Yes. Just buy two pairs of polarised glasses, remove the left glass from one pair and replace with the right glass from the other pair. With two glasses with the same polarisation, you'll only be able to see one 2D channel.
What a concept. In fact, a back-of-the-envelope calculation I just did would indicate you could probably even make two such pairs of 2D glasses... Profit!
Just a thought before you rejoice.. This OPEN thingy isn't necessarily a good thing just because RIAA is whining about it. It might be not quite as evil as SOPA/PIPA, but would you have welcomed it before this whole charade got started?
Thanks, I wanted to post something similar. The case you cite was actually the reason why I switched from UPC to XS4ALL at the time. More expensive, to be sure, but also waaaay more reliable. Not to mention that, on the one occasion that I did have a problem, their helpdesk didn't just tell me to F off because I don't have a *start* button in the lower left corner of the screen... Add to that their relatively enlightened view of freedoms online (Rop Gongrijp, the founder, is well known in this regard).
Thought-provoking article, though her solutions are probably too 'radical' for many, by (Canadian) Naomi Klein: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
I was agreeing with you that obviously fictitious brands can distract from a scene.. But then I thought, isn't that pretty sad? I mean, it's slightly off-topic but what does it tell us we need logoes to sustain immersion (often while, paradoxically, suspending disbelief)?
Haven't posted in a long long time but can't resist here. Mod anon parent up, someone.
Much of this thread seems to be shooting the messenger. Not saying that the Chinese government is any kind of example, but that doesn't change the fact that the US justice system, even to an outsider in a free country (sort of, viz Netherlands) seems incredibly flawed.
About 25% of prisoners in the world -- yes, including all your various friendly neighborhood totalitarian regimes -- are locked up in the US, while the US accounts for only about 5% of the world population. The issue became confused with all sorts of non-judicial interests as the prison system was privatized. And, from since way back when to the present day, prisoners are cheap labor (the proverbial license plates, obviously, but lots of army stuff too). The latter is true anywhere, of course, but perhaps the degree in which it artificially keeps prisons full will vary.
Thank you -- exactly my thoughts while I was reading these posts... "I don't understand what this guy is saying / doing, therefore there must be something wrong with him". Very peculiar reasoning. Mod parent up if you have points!
I recall, though it was a while ago, reading about something called 'the free will theorem' -- I wouldn't have taken it seriously if it were not written by John Conway (he of the Game of Life).
The main point was essentially that if free will exists at all, it exists everywhere, in particular it does not require 'life' or 'consciousness' or similarly ill-defined conditions.
It's like broadcast television. They provide us with entertainment with the catch that there will be a few commercials here and there.
As if the viewer were the customer in this transaction and those `few commercials' an unavoidable nuisance to both viewers and broadcaster, when the fact is of course that the advertisers are the customer and the viewers are the product. It seems to me a similar misunderstanding is all too prevalent with respect to google.
While I'm not an economist or stockbroker, it seems to me that if apple knows which shares iphoners are most interested in, at a given time, this is extremely valuable information, e.g. to spot trends. Can't be bothered to read the user-agreement (have no iphone) but curious to know whether it gives apple the right to sell this data on to large brokers or even act upon the intel themselves?
Yeah, but there were several times during the debate where Kerry seemed evasive or indecisive. When you're under attack for being a flip-flopper you damn well better be sure of your answers.
I still don't get why Kerry just did not say it like it was: politics IS flip-flopping. The last thing you want is someone unable to evolve their view on things, compromise. Especially in the sort of complex decisions that end up in Senate and Congress.. Indecisiveness (indecision?) can be a bad thing, for sure, but it doesn't do anybody any good to make things appear simpler or more clearcut than they really are, either.
And both parties treat this country's citizens like we're retarded.
Obviously I should not generalize -- and I definitely don't mean you personally -- but I must say, from where I'm standing, the average American (i.e. as manifest in polls, elections) shows alarmingly little criticism of government, period. Many argue the mainstream media help, but if people really wanted to know then the media would have to cover -- after all, the public is the product which a network sells to advertisers.
Anyway, that both parties jump on that apathy, use it to make the sheeple look away from what really matters to them and those they represent (corporations, in both cases, not Joe 6P) does not necessarily prove they are responsible for it -- although it is likely they would actively try to maintain it.
You get what you pay for: a nicely designed machine with a very nice OS that Just Works(TM).
