It seems to me that we have a kind of evolutionary track being blazed in the networks.
One side percieves an attack and develops a defense. The other sees that defense as an attack and changes it's behavior and methods to counteract the attack. This holds true for crackers, pirates, and spammers and their counterparts of software companies/programmers, media companies, and ISP's, mailhosts, and ultimately end users.
The problem with this is escalation ie.: each side considering progressively more desperate and intrusive/harmful ways of accomplishing their goals. Because of this even the "good guys" entertain ideas that they shouldn't, like remotely disabling others systems, trying to circumvent due process (ie. Verizon customer lists), cripling media, closed-box arcitecture, licenses that infringe on rights of fair use, etc.
Compound the escalation with intelligence on both sides being driven by profit and self betterment (a somewhat higher drive than profit if you ask the psychiatrists) and you have quite a volitile and competetive atmosphere.
The question then arises, how do you sucessfully combat a foe that has use of all the same tools that you do, but none of the ethical or idealogical restraints? Unfortunately, history has little in the way of help in this category, as it is filled with examples of how the weak and morally destitute control and eventually destroy the strong/ethical.
If you think of this as an evolutionary process, some ideas begin to take shape.
What if we assume that the escalation is no longer the symptom but the problem itself.
One possible approach is to take a holiday from escalation, or more colorfully, quit trying to put bandaids on the punctured aorta because they just get shot across the room after each heartbeat, meanwhile the patient is still dying! In other words, the attempts to fix the problem are just stopgaps that make the enemy stronger and more resistant. Therefore, we remove the resistance. This in turn will hopefully dull the edges on the opposition, as they have no stone of conflict to constantly sharpen themselves on.
Then, after a sufficiently mind-numbing period of tranquility has expired, attack the newly weakened and complacent enemy with redoubled efforts. Hopefully, the opposition will be so devastated that they cannot recover.
The only problem with this soultion is that it can be used by either side.
Antoher idea comes to mind based upon the evolutionary model. Changes in the food chain at the lowes levels have the greatest impact. Now, in this model we consider the entire conflict including the escalation to be a symptom of the current structure
As everyone knows, the internet was designed without serious consideration being given to the security measures we now require. As a result, we see the climate of increased government regulation, corporate backlash, and end user disilusionment and exploitation. If we abdicate the ability to rectify these problems ourselves they will be resolved in a closed boardroom, or in a court with little understanding of the technical issues and a heavy hand that is unmindful of the repercussions.
Maybe a change at the lowest level of the food chain is exactly is what is required. I have seen it proposed before, but is anyone seriously considering changing the communication protocols of the internet with a mind for eliminating the problems at hand?
Maybe the open source type approach applied to this problem could lead to some wonderful results?
The benefits would include an insiders view of the problems at hand plus the technical expertise (and access!!)to actually impliment the changes.
It would be great to see what the/. community has to say about this idea. What changes would you make? How, technically, could it be done?
The grandparent poster was talking about how people need to not hold things sacred and to objectively re-examine the theories in place as new evidence comes into view.
All I stated is that punctuated equilibrium fits the facts of the fossil record quite well while Darwin's original theory does not.
"Funny, the people who actually study it think it is an overwhelming success"
If this were the case, no one would have ever even thought of inventing the idea of punctuated equilibrium. There would have been no need. The fossil record would have been exactly as Darwin predicted it to be, a slow gradual morphing of one creature into another. However, it is not. Therefore my statement stands. The fossil record sucks as corroborating evidence that natural selection works as a gradual process over millions of years to slowly change one form of creature into another (Which is what Darwin predicted).
"to distract observers from the fact that you don't have any theory of your own at all."
Actually, the last thing anyone needs is ANOTHER theory of evolution. There are way too many competing ones now. Again I will refer to the grandparent poster and say that he was exactly right in that ideas should be weighed by how well they are supported by the facts and not by how often they have been repeated by the community at large. Maybe with that approach, minds greater and better trained than mine can start factoting some of the theories out.
As for me, punctuated equilibrium is the most plausible theory. It fits the observed facts better than the old, steady, slow-paced evolution theory, and really helps explain the jumps in creature development that are seen in the earliest part of the fossil record.
