all these presidents is a bit disengenuous. But I bet rush limbaugh didn't call that out for you, did he?
that's bushie's dear old dad. it's actually pretty common, as far as I can tell, for all presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their way out of office. someone else posted clinton's final pardon list.
But to do this to someone who was basically covering YOUR OWN ASS, right off the bat, without even PRETENDING to allow justice to run its natural course... well... that's a good one, for sure. You can't even make a good arguement for it; he just protected his flunky from the law, which he broke serving his or dick's interests.
At least if he had done it on the way out, the man would have served SOME jail time.
if you want to "put it in perspective", wait until january of '09 for Bush junior's massive pardon sweep, which is traditional for any sitting president on the way out.
For now, let's just agree to be pissed that the president has decided that lying to the grand jury... about something actually IMPORTANT this time... is not worth jail time. ok?
true, but assume for one minute, you know better. you choose to post, clarifying a point that is already made with your superior knowledge. Sadly, your brilliance goes unrecognized.
Well, what did you respond to? A highly rated post or a reply, right? Since, as you note, no one has the time to read all the posts.
So anyone really interested can still quite easily come across that nugget of wisdom... it was found by one interested party and can thus presumably be found by others who run into that higher rated post and decide to read further.
I am all about improvements, and I'm not saying your idea would be any worse, it might even be slightly better (I doubt it given the knee jerk moderation that seems likely, but maybe, sure). but you are definitely overdramatic about being the victim of bad moderation. which in turn... reasonable, rational, fair or not... will only help increase the amount of unfair moderation directed at you. got to love self fulfilling prophecies! they are so predictable. given such behaviour, I'm neither surprised nor concerned if some moderators react unfavorably toward you.
however, it has been a pleasure discussing THIS with you at least. so I hope any hard feelings will be minimal;)
interesting, I didn't realize that about moderation reversal (just saw ACs explaining they had already moderated). Interesting indeed!
Thing is... who should be determining what is highly rated?
If only experts determine it, then you get posts by experts, useful to experts.
If laymen determine it, then you get explanations useful to laymen.. or at least, that THEY THINK are useful.
That's not perfect, but it's also not perfect to have a bunch of gobbledygook that no one without a phD can read, which is the devil of your proposal at the extreme.
Fact is, a post is not perfect for everyone. the question is entirely who are you filtering for? slashdot is filtering for a larger audience. that does mean that some very good stuff will be unrecognized and some crap will rise. but by and large, it works for getting useful information to reasonably intelligent laymen.. and if you are REALLY interested, you read more than just the highly rated posts.
Fair points, and worth consideration. much better than acting like a martyr. it is a little overblown talking about 'enemies of slashdot'... any user-focused system has to taken into account biased and imperfectly reasoned responses. This system has meta moderation, which I believe affects the return rate of mod points for people, yes?
I suppose allowing people to post AND moderate could be an improvement, but on the other hand, I think it also raises the rate of knee-jerk moderation, since if you are posting you EITHER know the topic well AND/OR feel strongly about it.. that's all. I'm not an expert on every topic I post on. With the volume of your posts, I doubt you are either.
Plus you can still post in conversations as AC. You just lose the benefit of any personal "karma" you have built up, but with the user base slashdot has, chances are there that the post, if good, would be recognized and rewarded anyway, if it's good.
But no system is perfect. This is one of the more elegant I've seen though.
it needs to be a fairly consistent problem. this is a user moderated system. As such, it is not perfect. In fact, no system is perfect. So if someone shits on your posts with mod points once in awhile, that's not really cause for concern. Crying about how slashdot is broken, and playing the martyr just makes you look psycho unless you can back it up. there are plenty of people on this site who have no grasp on reality, so why can't you be one of them?
