You have a point that people are too much defined by what they work in, but what has capitalism to do with it?
Probably nothing, to tell the truth. But capitalism is all I'm familiar with, and I see people defining themselves and each other by their job and bank balance. I am a lawyer, or I am a sanitation engineer. It feeds the monster that makes companies think that they have some special, secret sauce in their culture, and you have to fit in with that, even when you're not at work. If I hire a guy to mow the lawn or change the oil, I'm paying for a service, not paying him to adopt a lifestyle. It's relevant if he's dishonest or an axe murderer or something, yes, but not that he posts to Slashdot or a personal blog that customers suck.
I guess on a gut level I'm linking this problem to capitalism, though in reality it's probably just part of our nature. I'm actually libertarian, meaning I think capitalism sucks less than the other options, but it does (to my eyes) exacerbate some of our uglier tendencies.
Okay, so you're not really what's wrong with capitalism. But I have always hated that we have to be defined, 24/7, by what we do to buy bread for the table. A dentist fixes teeth. Wow. It's a profession, not an identity. By your logic, they could demand that you vote Republican, copulate only on Tuesdays, etc. They don't own you just because you want to be a physician. They aren't even guarantors of the competence or knowledge of physicians--they're just a trade union who is trying to keep the numbers down to keep pay high. Yes, I know that they can get away with governing what you say even in a non-official capacity, but it's wrong to use their gatekeeper power to control criticism. Saying it's legal isn't saying it's right.
If we don't recognize some limit to what an employer, school, or other organization can rightfully control, then a company can say "our official position is that we support the Iraq war, so we will all be voting here in the office in the next election. Just turn your ballot in to your supervisor." There has to be a socially recognized limit, even if the courts don't address the question directly.
And no, I'm not a Marxist. But we do have an unnerving tendency to turn our profession into an all-encomassing identity. It's just a freakin' job, for crying out loud.
No, people just like power. However little it is, if they get it, they instantly think that they are little gods. As soon as school administrators realized that they held this guy's professional future (as a dentist, anyway) by a thread, everything else just fell into place.
People hate being criticised, mocked, even disagreed with, and if they can squeeze even one person in their lives then they are making up for every time they felt powerless. Lord Acton was right about the tendency of power to corrupt, but we're wrong in thinking you have to be king or El Presidente to be corrupted. I've seen shift supervisors at convenience stores act like little Napoleons. People get off on it.
Depends on where you were on the night in question. I work in a military hospital. Military people often go TDY (temporary duty) somewhere else, often for months on end. I see guys back from TDY or deployement all the time, in the office with their pregnant wives for a check-up.
When wifey is in with the doctor, the husband will pick up an OB wheel we have in the waiting room. The OB wheel works sort of like a slide rule--you put one notch on when the baby was conceived, and the other notch tells you when the baby is due. Or, put one notch on when you've been told the baby is due, and the other notch will tell you when the baby was conceived. There is an important concept in that last sentence.
Guys will turn the wheel, look perplexed, ask to look at a calendar, look perplexed some more, and then approach a staff member to ask how to use the wheel, thinking they must not be using it right.
This is the point where I go hide.
perception sells, and failure is seldom mentioned
on
When Bugs Aren't Allowed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
More likely they're selling, along with their software, peace of mind. Software designed/implemented by humans will have bugs, though there are methods for minimizing them. Managers of critical systems no doubt love to project the image to the public that there aren't bugs in their system, but the probability of that being true is miniscule. But people like to hear it, and so managers and marketers keep speaking the language.
It's like all the suits who love to say "failure is not an option," but then we see the occasional failure, but people still say "failure is not an option" because it's the attitude they're trying to convey, not the reality. The right attitude will bring about the right reality, or so management would have you believe.
People can reasonably have ethical objections to the concept of aborting a fetus for any reason, but it takes a special kind of brain damage to think stem cell research *encourages* women to have abortions.