Like I said, from my modest experience with it I'd say OSX is exceptionally good. I did the experiment I proposed myself; when I bought my current machine recently, I considered the G5 a serious candidate. And I found the contrast truly remarkable. I didn't hold back on the looks and noise/cooling, either.
All in all, I spent about as much as I would have on the entry level G5, at the time. But I have about four times the diskspace, double the memory, and about the same graphics specs I would have got from Apple. I think my venice cpu is about on par with the powerpc alternative I could have had, for what I do at least, most of the time. I guess maybe altivec would've beat the pants off mmx/sse/whathaveyou in some media apps and you can argue cisc is a really bad mistake.. But there you have it, I made a choice.
On the other hand, even to non-gamers I would probably not recommend linux to everyone, not even ubuntu and the like, so yes, in many cases the mac is a really good option.
Do you also think BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus pricing is also ludicrous?
Yes - or rather I think the people who buy them are nutty. Other than racing I can think of very few purposes for which, say, a Volvo or something would not be perfectly adequate. Except if you're on the road for hours on end, day in day out - like the way I use my machine, and you perhaps your nicely designed Apple - the comforts of luxurious interior do probably weigh in.
Mind you, that's more like a BMW or Merc than a Ferrari or a Hummer -- the latter two in my view being truly ludicrous ricercars (yes I know the site) with no place on the public roads. Anyway, somehow people who go shopping in a 4x4, or get stuck in a traffic jam in a Lamorghini never strike me as especially reasonable folk.
I've never understood this argument. [...] If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?
I, in turn, think I do understand your argument but would like to point out money does not, in most of our backyards, grow from trees. But I guess if you don't mind the Apple brand tax you could probably afford a dedicated game machine as well.
Aside from that, I think you're right that Apple doesn't care much about the gaming market, at least not nearly as much as it cares about A/V editing and such. Which is maybe why they can get away with their ludicrous pricing, many of their users are professionals who just write it off later.
And the pricing really is ludicrous; for fun you could some time check the price of their entry level desktop (which is 1xG5 now) and compare what kind of whitebox frankenbox you could assemble for the same money in stead. Could it really be just because of scales of production that the contrast is so sharp?
Me, lucky me, I'm not a gamer and (gentoo) linux suits my office and development needs just fine -- so I get the stability without any brand tax or even s/w purchase. It's not even that I'd refuse on principle to pay for s/w.. I refuse Windows because it is a crappy OS (for my needs). Having worked with it on occasion, my impression of it is very good: I'd maybe pay for OSX except I object to their pricing of hardware and OS updates.
While the Manifesto is an interesting read, and the signers is an impressive list - I will be more impressed when it is in our Constitution.
So, fine by you as long as they don't change the law to do the same legally? Wow. Look, I'm not out to impress anyone. The point was that, unlike you said in your original post, US policy is in fact to play world police. The manifesto I linked to just goes to make that point.
[..] - a lot of countries also ask for our aid (both money, food, medical, etc.). So when you ask for our aid, it is not a free lunch it comes with a price.
If it's not a free lunch, it's not aid but an instrument of control. How is it that the countries receiving most US 'aid' -- Haiti and Colombia -- are among the poorest (and, I might add, democratically challenged) nations in the hemisphere?
I do not want the US to be a world "Emperer" but I do realize the US as the leader of democracy, as the most powerful (arguable maybe) nation, as the richest nation, etc does have a responsibility for all the good and bad.
Leader of democracy. Well, I guess if you feel represented by this bunch and trust they act in your best interest, I will have to grant you that one. The most powerful nation. Well yes, I have to grant you that one as well. Not too surprising though, as the US "defence" budget just about exceeds the rest of the world's combined. The richest nation. In dollars, maybe. Yet in some respects -- say, number of people, per capita, below the poverty line, without health insurance, in prison, on drugs, pregnant-at-15, shot in the face by stray assault rifles (for hunting) etc etc ad nauseam -- the US rank somewhere just below Zimbabwe. Really, look it up some time. And even if you do measure in dollars, you should wonder about that fact, seeing as how the US have relatively few natural resources. How is it that some African countries, where the natives practically stumble over gold and diamond on a daily basis, are so poor and the US and Western Europe so rich?
That is the mindset behind this country, the fear of the next Hitler.
And yet you're completely OK with your government lying to the public and the Senate, fabricating stories to go to war, planting "news items", regulating press access, deporting and torturing people without trial or accusation, etc. etc. ad nauseam again. Please, ask me for links on any or all of this if you managed to not hear of it before.