You can say I'm an asshole, and I suppose I'm not being terribly diplomatic. But Especially if you yourself acknowledge you go through waves of being an asshole, let me just clue you in: karma is not just a point system. If you piss in people's cheerios, they are less charitable with what you have to say. For instance, you're probably not going to look too favorably toward me after this, right? Cause I have told you I think you sound pretty psycho or at least overly dramatic about this. Does that change the content of everything I post after this? no, just your perspective. does that mean slashdot is broken? If you get mod points and decide you think I'm an asshole, I might have some consequences from this.
But it would be the seeds I myself have sown, wouldn't it. Funny how that works... kind of like, I don't know.... karma.
wow, way to adapt a very noble sentiment to your extremely trivial situation. Martyr much?
Ok, that's a little flip, but your user page shows no mod bombing or anything. got a link to one of these egregious affronts to common decency you're the brunt of?
I was saying that is a waste of the ACLU's resources, who have a serious job of rooting out consitutional problems involving little things like free speech and the like.
The police also have a serious job.
If the police are not the ones who are supposed to commend ME, why should the ACLU be the ones to commend THEM? And how does it gain them any credibility? I'm not looking to ACLU to tell me who is a great guy. I want them to stop people from shitting on the constitutionally protected civil liberties we all have.
Or are you saying the police should be commending me if I ever do go "above and beyond"? I know on occasion they will, but my point is we don't EXPECT them to, and we don't say they lose credibility if they don't. It's just a nice thing they do sometimes, and it may have some benefit, but it has nothing to do with their credibility, and it doesn't for the ACLU either. The police and the ACLU's credibility is and should be established by one thing, and one thing only: do they do their jobs with integrity, even when it's difficult to do so? If yes, they have credibility in that sphere of influence.
If the ACLU slapping someone on the back would change your opinion of their crediblity, or anyone else's, then that opinion of "credibility" isn't really founded on much, and I think you've taken "fair and balanced" to a logically fallacious conclusion.
Absolutely; a scientist, at least a good one, needs that fluidity of thought and that detachment to one idea being "the right one". Needs to be able to investigate an idea... possibly for a long time, with a lot of effort, and a lot of risk of attachment... and not calcify around it.
But most people are not scientists. And for those of us that are not, the question is, do you allow yourself to explore the universe outside the boundaries of the body of scientific knowledge we currently hold? If so, you are exploring areas called "magic", "faith", "spiritualism"... pretty much by definition, as they are NOT inside the body of scientific knowledge we currently hold.
I'm not sure if you thought I was, but just to be clear I wasn't trying to insinuate that science itself is calcified or unwilling to look at what is outside of its boundaries. Just that there are an awful lot of people who call themselves "rational"... myself included, at one time... who think that any exploration of those things that have not really been explored by science or that are not understood by science is somehow weak minded. Personally, I think taking the line of current scientific knowledge... or even one step beyond, if you're a scientist... as the boundary of your possible understanding is weak minded.
I'm with you though that it always facinates me for how long we've had some basic truths figured out, and it troubles me that we have "known" them for so long, and yet they still seem in such short supply in day to day life.
Whether bhuddism is religion or philosophy could be a very long discussion.
However, for the philosophical aspects of bhuddism, Tao, or any "mystic" system I have come up with a very simple way of thinking about it for myself. 2000 years ago, a Tai Chi practioner would not have the physics or anatomical knowledge we have now. Still, through careful observation and direct experience, they developed a system of movements, breathing, and a philosophy of mind that successfully increases a practitioner's health, power, and well-being. Really, they have. Practice it for awhile with any seriousness and I am quite confident that anyone would agree who is at all open to the experience and who has a decent teacher, at least.
So for 2000 years, who was ahead of the game, the ones tied to the limits of their scientific knowledge, or the practitioner?
I have gotten to a point where I'm not willing to let the limits of scientific surety define the entirety of my universe. It is, by its very method, limited in its understanding and always will be even as the limits grow infinitely. However, when I delve into the realm outside of current scientific understanding, I do it knowing that it's all "unknown", and I'm very careful with labels and assumptions. If something seems useful, great... that doesn't mean it's truth, but it may be useful nonetheless. But I must remain able to revise and edit.