They want to make sure the field is covered. If you categorically oppose anything related to research involving anything that could have been any part of something that could have, under any circumstances, become human, then you are, in a way, making sure that abortions never, ever have an upside. It's a propaganda war, and generalities are a necessary, though sloppy, weapon. This issue is discussed before church, after church, at prayer meetings, etc, in the context of a strictly binary, good-vs-evil worldview. There isn't a lot of room for nuance and careful hairsplitting. Simplistic ideas that can be concisely and fully explained on a bumper-sticker or a rally slogan are what fills the seats, the collection plates, and the voting box. The position we're fighting against isn't susceptible to reasoning or facts. This doesn't mean that they are stupid, only that they are non-rational(*). They're on God's side, which to their eyes leaves only one other side.
* - Lest anyone take offense, let's remember that there is a rich, proud history of this. "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."
What is needed is an online forum which provides both a permanent memory of the state of various debates, which is able to present the debate at multiple levels of detail, and which forces the various perspectives on the issue under debate to face off point by point so that weak and irrelevent points are exposed and forced out.
What seems like weak and irrelevant points to one side will be considered cogent and insightful by the other. The discussion pages on Wikipedia are fascinating, because the way a seemingly simple sentence is phrased can be the source of intense contention. It's all about who gets to frame the questions, define the terms, and even decide what arguments are mentioned and which are not. That didn't start with the internet. Even in subjects as ostensibly fact-based as science, there are opponents to every theory who will demand that words like "conjectural," "unproven," etc are worked in to accomodate their worldview. Who gets to decide which arguments concerning Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh, are weak and irrelevant? Abortion? Gun control?
No, I think people just need to read. There are thousands of insightful posts that never get noticed, whether because of reactionary moderation or just because they got posted too late to be noticed. But the smart people will still investigate different sides of the issue at hand, while most will just watch Fox News and condider themselves informed. One more site isn't going to make people better informed.
Try growing up in a small town, hours from a decent library or bookstore, in an age with no internet, no Amazon.com, no Project Gutenberg. The local library had no electronic databases, not even a searchable card catalog. It was hell for a kid curious about just about everything. I was reduced to reading Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest, for the love of God! The horror, the horror!
There is no such thing as information overload. All you have to do is narrow your search, or re-evaluate what you thought you were looking for. Because the tools are more powerful, they require more thought to use effectively. Not an astounding surprise there.
This affected concern over "information overload" is ridiculous. Accessibility is a good thing. Being able to sit in your home late at night, hours from a decent library, and search Jstor or similar online resources is an amazing advance over where we were 20 years ago. True, we didn't know there was so much information out there, and we have to learn to use more specific search terms. Big flipping deal. This is like saying electric lights have created new problems because now people are staying up later. I'm usually ambivalent about just about everything, but information accessibility is like Schindler's list - it's an absolute good.
Now, if you want to discuss government and business collecting/abusing personal information, then we can talk. I'm referring to literature, financial data, legislation, etc, not forbidden political views.
Yes... let us blame bad legislation on all religious people. Religious people are after all... evil... right?
No, not all. Just the ones who want to decide for me that I can't play a violent video game with a hooker while smoking a joint and discussing my extensive porn collection. They have no problem with the Governator smoking dozens of cops in Terminator 2, but Grand Theft Auto will supposedly drag your children to hell.
They are actually only a vocal minority in Christianity, but they arrogate to themselves the right of dominion over the rest of us. And then when we point out the obvious, that they are small-minded reactionary nitwits with garden-variety monomania on a old-fashioned power-trip, they dishonestly act as if we are tarring all people of faith the same brush. We're not.
I have no problem with the person of quiet and strong faith, whose belief in Christ moves them to judge less and love more. But they don't run for office much, do they?
When a person brings religion into their politics, it's about power 100% of the time. A person seeking worldly power may be working for a greater being, but it ain't Jesus.
The article mention playing eight-track tapes on an iPod. Does any have the link to that ultimate retro mod?