The not striking back does not work. Look at Israel. Terrorists attack them all the time. When they are convinced to not strike back, you know what happens? The terrorists continue to attack - they don't stop.
An alternative lesson that could be learned from the violent history of Israel is you can't just occupy a country and expect everyone to just get along with that. Perhaps I should explain, even though I personally think violence never really works, doesn't mean I can't understand sentiments of aggression or revenge.
So should a people just stand by and let themselves get attacked without retaliation?
Yes. But only a few times. Popular support for unprovoked attack disappears very quickly. Like I said, I can understand thirst for revenge, I'm just disagreeing with you that an exchange of revenge-upon-revenge is any sort of sustainable condition, in the long run, for anyone.
The US is not appointed as ruler (self or otherwise), but that does not mean the US is not allowed to put up equipment to disable others in the case of war.
I beg to differ. Current government *does* think of the US as world police. Take a look at this manifesto, and more importantly who signed it. Why yes, it is pretty much the entire Shrub club!
Choice quote: We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
If you believe this is limited to national security only, and does not extend to forceful consolidation and expansion of economic and corporate US interests, I think you might want to take a look back at history for a bit.
From your post I assume you don't want the US to play this role, which would be commendable, but you can't deny these very same people are doing precisely what they so bluntly stated -- and they do so in your name, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.
Finally, I guess your main point was that violence is sometimes necessary. Probably you'll think I'm very naive, and that's all right, but it just seems to me that most instances of "defense" turn out not to be completely unrelated to earlier actions on the defendant's part. Like Gandhi said, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Sooner or later, someone is just going to have to not strike back. Preemptive peace, or some such.
[...] seriously, I think millions of lives were saved [by The Bomb], perhaps billions.
You may well be right, at least so far. The A-Bombs of WWII were nothing compared to the H-Bombs developed subsequently. Unlike A-bombs, there is no theoretical upper limit to the size of an H-bomb. At the height of the cold war the Soviets tested 'The Czar', with a TNT equivalent of 10 times everything used in WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki included. And now the US are developing and deploying platforms for launching nukes from from space.
I guess I'm just saying, let's not get too complacent -- these things could still bite us in the ass, bigtime.
You're welcome to believe what you want to (insert oblig Voltaire here) -- but wow, this is truly the most elegant and concise description of the precise opposite of what I believe. In fact, note you inspired my very own new sig, below.
In effect the sig prevents me from seriously responding to anything else you wrote -- obviously you would not even consider my "deviant viewpoints" in earnest, dismissed offhand because they are not yours.
Anyway. Like you care what I think, huh? We'll see how Darwin rates your "question diversity" theory.
There is even the evolutionary argument that physical strength on the part of men are becoming less important for survival whereas abstract reasoning and social skills are rewarded. Therefore, one would expect the preference of women to shift.
Unfortunately typical geekhood is a contrast between abstract reasoning and social skills. They will oftentimes fail, for instance, to recognize that the obvious application of above theory (explaining it to a girl, illustrating your mental skill while at the same time explaining that such mental skills must surely be very attractive to her) is not a really good social strategy.
Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. You'll notice the complete lack of anything even vaguely like what you're talking about, either philosophically, stragecially, or tactically.
Touche. I made an honest mistake there -- the "Pearl Harbour" quote is not from the manifesto but from p51 of the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) as you can see here.
That said, I never meant to insult anyone, too bad you took it that way (which you make clear in the rest of your post.) I want to discuss the facts -- but not to limit myself only to "their" evil. It goes both ways.
Hate to burst your bubble, friend, but you're wrong.
This does play into neocon hands -- in fact, the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century (written well before 911 by Cheney and Wolfowitz among others) states they would need "a new Pearl Harbour" which they could then use to legitimize the forceful maintainance of American hegemony.
The fact you're not aware if this is completely in line with another neocon (Straussian) idea; it is perfectly allright to lie to the public "for their own good", the goal justify the means.
You should really look for a torrent of "The Power of Nightmares", a 3-part BBC documentary, if you really want to understand how the neocons and the radical islamists are dependent on one another.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha, I see what you did there, you clever dikc
Yes. Just buy two pairs of polarised glasses, remove the left glass from one pair and replace with the right glass from the other pair. With two glasses with the same polarisation, you'll only be able to see one 2D channel.
What a concept. In fact, a back-of-the-envelope calculation I just did would indicate you could probably even make two such pairs of 2D glasses... Profit!