Of course, you could say that the same fluidity is needed in scientific knowledge. Newtonian physics is still quite useful, even though it's not "true".
Can you use something without calcifying, without undue attachment? Can you let a belief die, no matter the investment or time you have in it? I think that is the key question, really.
Ok, do you have any from sources OTHER than pro gun sites? Forgive me, but it does seem a bit selective in interpetation.
Seriously though, even if their supposition is correct, and "well regulated" just means "working properly", then what is a Militia that is "working properly"?
On further thought though, it's a good point that they probably wouldn't directly contradict themselves in the same sentance by regulating and also not infringing, and that does provide the necessary shift in perspective to make both parts fit.
makes me wonder why SCOTUS hasn't upheld it? I can the arguement that it's not a reasonable presumption today, in the same way it was then, but it would be up to congress to revise it, not SCOTUS to just say "hey, never mind"....
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying if someone smokes, they would make a good leader. I AM saying that you are wrong to make the opposite link: just because someone smokes, does not mean that they are unfit to lead. I am using history as an example of how brilliance often means other aspects of a personality are a bit odd... and many great minds, and many great leaders, would fit that mold. Some of them have even smoked.
I am further saying that a truly "stable" personality is not, generally, attracted to politics in the first place. The cost-benefit is not there for anyone with a "normal" value system. So I would not agree that smoking in particular is a sign of a personality any more or less stable than others running for office.
I can buy that, but consider the alternative. What we have is a nation of middle managers elected to power by not being too controversial. Doesn't seem to really be doing all that well for us. Our founding fathers, for example, were not "mentally stable". They were visionaries. Many were idealists even. Certainly they all had character defects. But, they were effective leaders, were they not?
;) I am much less productive now. Though that may just be summer... we'll see in the fall.
What are the chances of true leadership coming from "stable" people? Of any real vision?
Sure, you get crazies too. Certainly we need to be discriminating in our instability selection. But I would suspect the only person would who run for president would be considered mentally unstable by the rest of us, by definition. No one "stable" needs that much power nor would be willing to sacrifice to wager on getting it.
"mentally unstable" does not mean any particular illness, after all. Just because someone has some issue doesn't mean the rest of us cannot benefit from it. It certainly doesn't mean they are unable to be diplomatic when they need to be. In fact, some of the most unstable people in the world... true sociopaths... are master manipulators. You could even argue that we WANT sociopathic diplomats. Don't let them make decisions... no no.. but definitely let them negotiate.
For leaders, different brands of insanity are warranted. If their mind is so loud with ideas they need to smoke to quiet it down... so be it. dumb reason to judge anyone.
and I quit, by the way
lots of brilliant people would be called "mentally ill". do you want to eliminate them all from positions of leadership?
In fact, brilliant people may be being driven crazy dealing with the rest of us dumbasses, and need to smoke to stay calm, so they... can... explain... it... one...more....time.....you...asshole!!
Perhaps we should ONLY elect smokers, and let them do their geniusy goodness.
I cite faults with the bible because you cite faults with the Quran as proof that islam is the problem, and I say the christian text is just as flawed and does not mean that all christianity is on the same level of ridiculous fundamentalist, literal crap.. JUST AS all islam is not on the same level. There is more than one problem here, but the root of it is not islam as a whole.
But if you wonder why the moderates don't rise up, first, move somewhere, where other countries have spent your entire life, and the entire lives of your parents generally messing about, overthrowing your governments, supporting dictators, changing boundaries, and fighting other non-islam countries using your nations as proxies and battlegrounds.
Then, tell me how excited you are about risking your life and limb and your entire family standing up to what is the equivalent of a massive, organized fundamentalist crime family... who is the only major organized group also fighting these people messing with your entire region for decades instead of selling your entire country to them. Personally I don't fault them for not trying to rise up.. they have enough to worry about as it is, with the fundamentalists in their back yard and all, and they certainly have no reason to love the west. But not for any islamic reason.. just for pure, nationalistic reasons.