One exists, but it is somewhat esoteric. I've heard it called "line-in," but I think that's just a buzzword. It's probably vaporware, but you never know. Send me your credit card number just in case, and I'll be on the lookout.
100 million hate-emails is a lot of hate mail.
It is all hate mail, right?
Yes. Every last one was to people who questioned or disagreed with a decision made by the Bush administration. Strangely, every single email contained the same text: "Why do you hate America?" Apparently it's the most cogent, incisive argument around.
Or was this about email received by the White House? All of that routed through a special team working out of the office of the Vice President. All of that email was also identical: "Cheney was right all along."
These two may seem like odd coicidences, but only if you hate America. Your email will be forthcoming.
...and attempt to lie to the public whenever such lying is "in the public interest" or covers their asses.
You forget that most in the "public service," at least when they get to a higher level in the hierarchy, think that covering their own asses is pretty much always in the public interest. Anything that would make high-rankig people look dishonest, stupid, incompetent, or malevolent is actively hidden, because god knows we wouldn't want to weaken the country. The only time someone in those levels is thrown to the wolves is when someone higher in the hierarchy needs to preserve their image by making a symbolic sacrifice.
Incompetence, stupidity, and dishonesty are bad enough, but when you can successfully hide your mistakes behind a veil of "public interest" or "national security" then you have effectively liberated yourself from accountability. Isn't that what we all want?
...they make a leap and say, see that proves their is no God.
This is not true. Evolution does not deny God. It only seeks to explain processes in natural terms, as does all science. Science only addresses the natural world. Non-natural, extra-natural, super-natural, or other causes outside the natural world are not verifiable, and thus are not within the scope of science. The inference in any science will always be that the processes at hand are due to naturally occurring processes. Evolution makes no theological assertions at all. Please, do some reading on the subject. Even if you never come to accept the scientific evidence for evolution, at least you won't be making bad arguments.
Macro evolution has yet to be tested experimentally, and, I'd argue, is incapable of being proven experimentally
Within the context of science, this is incorrect. The only use of the word "macroevolution" by scientists means speciation. Speciation has been tested, observed, repeated, analyzed, and so on. It is not controversial or mysterious within science.
This subject is why I always sneer a bit when I hear/read a 'concerned Christian' pontificating on the unscientific nature of evolutionary theory. You find dozens and dozens of pages of closely worded arguments slicing the meaning of words ever so closely, delving deep into semantics and epistemology to show that evolution isn't really science, that methodological naturalism doens't really follow the evidence wherever it may lead, and so on. But the sound and fury are only heard concerning evolution--I have yet to see any of these ur-skeptics pop up with "how can you treat a theory as fact? why are you lying to our children" when the topic is any other branch of science.
The real kicker is that evolutionary theory makes sense on an intuitive level. Random variation + natural selection = genetic change. Genetic change + time = a lot of change. Divergent change = speciation. I'm no scientist--I'm not even that bright. But the ideas are simple and elegant if you make even a token effort to understand. Not so with quantum mechanics. It means what again? If any thse creationists or ID advocates were actually moved by their supposed skepticism about methodologial naturalism, they would be up in arms about quantum mechanics. Instead you hear what from them? Silence. The only branch of science that their profound, deeply conscientious, implacable intellectual integrity can concern itself with is the only one that has implications for a simplistic reading of Genesis. Every time I read "I'm no creationist, but I can't stand by when our children are sold half-baked theories as fact!" I want to crack up laughing. Quantum mechanics is such an easier target because maybe 50 people worldwide really understand it (okay, I'm exaggerating, but by how much?) and high school teachers probably don't make a large percentage. If the issue were just the nature of methodological naturalism, or the limits of human knowledge, or the nature of science, then evolution would never be the easiest target. But as it is, it's the only target.