Well said... Altough I think I get what you meant, the turn of phrase
We deserve the best government money can buy.
sort of undermines your point.
Just a thought before you rejoice.. This OPEN thingy isn't necessarily a good thing just because RIAA is whining about it. It might be not quite as evil as SOPA/PIPA, but would you have welcomed it before this whole charade got started?
Thanks, I wanted to post something similar. The case you cite was actually the reason why I switched from UPC to XS4ALL at the time. More expensive, to be sure, but also waaaay more reliable. Not to mention that, on the one occasion that I did have a problem, their helpdesk didn't just tell me to F off because I don't have a *start* button in the lower left corner of the screen... Add to that their relatively enlightened view of freedoms online (Rop Gongrijp, the founder, is well known in this regard).
I'll stick around, XS4ALL!
Whoops screwed up the link:
here it is
Thought-provoking article, though her solutions are probably too 'radical' for many, by (Canadian) Naomi Klein:
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
I was agreeing with you that obviously fictitious brands can distract from a scene.. But then I thought, isn't that pretty sad? I mean, it's slightly off-topic but what does it tell us we need logoes to sustain immersion (often while, paradoxically, suspending disbelief)?
Haven't posted in a long long time but can't resist here. Mod anon parent up, someone.
Much of this thread seems to be shooting the messenger. Not saying that the Chinese government is any kind of example, but that doesn't change the fact that the US justice system, even to an outsider in a free country (sort of, viz Netherlands) seems incredibly flawed.
About 25% of prisoners in the world -- yes, including all your various friendly neighborhood totalitarian regimes -- are locked up in the US, while the US accounts for only about 5% of the world population. The issue became confused with all sorts of non-judicial interests as the prison system was privatized. And, from since way back when to the present day, prisoners are cheap labor (the proverbial license plates, obviously, but lots of army stuff too). The latter is true anywhere, of course, but perhaps the degree in which it artificially keeps prisons full will vary.
Must not post on /. must not post on /. ...
Thank you -- exactly my thoughts while I was reading these posts... "I don't understand what this guy is saying / doing, therefore there must be something wrong with him". Very peculiar reasoning. Mod parent up if you have points!
I recall, though it was a while ago, reading about something called 'the free will theorem' -- I wouldn't have taken it seriously if it were not written by John Conway (he of the Game of Life).
The main point was essentially that if free will exists at all, it exists everywhere, in particular it does not require 'life' or 'consciousness' or similarly ill-defined conditions.
It's like broadcast television. They provide us with entertainment with the catch that there will be a few commercials here and there.
As if the viewer were the customer in this transaction and those `few commercials' an unavoidable nuisance to both viewers and broadcaster, when the fact is of course that the advertisers are the customer and the viewers are the product. It seems to me a similar misunderstanding is all too prevalent with respect to google.
While I'm not an economist or stockbroker, it seems to me that if apple knows which shares iphoners are most interested in, at a given time, this is extremely valuable information, e.g. to spot trends. Can't be bothered to read the user-agreement (have no iphone) but curious to know whether it gives apple the right to sell this data on to large brokers or even act upon the intel themselves?
Yeah, but there were several times during the debate where Kerry seemed evasive or indecisive. When you're under attack for being a flip-flopper you damn well better be sure of your answers.
I still don't get why Kerry just did not say it like it was: politics IS flip-flopping. The last thing you want is someone unable to evolve their view on things, compromise. Especially in the sort of complex decisions that end up in Senate and Congress.. Indecisiveness (indecision?) can be a bad thing, for sure, but it doesn't do anybody any good to make things appear simpler or more clearcut than they really are, either.
And both parties treat this country's citizens like we're retarded.
Obviously I should not generalize -- and I definitely don't mean you personally -- but I must say, from where I'm standing, the average American (i.e. as manifest in polls, elections) shows alarmingly little criticism of government, period. Many argue the mainstream media help, but if people really wanted to know then the media would have to cover -- after all, the public is the product which a network sells to advertisers.
Anyway, that both parties jump on that apathy, use it to make the sheeple look away from what really matters to them and those they represent (corporations, in both cases, not Joe 6P) does not necessarily prove they are responsible for it -- although it is likely they would actively try to maintain it.
Well, yes, if that means I don't pay extra for crap. That said: I could have been starving poor for all you know, you insensitive clod.
Nothing wrong with that, but at least grow the stones to admit it.
You might want to log in there, my anonymous friend of questionable stonage, before you expect me to be impressed.
You get what you pay for: a nicely designed machine with a very nice OS that Just Works(TM).