I don't really see ANY christian groups standing up to christian fundamentalists anyway. The big difference is fundies over here don't TYPICALLY blow things up.. except that day in oklahoma city. I didn't see a big wave of christians erupt to fight white supremacy after that though, did you? Did I miss it? Does that not count because it was smaller, or because the guy blowing stuff up was white, or christian? But some Muslims do it, and it's Islam's fault, even when most followers of islam don't blow things up?
Now I know, He "wasn't a christian" by whatever standard you want to use. well, the followers of islam say that about other sects as well. moderates say that about fundamentalists all the time. They just don't have a pope or major leader to call Time magazine and make a statement.
all fundamentalists cite texts better than more mainstream members of similar religious faiths... fundamentalists generally believe nothing of value is outside of their own religion. Moderate practitioners realize that other things might have some revlevance and do not spend all day quoting religious texts.
So go ahead and judge christianity by the same standard you are judging Islam by. Go Ahead! This is just some quick googling.
Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house.
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Now, there are christian sects who actually take this as literally as you and the fundies take the Quran. take the fun fellow over at godhatesfags.com is that fair to the moderates who do not practice this form of christianity and who realize that perhaps not every line of the bible should be interpeted literally?
You can continue if you like, but I see nothing different, except in degree, that I see in fundamentalist christian sects as well.. using the bible to justify anything they like. Sometimes.. like, say, in torturing and killing prisoners... we do that even without the bible saying it's ok.
You can act like fundamentalist Islam is the only Islam, if you like. It definitely has some power. But it would seem that, much like here, they gain their power by offerring simple, black and white answers in a very complex and painful situation.
Personally, I'm not interested in your bigotry, narrow mindedness or your propaganda.
how about a 13 year old? a hundred or so years ago, here in america, you would still be looking to get married around then.
Or you could go back to ancient greece and rome, where it was completely normal for a 54 year old man to have sex with 9 year old boys. They still did some good stuff for us too.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm not even saying mohammed did or didn't do what you say he did... but if he did, he's in pretty solid company, historically speaking.
Perhaps you shouldn't judge people in other cultures and times by the values you have been trained to hold by your own?
I'm with you, but where are you getting info to support the claim that no snuff movies have ever been found?
7 5883,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,3
this is very interesting, and you make some excellent points!
;)
but a few points of clarification;
when I say quantum mechanics "leaves the door open" for non deterministic, "free will"... that's what I mean. It doesn't prove it, but currently it's the only thing I'm aware of that is not conclusively deterministic. You're absolutely right that it very well may be deterministic in a way we don't understand yet! But we haven't proven that yet. And I don't see any reason to ASSUME it's deterministic. There very well may be something BEYOND determinism ENTIRELY.. that we can't really even conceive of yet. Think of the world before the concept of zero was invented... "nothing" would still be there in mind... something is not here anymore, right, that's recognizable... but it was not really UNDERSTOOD the way it is now that we have a concept of zero. likewise, we may have some idea of "random"... but not really understand what it is.
You say it's obvious that intelligence exists. I am not sure. If "intelligence" is just deterministic, then there is nothing I would call intelligence. There is complexity, but provided you knew the "master algorithm", you could predict every action of every person in every situation. Naturally in cases such as in chaotic systems, we can know the algorthim and NOT predict things because we'd still need to know the starting state... so in practical terms, maybe we'd never get to the actual prediction stage.
But whether we can USE it (for prediction) or not doesn't mean much, except perhaps that the day won't come that we all know exactly what's going to happen all the stime... but still, either we are deterministic, partially deterministic, or not deterministic. I think it's obvious we "learn" and therefor, an arguement can be made that we are obviously at least partially deterministic. As you say, "in interaction" with our environment.
I suppose I would term "intelligence" as something that must be non-deterministic in part, not just complex. Otherwise, what is intelligence? If you are just a reactionary automaton, what need is there for any additional descriptor such as "intelligence", you're just a more complicated robot. no? Is "intelligence" then just some arbitrary gradiant from single input cause and effect to what... ten input? a hundred? a million? a hundred million inputs to form one output? In capacity, or in actual usage?