Perhaps I'm coming late to this realization. Despite my noted cynicism, the very act of debate requires a little respect for the opposing view. But if the opposition is just flat-out lying, not only about their facts, but about their very motivating premises, then what is there to talk about? I guess it had to come to this eventually--if the other side really thinks you are working for the devil, you can't help but call them kooks sooner or later. What else is there?
No, this post o' mine didn't address quantum mechanics. It's just that the sheer inscrutability of the subject (to me) got me to wondering--where are all the gadflies who normally come out of the woodwork with dire warnings about passing off rank theory as fact? Where are the lessons in the scientific theory, the exhortations to "prove" it before we poison the minds of the next generation?
"A Member of the NO Idiots Group: No Idiots Allowed, you know who you are."
I guess it depends on how you define "idiot." I don't mind ignorance, as long as there is a willingness to learn. The people I have a problem with are those who deliberately, overtly, proudly decline to learn. I work with people who have repeatedly asked me to find information on something, have repeatedly watched me sit down and google for it, find the info, and read the screen to them, and they still ask me rather than use google themselves. That isn't ignorance, or even stupidity, really. That's a conscious decision to not assimilate knowledge that is known to be useful.
The open source community has trouble accomodating people whose main focus is "I don't want to have to learn anything." That may really be the way the vast majority of users are, but that doesn't make the attitude healthy or intelligent.
This idea is basically "these names are bad, because I don't want to learn them." See also, "the command line is bad, because I don't want to learn it." This doesn't mean that the user is stupid, only that they are lazy.
These operating systems and software tools are designed by and for people who like to learn, people who value knowledge. They respect others who value knowledge. Now you have users coming through the doors who want the power that the tools can give, but who sneer with contempt at the suggestion that they might want to learn command-line syntax or what su or dd mean. These users want to be accomodated, but they're also very touchy about the obvious--you can't let on that you think they're intellectualy lazy, much less outright dim.
There is really no way to peacefully resolve that delimma. It isn't just a matter of renaming a few programs or writing a few more tutorials. The mindsets are just incompatible. We should be trying to convince the new users that learning about the computer tools they want to use isn't a waste of time, not trying to convince the OS/software writers/maintainers to dumb down their wares to accomodate the willfully ignorant. It may be true that they won't be convinced, ever, that the command line is their friend, or that learning a few command and program names won't kill them, but that doesn't mean we should start dumbing everything down. Even the most arrogant open-source geek at least values and respects knowledge, which is just healthier overall than deliberate, cultivated ignorance, however affable the ignoramus might seem.
You can kill people who find out your real name. You can move above the Arctic circle or to some other remote region, not telling anyone where you are going. You can vanish into the wilds of Alaska, surviving as best you can. You can burn off your fingerprints, and disfigure your face so no one can recognize you from your old life. Any activity or state of mind can be taken to a pathological level.
Or did I misunderstand the question? Thinking that government and business want to track, monitor, and ultimately control your actions and even thoughts is far from being too paranoid. I'd call it a willingness to admit the obvious. Some people don't care, but anyone remotely concerned about privacy would worry about the direction things are taking.
compassionate Filipina? What the hell does that mean in this context? Please explain. I don't get it. How is it related to Japanese and robots?
Print comment, show to heterosexual male, ask for explanation, and you will understand. You're either female, or gay. If you're Filipina, then email me directly and I will explain in a sensitive, kind, faithful, strong, stable, caring way.
But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions.
In current Christian dogma, you go to hell for lack of faith, not these "actions" you speak of. If I put a gun to the head of your child and told you "if you don't sincerely, really believe in Santa Claus in the next 10 seconds, I pull the trigger," then your child will die, because your thoughts and beliefs are not under volitional control. To punish for something over which we have no control is horribly cruel, and does not qualify as loving or compassionate now matter how you twist language.
I find the idea of god repugnant. The idea of the Christian God makes this life less tolerable, not more. If existence is random then I can accept that children die in fires, because, well, stuff happens. I can accept that good people get cancer as frequently as bad people, because, well, stuff happens. The universe really isn't out to get me, but tree limbs do occasionally fall from trees and kill people, etc. We as humans should do what we can to minimize suffering and horror, but ultimately stuff happens over which we have no control.