Like I said, from my modest experience with it I'd say OSX is exceptionally good. I did the experiment I proposed myself; when I bought my current machine recently, I considered the G5 a serious candidate. And I found the contrast truly remarkable. I didn't hold back on the looks and noise/cooling, either.
All in all, I spent about as much as I would have on the entry level G5, at the time. But I have about four times the diskspace, double the memory, and about the same graphics specs I would have got from Apple. I think my venice cpu is about on par with the powerpc alternative I could have had, for what I do at least, most of the time. I guess maybe altivec would've beat the pants off mmx/sse/whathaveyou in some media apps and you can argue cisc is a really bad mistake.. But there you have it, I made a choice.
On the other hand, even to non-gamers I would probably not recommend linux to everyone, not even ubuntu and the like, so yes, in many cases the mac is a really good option.
Do you also think BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus pricing is also ludicrous?
Yes - or rather I think the people who buy them are nutty. Other than racing I can think of very few purposes for which, say, a Volvo or something would not be perfectly adequate. Except if you're on the road for hours on end, day in day out - like the way I use my machine, and you perhaps your nicely designed Apple - the comforts of luxurious interior do probably weigh in.
Mind you, that's more like a BMW or Merc than a Ferrari or a Hummer -- the latter two in my view being truly ludicrous ricercars (yes I know the site) with no place on the public roads. Anyway, somehow people who go shopping in a 4x4, or get stuck in a traffic jam in a Lamorghini never strike me as especially reasonable folk.
I've never understood this argument. [...] If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?
I, in turn, think I do understand your argument but would like to point out money does not, in most of our backyards, grow from trees. But I guess if you don't mind the Apple brand tax you could probably afford a dedicated game machine as well.
Aside from that, I think you're right that Apple doesn't care much about the gaming market, at least not nearly as much as it cares about A/V editing and such. Which is maybe why they can get away with their ludicrous pricing, many of their users are professionals who just write it off later.
And the pricing really is ludicrous; for fun you could some time check the price of their entry level desktop (which is 1xG5 now) and compare what kind of whitebox frankenbox you could assemble for the same money in stead. Could it really be just because of scales of production that the contrast is so sharp?
Me, lucky me, I'm not a gamer and (gentoo) linux suits my office and development needs just fine -- so I get the stability without any brand tax or even s/w purchase. It's not even that I'd refuse on principle to pay for s/w.. I refuse Windows because it is a crappy OS (for my needs). Having worked with it on occasion, my impression of it is very good: I'd maybe pay for OSX except I object to their pricing of hardware and OS updates.
While the Manifesto is an interesting read, and the signers is an impressive list - I will be more impressed when it is in our Constitution.
So, fine by you as long as they don't change the law to do the same legally? Wow. Look, I'm not out to impress anyone. The point was that, unlike you said in your original post, US policy is in fact to play world police. The manifesto I linked to just goes to make that point.
[..] - a lot of countries also ask for our aid (both money, food, medical, etc.). So when you ask for our aid, it is not a free lunch it comes with a price.
If it's not a free lunch, it's not aid but an instrument of control. How is it that the countries receiving most US 'aid' -- Haiti and Colombia -- are among the poorest (and, I might add, democratically challenged) nations in the hemisphere?
I do not want the US to be a world "Emperer" but I do realize the US as the leader of democracy, as the most powerful (arguable maybe) nation, as the richest nation, etc does have a responsibility for all the good and bad.
Leader of democracy. Well, I guess if you feel represented by this bunch and trust they act in your best interest, I will have to grant you that one.
The most powerful nation. Well yes, I have to grant you that one as well. Not too surprising though, as the US "defence" budget just about exceeds the rest of the world's combined.
The richest nation. In dollars, maybe. Yet in some respects -- say, number of people, per capita, below the poverty line, without health insurance, in prison, on drugs, pregnant-at-15, shot in the face by stray assault rifles (for hunting) etc etc ad nauseam -- the US rank somewhere just below Zimbabwe. Really, look it up some time.
And even if you do measure in dollars, you should wonder about that fact, seeing as how the US have relatively few natural resources. How is it that some African countries, where the natives practically stumble over gold and diamond on a daily basis, are so poor and the US and Western Europe so rich?
That is the mindset behind this country, the fear of the next Hitler.
And yet you're completely OK with your government lying to the public and the Senate, fabricating stories to go to war, planting "news items", regulating press access, deporting and torturing people without trial or accusation, etc. etc. ad nauseam again. Please, ask me for links on any or all of this if you managed to not hear of it before.