Perhaps... this is a fledgling idea... "intelligence" could be simply a mechanism by which an entity decided when to use deterministic logic of whatever complexity, VS random action? For instance, maybe I apply all I have learned to making this decision.. or maybe I just guess, or flip a coin, literally. Which randomizes my own determinism... in a way. I suppose not TRULY random.. but effectively..
I dunno.. but I can ramble with the best of them too
I guess I should have said, what if it only appears random, not called the notion of randomness into question. Lots of things seem random to us and now, these days, we know they are not truly random, they are just complex... so complex, they might as well be random to Joe Blow on the street. I don't see any reason why the apparently random actions of the quantum world necessarily have to BE random, instead of just misunderstood.
;)
Testable? Perhaps not. Knowable? Perhaps not. But never more than perhaps
But what IS randomness?
;)
What if it's not random after all?
What if it's a hallmark of conciousness?
I"m not saying it IS of course.. that's quite a leap. But, it is the only thing we know of so far that is not purely determnisitic and COULD, perhaps, just maybe, allow for free will to be a reality. And since it SEEMS like free will IS a reality... well, perhaps it's worth thinking about
I have wondered that for a very long time, and for me the idea of (and I am NO expert of course!) quantum mechanics still leaves the door open for intelligence of some kind... non-determinism is what is needed, otherwise we're all just very complex automatons.
Obviously some of our behaviour is deterministic, but I'm still not sure it ALL is, and quantum theory is the only place that allows for non-deterministic behaviour.
That's fine, but the important thing is, if you live within your means, you probably don't have to care what's on your credit report, because you don't borrow money, ever, unless you buy a house. If you buy a house and you have shit credit, it matters less, because you will only buy the house with a proper down payment. Walking in to get a loan with a load of cash ready to go inspires confidence. Especially if you can show it wasn't a windfall.
I don't really care what he thinks is right. he's an idiot. he's proven this non stop since he took office. Hey, look at that, you're right, I'm a leftie! Must be so hard being a chest thumping red blooded republican these days with a figurehead such as you're stuck with right now.
n .htm
anyway, enough kicking the poor dogs while they are down. here is the master list of pardons granted by all presidents back to truman: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administratio
Truman's the winner, with 1913 in his two terms. to compare this to one termers, let's call it 950/term.
Johnson, term and a half, 640/term
Nixon, about 575/term for his truncated period..
Eisenhower, 550/term
Carter, 530
ford: 3 years, one more year would have given him 508/term
Kennedy, 472 total
Clinton, about 200/term
Reagan, only 196/term
HW Bush, only 75.
Now, clinton and reagan are pardoning almost exactly the same rate of people. only HW bush beat them.
Still calling it "spin"??? "Misleading"? I don't like clinton myself, but to claim he was some pardoning machine, compared to all these presidents is a bit disengenuous. But I bet rush limbaugh didn't call that out for you, did he?
I posted this above, but here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm
that's bushie's dear old dad. it's actually pretty common, as far as I can tell, for all presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their way out of office. someone else posted clinton's final pardon list.
But to do this to someone who was basically covering YOUR OWN ASS, right off the bat, without even PRETENDING to allow justice to run its natural course... well... that's a good one, for sure. You can't even make a good arguement for it; he just protected his flunky from the law, which he broke serving his or dick's interests.
At least if he had done it on the way out, the man would have served SOME jail time.
Here are all the pardons GW senior did: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm
if you want to "put it in perspective", wait until january of '09 for Bush junior's massive pardon sweep, which is traditional for any sitting president on the way out.
For now, let's just agree to be pissed that the president has decided that lying to the grand jury... about something actually IMPORTANT this time... is not worth jail time. ok?
true, but assume for one minute, you know better. you choose to post, clarifying a point that is already made with your superior knowledge. Sadly, your brilliance goes unrecognized.