But if you add God to this, it makes daily existence horrible. That means he wanted that child to die a horrible death in a burn unit at my local hospital. That means he wants people to be beheaded on video for propaganda purposes. Either he wills it, or he is ineffectual, or he just doesn't care. To say "it's part of his plan" means he wills it. If the bible is right, and I will go to hell just for lacking faith, then that god is not deserving of love or respect, because that is a horribly cruel, evil thing to do to people. If he created us just to worship him, with hell being the alternative, then he does not deserve worship. A random, meaningless world may be bleak, but at least you don't have a megalomaniacal, vindictive, vain god who torments children as part of his "plan" to worry about.
Fortunately for my peace of mind, I look around and see no reason to believe that God exists. Perhaps he/she does, but there is no reason to conclude that, as far as I can see. I'm perfectly okay being held responsible for my actions. But if you really want people to be judged and damned because they don't find a particular idea credible, then I'd have to question what kind of human being you are.
This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'Hell'
It is cruel to say something so depressing to so many fundamentalists and evangelicals during the season that is supposed to bring them such joy. Being deprived of God's presence might be Hell enough to torment a true Christian, but for a large number of fundamentalists, the anticipated damnation and suffering of "atheistic humanist liberals" is a bright spot in the hopefully near future. If you have the dubious fortune to be around a few when they're talking about it, watch their facial expression and body language. They're smug, and even a little giddy. Who the heck do you think buys all the Left Behind books? They get off on the whole "we were right, and everyone else gets to suffer!" motif.
I just wish the rapture would happen already. Soon. Now would be nice. Please, God?
Enjoy your burn, unfortunately you may not believe in hell but it believes in you. Welcome to it.
Ah yes, Hell. Created by the infinitely wise, infinitely benevolent God for punishment not just for doing bad things, but for thinking bad thoughts. And in all his benevolence and insight, he gave us complete control over our thoughts, only not.
You have really made me re-evaluate my stance towards Christianity. Other than a smug, giddy exuberance over the idea of someone else's eternal suffering, you're a great human being. Obviously your faith has worked wonders within your soul. It's eerie how like the Sermon on the Mount your words are--when reading them, all I could see was love, humility, kindness. You, sir, are a Christian.
there's no mention of this in the bible, evolving resistance is just a theory of atheist scientists
Actually Exodus contains a mistranslation--the original clearly means "plague of chickens," rather than "plague of locusts," but the Catholics covered it up, being heavily dependent on tithes from chicken farmers. The papist scoundrels have pulled the wool over our eyes for far too long, I say. The day of reckoning is nigh, and we will all pay with our lives because of ecclesiastic cupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess on a gut level I'm linking this problem to capitalism, though in reality it's probably just part of our nature. I'm actually libertarian, meaning I think capitalism sucks less than the other options, but it does (to my eyes) exacerbate some of our uglier tendencies.
If we don't recognize some limit to what an employer, school, or other organization can rightfully control, then a company can say "our official position is that we support the Iraq war, so we will all be voting here in the office in the next election. Just turn your ballot in to your supervisor." There has to be a socially recognized limit, even if the courts don't address the question directly.
And no, I'm not a Marxist. But we do have an unnerving tendency to turn our profession into an all-encomassing identity. It's just a freakin' job, for crying out loud.
People hate being criticised, mocked, even disagreed with, and if they can squeeze even one person in their lives then they are making up for every time they felt powerless. Lord Acton was right about the tendency of power to corrupt, but we're wrong in thinking you have to be king or El Presidente to be corrupted. I've seen shift supervisors at convenience stores act like little Napoleons. People get off on it.