The not striking back does not work. Look at Israel. Terrorists attack them all the time. When they are convinced to not strike back, you know what happens? The terrorists continue to attack - they don't stop.
An alternative lesson that could be learned from the violent history of Israel is you can't just occupy a country and expect everyone to just get along with that. Perhaps I should explain, even though I personally think violence never really works, doesn't mean I can't understand sentiments of aggression or revenge.
So should a people just stand by and let themselves get attacked without retaliation?
Yes. But only a few times. Popular support for unprovoked attack disappears very quickly. Like I said, I can understand thirst for revenge, I'm just disagreeing with you that an exchange of revenge-upon-revenge is any sort of sustainable condition, in the long run, for anyone.
The US is not appointed as ruler (self or otherwise), but that does not mean the US is not allowed to put up equipment to disable others in the case of war.
I beg to differ.
Current government *does* think of the US as world police. Take a look at this manifesto, and more importantly who signed it. Why yes, it is pretty much the entire Shrub club!
Choice quote: We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
If you believe this is limited to national security only, and does not extend to forceful consolidation and expansion of economic and corporate US interests, I think you might want to take a look back at history for a bit.
From your post I assume you don't want the US to play this role, which would be commendable, but you can't deny these very same people are doing precisely what they so bluntly stated -- and they do so in your name, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.
Finally, I guess your main point was that violence is sometimes necessary. Probably you'll think I'm very naive, and that's all right, but it just seems to me that most instances of "defense" turn out not to be completely unrelated to earlier actions on the defendant's part. Like Gandhi said, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Sooner or later, someone is just going to have to not strike back. Preemptive peace, or some such.
[...] seriously, I think millions of lives were saved [by The Bomb], perhaps billions.
You may well be right, at least so far. The A-Bombs of WWII were nothing compared to the H-Bombs developed subsequently. Unlike A-bombs, there is no theoretical upper limit to the size of an H-bomb. At the height of the cold war the Soviets tested 'The Czar', with a TNT equivalent of 10 times everything used in WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki included. And now the US are developing and deploying platforms for launching nukes from from space.
I guess I'm just saying, let's not get too complacent -- these things could still bite us in the ass, bigtime.
I often seem to feel that the US government would be ALOT happier without citizens to get in the way too.
No, no, no. Shining city on the hill, remember -- home of the free, land of the brave -- a fine example for the democratically challenged rest of us.
Oh, wait.
I guess your sig says it all.
Question Diversity
You're welcome to believe what you want to (insert oblig Voltaire here) -- but wow, this is truly the most elegant and concise description of the precise opposite of what I believe. In fact, note you inspired my very own new sig, below.
In effect the sig prevents me from seriously responding to anything else you wrote -- obviously you would not even consider my "deviant viewpoints" in earnest, dismissed offhand because they are not yours.
Anyway. Like you care what I think, huh? We'll see how Darwin rates your "question diversity" theory.
There is even the evolutionary argument that physical strength on the part of men are becoming less important for survival whereas abstract reasoning and social skills are rewarded. Therefore, one would expect the preference of women to shift.
Unfortunately typical geekhood is a contrast between abstract reasoning and social skills. They will oftentimes fail, for instance, to recognize that the obvious application of above theory (explaining it to a girl, illustrating your mental skill while at the same time explaining that such mental skills must surely be very attractive to her) is not a really good social strategy.
Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. You'll notice the complete lack of anything even vaguely like what you're talking about, either philosophically, stragecially, or tactically.
Touche. I made an honest mistake there -- the "Pearl Harbour" quote is not from the manifesto but from p51 of the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) as you can see here.
That said, I never meant to insult anyone, too bad you took it that way (which you make clear in the rest of your post.) I want to discuss the facts -- but not to limit myself only to "their" evil. It goes both ways.
Hate to burst your bubble, friend, but you're wrong.
This does play into neocon hands -- in fact, the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century (written well before 911 by Cheney and Wolfowitz among others) states they would need "a new Pearl Harbour" which they could then use to legitimize the forceful maintainance of American hegemony.
The fact you're not aware if this is completely in line with another neocon (Straussian) idea; it is perfectly allright to lie to the public "for their own good", the goal justify the means.
You should really look for a torrent of "The Power of Nightmares", a 3-part BBC documentary, if you really want to understand how the neocons and the radical islamists are dependent on one another.