;)
Well, what did you respond to? A highly rated post or a reply, right? Since, as you note, no one has the time to read all the posts.
So anyone really interested can still quite easily come across that nugget of wisdom... it was found by one interested party and can thus presumably be found by others who run into that higher rated post and decide to read further.
I am all about improvements, and I'm not saying your idea would be any worse, it might even be slightly better (I doubt it given the knee jerk moderation that seems likely, but maybe, sure). but you are definitely overdramatic about being the victim of bad moderation. which in turn... reasonable, rational, fair or not... will only help increase the amount of unfair moderation directed at you. got to love self fulfilling prophecies! they are so predictable. given such behaviour, I'm neither surprised nor concerned if some moderators react unfavorably toward you.
however, it has been a pleasure discussing THIS with you at least. so I hope any hard feelings will be minimal
interesting, I didn't realize that about moderation reversal (just saw ACs explaining they had already moderated). Interesting indeed!
Thing is... who should be determining what is highly rated?
If only experts determine it, then you get posts by experts, useful to experts.
If laymen determine it, then you get explanations useful to laymen.. or at least, that THEY THINK are useful.
That's not perfect, but it's also not perfect to have a bunch of gobbledygook that no one without a phD can read, which is the devil of your proposal at the extreme.
Fact is, a post is not perfect for everyone. the question is entirely who are you filtering for? slashdot is filtering for a larger audience. that does mean that some very good stuff will be unrecognized and some crap will rise. but by and large, it works for getting useful information to reasonably intelligent laymen.. and if you are REALLY interested, you read more than just the highly rated posts.
Fair points, and worth consideration. much better than acting like a martyr. it is a little overblown talking about 'enemies of slashdot'... any user-focused system has to taken into account biased and imperfectly reasoned responses. This system has meta moderation, which I believe affects the return rate of mod points for people, yes?
I suppose allowing people to post AND moderate could be an improvement, but on the other hand, I think it also raises the rate of knee-jerk moderation, since if you are posting you EITHER know the topic well AND/OR feel strongly about it.. that's all. I'm not an expert on every topic I post on. With the volume of your posts, I doubt you are either.
Plus you can still post in conversations as AC. You just lose the benefit of any personal "karma" you have built up, but with the user base slashdot has, chances are there that the post, if good, would be recognized and rewarded anyway, if it's good.
But no system is perfect. This is one of the more elegant I've seen though.
it needs to be a fairly consistent problem. this is a user moderated system. As such, it is not perfect. In fact, no system is perfect. So if someone shits on your posts with mod points once in awhile, that's not really cause for concern. Crying about how slashdot is broken, and playing the martyr just makes you look psycho unless you can back it up. there are plenty of people on this site who have no grasp on reality, so why can't you be one of them?
You can say I'm an asshole, and I suppose I'm not being terribly diplomatic. But Especially if you yourself acknowledge you go through waves of being an asshole, let me just clue you in: karma is not just a point system. If you piss in people's cheerios, they are less charitable with what you have to say. For instance, you're probably not going to look too favorably toward me after this, right? Cause I have told you I think you sound pretty psycho or at least overly dramatic about this. Does that change the content of everything I post after this? no, just your perspective. does that mean slashdot is broken? If you get mod points and decide you think I'm an asshole, I might have some consequences from this.
But it would be the seeds I myself have sown, wouldn't it. Funny how that works... kind of like, I don't know.... karma.
wow, way to adapt a very noble sentiment to your extremely trivial situation. Martyr much?
Ok, that's a little flip, but your user page shows no mod bombing or anything. got a link to one of these egregious affronts to common decency you're the brunt of?
No kidding, is that what this was all about?
I was saying that is a waste of the ACLU's resources, who have a serious job of rooting out consitutional problems involving little things like free speech and the like.
The police also have a serious job.