When wifey is in with the doctor, the husband will pick up an OB wheel we have in the waiting room. The OB wheel works sort of like a slide rule--you put one notch on when the baby was conceived, and the other notch tells you when the baby is due. Or, put one notch on when you've been told the baby is due, and the other notch will tell you when the baby was conceived. There is an important concept in that last sentence.
Guys will turn the wheel, look perplexed, ask to look at a calendar, look perplexed some more, and then approach a staff member to ask how to use the wheel, thinking they must not be using it right.
This is the point where I go hide.
It's like all the suits who love to say "failure is not an option," but then we see the occasional failure, but people still say "failure is not an option" because it's the attitude they're trying to convey, not the reality. The right attitude will bring about the right reality, or so management would have you believe.
* - Lest anyone take offense, let's remember that there is a rich, proud history of this. "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."
--Martin Luther
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
You are one of those rare individuals who make satire superfluous. I thank you, for you make the world a more joyous place in which to live.
No, I think people just need to read. There are thousands of insightful posts that never get noticed, whether because of reactionary moderation or just because they got posted too late to be noticed. But the smart people will still investigate different sides of the issue at hand, while most will just watch Fox News and condider themselves informed. One more site isn't going to make people better informed.
There is no such thing as information overload. All you have to do is narrow your search, or re-evaluate what you thought you were looking for. Because the tools are more powerful, they require more thought to use effectively. Not an astounding surprise there.
This affected concern over "information overload" is ridiculous. Accessibility is a good thing. Being able to sit in your home late at night, hours from a decent library, and search Jstor or similar online resources is an amazing advance over where we were 20 years ago. True, we didn't know there was so much information out there, and we have to learn to use more specific search terms. Big flipping deal. This is like saying electric lights have created new problems because now people are staying up later. I'm usually ambivalent about just about everything, but information accessibility is like Schindler's list - it's an absolute good.
Now, if you want to discuss government and business collecting/abusing personal information, then we can talk. I'm referring to literature, financial data, legislation, etc, not forbidden political views.
They are actually only a vocal minority in Christianity, but they arrogate to themselves the right of dominion over the rest of us. And then when we point out the obvious, that they are small-minded reactionary nitwits with garden-variety monomania on a old-fashioned power-trip, they dishonestly act as if we are tarring all people of faith the same brush. We're not.
I have no problem with the person of quiet and strong faith, whose belief in Christ moves them to judge less and love more. But they don't run for office much, do they?
When a person brings religion into their politics, it's about power 100% of the time. A person seeking worldly power may be working for a greater being, but it ain't Jesus.
Or was this about email received by the White House? All of that routed through a special team working out of the office of the Vice President. All of that email was also identical: "Cheney was right all along."
These two may seem like odd coicidences, but only if you hate America. Your email will be forthcoming.
Incompetence, stupidity, and dishonesty are bad enough, but when you can successfully hide your mistakes behind a veil of "public interest" or "national security" then you have effectively liberated yourself from accountability. Isn't that what we all want?
The real kicker is that evolutionary theory makes sense on an intuitive level. Random variation + natural selection = genetic change. Genetic change + time = a lot of change. Divergent change = speciation. I'm no scientist--I'm not even that bright. But the ideas are simple and elegant if you make even a token effort to understand. Not so with quantum mechanics. It means what again? If any thse creationists or ID advocates were actually moved by their supposed skepticism about methodologial naturalism, they would be up in arms about quantum mechanics. Instead you hear what from them? Silence. The only branch of science that their profound, deeply conscientious, implacable intellectual integrity can concern itself with is the only one that has implications for a simplistic reading of Genesis. Every time I read "I'm no creationist, but I can't stand by when our children are sold half-baked theories as fact!" I want to crack up laughing. Quantum mechanics is such an easier target because maybe 50 people worldwide really understand it (okay, I'm exaggerating, but by how much?) and high school teachers probably don't make a large percentage. If the issue were just the nature of methodological naturalism, or the limits of human knowledge, or the nature of science, then evolution would never be the easiest target. But as it is, it's the only target.