One: My post has a prerequisite requirement of knowledge of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The theory was designed as a rebuttal to the actual evidence contained in the fossil record. The fossil record evidence shows that the oldest specimen of a particular species and the youngest specimen are almost indistinguishable in appearance and composition. Since these creatures are sometimes millions of years different in age this poses quite a quandry for the gradual evolutionists.
Punctuated equilibrium states that there are short periods of intense evolution. Thus, because of the shortened sampling time, the fact that there are no intermediate forms is not a problem for the theory, and it furthermore explains why creatures appear to be unchanged over millions of years and then in the next strata there are radically differnt organisms that seem to have no precursor forms.
Two: The number of bones collected worldwide that are used to substantiate the evolutionary trail of mankind will fit on a standard sized billiard table with space to spare. Look it up.
Warning!!! !!!!Eggregious troll feeding!!! Misquoth the parent:
Why bother to believe in science backed up experimentally, with research, mathematically, founded by a system of constant examination and rigorous proofs?
Instead misuse the tools of real science to attempt to portray evolutionary theory as scientific, abuse the term theory by ignoring the extensive proven underpinnings of real science to which the term is applicable. It's fascinating after all. And isn't that the important part?
You see, the same standards that apply to other scientific theories do not apply to evoultion. Experiments of the highest kind (genetic inspection and comparison) only provide circumstantial evidence to those who begin with the idea that evolution is where the similarities and correlations come from.
Furthermore, talking about abuse of terminology, evolution is probably the slipperiest scientific term of record in all of history. One person will point to eugenics or selective breeding and say "Evolution." I would personally say " Reproduction..." Others try to find transitional forms and variation in the fossil record and whisper "Evolution?" Some point to the same fossil record, observing how the creatures stay the same for millenia upon millenia upon millenia and then change abruptly and shout "EVOLUTION!!!"
Not only does this piss off the other people who are studying the fossils, but outbursts like this, along with all the other mutterings and pseudo-scientific babblings of those who espouse evolution as the One True Way, muddy the water so much it's almost like tuning into Rush Limbaugh for the first time: lots of content that refers to something that he seems to think everyone knows all about, but he never actually mentions what it actually is.
Confusing? You bet! However, the wonderful side effect is that when you try to discuss the underpinnings of evolution the unstability of the actual definition allows the true and faithful acolyte of the Church of Darwin to skillfully avoid any real conversation.
Here's the real deal, and don't forget it. The same people who accuse religious types of "needing God" because they "can't handle it without Him" are in the same boat as those they so reproachfully condemn. They have to have an alternative to God, so they cling desperately to the theory of evolution and defend it at all costs, overlooking it's pitfalls and foibles all the while. Sound familiar? Of course it does, the pot calling the kettle black, or the assumpiton of posessing special traits that you don't actually have, is one of the oldest, most well know weaknesses of the human species. Monkeys do it too, I wonder if it's genetic?
And, sure, evolution may ultimately be true in one form or another. However, as long as those who "study" it and try to "prove it" are staunch and faithful believers in it, you will never have an unbiased examination of the theory that is really necessary to fulfil the requirements of true science. And as for those who speak fervently about evolution, all the while knowing that there are literally as many competing theories of evoultion as there are religions in the world, it just sounds like they are proselytizing to me.
Perhaps this part of Darwin's book will be instructive OOGG.
Darwin stated that the fossil record, incomplete and meager as it was at the time, would eventually substantiate his theory by showing the gradual progression of creatures and intermediate forms. It is now evident due to the overwhelming preponderance of fossil evidence that has been found and cataloged, that the fossil record is a dismal failure in this role of corroborating evidence.
In fact, punctuated equilibrium is a theorist's patch designed specifically to cover this gaping hole in Darwin's evidence trail.
Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of progresion/re-examination that the grandparent poster is talking about.
How can you feel comfortable making this kind of statement when there are so many things (missing mass, quasars, etc) that are not fully explained by current theory?
This reminds me of the first time I sat with a world known Greek and Hebrew scholar and heard him translate Bible verses from some of the oldest known manuscripts.
The King James Version in my hand suddenly became almost worthless.
Googlehole No. 3: Book Learning Ok, I won't blame this one on google, I think this is due to the internet as a whole.