If the police are not the ones who are supposed to commend ME, why should the ACLU be the ones to commend THEM? And how does it gain them any credibility? I'm not looking to ACLU to tell me who is a great guy. I want them to stop people from shitting on the constitutionally protected civil liberties we all have.
Or are you saying the police should be commending me if I ever do go "above and beyond"? I know on occasion they will, but my point is we don't EXPECT them to, and we don't say they lose credibility if they don't. It's just a nice thing they do sometimes, and it may have some benefit, but it has nothing to do with their credibility, and it doesn't for the ACLU either. The police and the ACLU's credibility is and should be established by one thing, and one thing only: do they do their jobs with integrity, even when it's difficult to do so? If yes, they have credibility in that sphere of influence.
If the ACLU slapping someone on the back would change your opinion of their crediblity, or anyone else's, then that opinion of "credibility" isn't really founded on much, and I think you've taken "fair and balanced" to a logically fallacious conclusion.
Absolutely; a scientist, at least a good one, needs that fluidity of thought and that detachment to one idea being "the right one". Needs to be able to investigate an idea... possibly for a long time, with a lot of effort, and a lot of risk of attachment... and not calcify around it.
But most people are not scientists. And for those of us that are not, the question is, do you allow yourself to explore the universe outside the boundaries of the body of scientific knowledge we currently hold? If so, you are exploring areas called "magic", "faith", "spiritualism"... pretty much by definition, as they are NOT inside the body of scientific knowledge we currently hold.
I'm not sure if you thought I was, but just to be clear I wasn't trying to insinuate that science itself is calcified or unwilling to look at what is outside of its boundaries. Just that there are an awful lot of people who call themselves "rational"... myself included, at one time... who think that any exploration of those things that have not really been explored by science or that are not understood by science is somehow weak minded. Personally, I think taking the line of current scientific knowledge... or even one step beyond, if you're a scientist... as the boundary of your possible understanding is weak minded.
I'm with you though that it always facinates me for how long we've had some basic truths figured out, and it troubles me that we have "known" them for so long, and yet they still seem in such short supply in day to day life.
Whether bhuddism is religion or philosophy could be a very long discussion.
However, for the philosophical aspects of bhuddism, Tao, or any "mystic" system I have come up with a very simple way of thinking about it for myself. 2000 years ago, a Tai Chi practioner would not have the physics or anatomical knowledge we have now. Still, through careful observation and direct experience, they developed a system of movements, breathing, and a philosophy of mind that successfully increases a practitioner's health, power, and well-being. Really, they have. Practice it for awhile with any seriousness and I am quite confident that anyone would agree who is at all open to the experience and who has a decent teacher, at least.
So for 2000 years, who was ahead of the game, the ones tied to the limits of their scientific knowledge, or the practitioner?
I have gotten to a point where I'm not willing to let the limits of scientific surety define the entirety of my universe. It is, by its very method, limited in its understanding and always will be even as the limits grow infinitely. However, when I delve into the realm outside of current scientific understanding, I do it knowing that it's all "unknown", and I'm very careful with labels and assumptions. If something seems useful, great... that doesn't mean it's truth, but it may be useful nonetheless. But I must remain able to revise and edit.
Of course, you could say that the same fluidity is needed in scientific knowledge. Newtonian physics is still quite useful, even though it's not "true".
Can you use something without calcifying, without undue attachment? Can you let a belief die, no matter the investment or time you have in it? I think that is the key question, really.
Ok, do you have any from sources OTHER than pro gun sites? Forgive me, but it does seem a bit selective in interpetation.
Seriously though, even if their supposition is correct, and "well regulated" just means "working properly", then what is a Militia that is "working properly"?
On further thought though, it's a good point that they probably wouldn't directly contradict themselves in the same sentance by regulating and also not infringing, and that does provide the necessary shift in perspective to make both parts fit.
makes me wonder why SCOTUS hasn't upheld it? I can the arguement that it's not a reasonable presumption today, in the same way it was then, but it would be up to congress to revise it, not SCOTUS to just say "hey, never mind"....