Perhaps I'm coming late to this realization. Despite my noted cynicism, the very act of debate requires a little respect for the opposing view. But if the opposition is just flat-out lying, not only about their facts, but about their very motivating premises, then what is there to talk about? I guess it had to come to this eventually--if the other side really thinks you are working for the devil, you can't help but call them kooks sooner or later. What else is there?
No, this post o' mine didn't address quantum mechanics. It's just that the sheer inscrutability of the subject (to me) got me to wondering--where are all the gadflies who normally come out of the woodwork with dire warnings about passing off rank theory as fact? Where are the lessons in the scientific theory, the exhortations to "prove" it before we poison the minds of the next generation?
This idea is basically "these names are bad, because I don't want to learn them." See also, "the command line is bad, because I don't want to learn it." This doesn't mean that the user is stupid, only that they are lazy.
These operating systems and software tools are designed by and for people who like to learn, people who value knowledge. They respect others who value knowledge. Now you have users coming through the doors who want the power that the tools can give, but who sneer with contempt at the suggestion that they might want to learn command-line syntax or what su or dd mean. These users want to be accomodated, but they're also very touchy about the obvious--you can't let on that you think they're intellectualy lazy, much less outright dim.
There is really no way to peacefully resolve that delimma. It isn't just a matter of renaming a few programs or writing a few more tutorials. The mindsets are just incompatible. We should be trying to convince the new users that learning about the computer tools they want to use isn't a waste of time, not trying to convince the OS/software writers/maintainers to dumb down their wares to accomodate the willfully ignorant. It may be true that they won't be convinced, ever, that the command line is their friend, or that learning a few command and program names won't kill them, but that doesn't mean we should start dumbing everything down. Even the most arrogant open-source geek at least values and respects knowledge, which is just healthier overall than deliberate, cultivated ignorance, however affable the ignoramus might seem.
Or did I misunderstand the question? Thinking that government and business want to track, monitor, and ultimately control your actions and even thoughts is far from being too paranoid. I'd call it a willingness to admit the obvious. Some people don't care, but anyone remotely concerned about privacy would worry about the direction things are taking.
I find the idea of god repugnant. The idea of the Christian God makes this life less tolerable, not more. If existence is random then I can accept that children die in fires, because, well, stuff happens. I can accept that good people get cancer as frequently as bad people, because, well, stuff happens. The universe really isn't out to get me, but tree limbs do occasionally fall from trees and kill people, etc. We as humans should do what we can to minimize suffering and horror, but ultimately stuff happens over which we have no control.
But if you add God to this, it makes daily existence horrible. That means he wanted that child to die a horrible death in a burn unit at my local hospital. That means he wants people to be beheaded on video for propaganda purposes. Either he wills it, or he is ineffectual, or he just doesn't care. To say "it's part of his plan" means he wills it. If the bible is right, and I will go to hell just for lacking faith, then that god is not deserving of love or respect, because that is a horribly cruel, evil thing to do to people. If he created us just to worship him, with hell being the alternative, then he does not deserve worship. A random, meaningless world may be bleak, but at least you don't have a megalomaniacal, vindictive, vain god who torments children as part of his "plan" to worry about.
Fortunately for my peace of mind, I look around and see no reason to believe that God exists. Perhaps he/she does, but there is no reason to conclude that, as far as I can see. I'm perfectly okay being held responsible for my actions. But if you really want people to be judged and damned because they don't find a particular idea credible, then I'd have to question what kind of human being you are.
I just wish the rapture would happen already. Soon. Now would be nice. Please, God?
You have really made me re-evaluate my stance towards Christianity. Other than a smug, giddy exuberance over the idea of someone else's eternal suffering, you're a great human being. Obviously your faith has worked wonders within your soul. It's eerie how like the Sermon on the Mount your words are--when reading them, all I could see was love, humility, kindness. You, sir, are a Christian.