Hear hear!
I don't see the guy writing the article complaining about the "holes" in the library because he can't find free porn, shockwave games, or moronic microsoft propoganda articles on the shelves.
"but you know how this works. There's one outrageous law that everybody knee-jerks at, and then there's another that's still horrible, but seems reasonable in comparison"
This works on many levels, from the individual to the government level. Here is an example of the personal level.
Ever seen those cartoons where the protagonist is presented with a particularly vexing moral dilema and immediately is assisted in his decision by the proverbial angel and devil figures perched upon his shoulders?
Imagine now, that instead of a being of goodness and light on one shoulder and a being of evil and darkenss on the other, the individual was posessed of 2 (TWO) devils, and 0 (ZERO) angels. The only difference between the two devils is that one of them is a little larger and more intimidating and tends to reply to every moral question in the most outrageous manner.
Me: "Hmmm...I'm kinda bored...wonder what I should do tonight."
*POOF* Devil 1(The BIG, CRAZY one): "Sodomize the pope! That'll do it...yeah a lil' pope sodomization will cure that boredom right up. Course we gotta poke his eyes out when we're done."
*POOF* Devil #2 (slightly better dressed and not slobbering at all): "Man is he crazy (thumbing at Devil #1 on the other shoulder)...let's just smoke some crack and shoot at the police."
Me: "Hmmmm...Ok, I'll go with devil #2. Hold on a sec while I load my gun."
I never did that or anything else that resulted in dead toads. However, we did take liberties with the toad's vertical displacement in a non-life-threatening fashon.
Observe: Take a 3' by 3' square of trash bag plastic and pop a hole in each corner about 1" from the edges (you can adjust the size of the trash bag according to the size and weight of the toad). Get a 2' length of twine to tie to each hole (that's 4 total). Tie them on and then find yourself a toad who looke like he can handle high gees.
Now attach the four strings to the toad in a harness like manner (around the forelegs and torso). Now fold up the trash bag with the twine sticking out...wrap the whole mess around the toad, but not too tightly. You want it to come free of his lil' warty body easily, otherwise it's splat city for Mr. Toad. Now throw him up in the sky as high as you can.
If you did it right the trash bag should unravel at about apogee of your throw and then you get to see a toad in a parachute. For some reason it's one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
Now I know some of you are gonna try this and think to yourselves...Hmmm, more altitude woudld be cool...I wonder if this would work with a potato launcher. THE ANSWER IS NO! It won't work, and you WILL be cleaning toad parts out of your potato launcher for weeks if you try it.
Machine Sentience: It's not a bug...it's a FEATURE!!
Re:Its called the "Lazy" gene.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I personally believe that ADHD or whatever you want to call it is the result of two factors (at least in my case):
1) Boredom and lack of challenge.
2) Lack of self-discipline
The self discipline comes with age, however if the first condition is not remidied the second continues to fester and may never properly develop.
I was diagnosed with hyperactivity in 1978.
I slept through almost all of my kindergarten class and the teacher decided that I should repeat it. My mother, knowing that I was definitely smart enough to pass kindergarten, decided to have me tested for learning disorders, psychological problems, Iq, etc.
The results came back that I was reading and doing math on a high school level and my IQ around 150. This in addition immense hyperactivity. Medication was recommended, but my mother was against it. She prefered to use diet (Feingold diet) to try to control my hyperactivity.
The public school I went to still declined to promote me to the first grade, regardless of my test scores, so my mother and father sent me to a private school.
The school I attended for 2 years was set up to have children "work at their own pace" without alot of "structure" that could inhibit them. In other words, they let us run free and provided us with a workbook that encapsulated the whole school year's worth of teaching. Needless to say, this was not the best environment for a super-hyper child.
After two years at private school I returned to a public magnet school. Again I took tests to determine my level of aptitude (because I had been in a private school) and again I tested exceptionally high. I entered the chronologically correct grade (third) and continued to progress chronologically through the grades.
The odd thing, to me, is that never in my young academic life had anyone ever done anything that would challenge me. The facts of my intelligence were plain to those around me. My ability to do the work given was never questioned. I even percieved things that others my age did not understand. The standardized tests I took each year showed 99 percentile in every category. And even thought I would altenately sleep and let my attention wander during class, when examintations were given I always passed with near perfect or perfect scores.
This continued until I reached the seventh grade. This year they were offering Algebra to certain students. I asked my math teacher if I could take Algebra, and she, knowing my aptitude requested that I be able to. I think, however, that the fact that I became a little too talkative in when I was bored kept me out of the class, because, even with the recomendation of my math teacher, I was denied.
Here's the kicker: after the selected students had taken the algebra course for half of a year, the entire grade was given the "algebra palcement test." There were 64 questions on the test. My score was a perfect 64 out of 64. The next best score was from one of the students who had been in the algebra class for half a year already. He scored slightly less than 50% correct. I took my test scores to the principal and asked to be admitted to the algrbra class. I was flatly refused. No reason was given even when I asked.
I would definitely say that was the turning point for me. I completely gave up. My distraction became a way of life for me (in school that is). The school responded by putting me in a class for people with learning disorders where, ironically, it was guaranteed that I would learn absolutely nothing.
The school also assigned me a psychiatrist who immediately gave me more tests and summarily handed me the application to the Mensa society and wondered if I could get into Intertel as well.
To me this was unbelievably fucked up. The school systems I had been in had no regard for my prowess or my intellectual needs, and regarded me as a disciplinary problem, but the psychiatrist they assigned to find out what was wrong with me figures I need to be i
Not only graduate school, but consider the COMPOUND INTEREST that would accumulate on this quantity of money between now and his retirement age.
In reality the RIAA has stolen this guy's retirement which would probably be in excess of $3,500,000 without him having to contribute another cent to it throughout his entire lifetime...
I was a phone room jock before they went to their hi-tech/low-contact touchtone keypad maze that they have now when you call for tickets.
Due to some devil spawned financial agreement between Ticketmaster and American Express, the grunts and I were forced to answer the phone in a particularly verbose and unweildly manner, saying: "Thank you for calling Ticket Master, where American Express is the preferred method of payment. How can I help you?"
Needless to say, I was genuinely contemptuous of this change. The poetic result of my adolescent angst and peon rebellion was: "Thank you for calling TicketBastard, where your mother is the preferred method of payment. How can I screw you?"
Yes it was childish, but nonetheless it was fantastic to hear it actually spoken into the phone to a live customer (usually on a co-worker's last day).
Hmmm, maybe that's why everyone has to go through that damned touchtone keypad maze everytime they call now.
I have done the same thing with Quake. Try going back to your regular gamespeed and increasing the difficulty of the bots. Rinse and repeat. This is how I got to be able to hold my own on the "nightmare" rating on Q3.
More interestingly, I did this with light. No really!
(CAUTION, This can have unexpected results!) I used to have this halogen banker's lamp in my room. At night, with all extraneous light blocked from under the door and the windows, I would slowly turn the light down (it had a variable switch). I would wait until my eyes had become acclimated to the lower light level and then slowly readjust the light even lower.
This lamp was "infinitely variable" (It said so on the box!). I could turn the light down where the room was visible to me after about an hour of acclimitization, but if anyone else entered the room they couldn't see the room or even the light from the lamp.
Yes, I realize that this is strange behavior.
Anyways, after about a year of this I found that if I was in a room with ordinary blinds that the light from the moon or from streetlights would make it very difficlut for me to sleep. Even worse, when the moon was full, with my eyes closed I could see the light in the room quite well.
The worst part was one night when my wife was reaching over me to try to turn on the lamp on the nightstand. She thought I was asleep. The room was pitch black to her and she was groping blindly for the lampswitch. I grabbed her hand. She proceeded to freak the fuck out. So did I. She was surprised that I could see her in the dark. I was surprised because I had had my EYES CLOSED when she was reaching over me, and yet I was still able to see her hand and arm.
$60K American and a totally awesome flick. It ranks with me as one of my favorites for the cinematography and the far out combination of computer science, economics, and mystical numerology.
Keep one thing in mind. The reason that prisons are as bad as they are in the United States is because of the criminals that are inside of them.
There is not state sponsored torture, no daily beatings, no fear of random "negative feedback" as a part of a brainwashing scheme. Sure, they are confined, have no privacy, and have no rights. However, the worst problems that they have they bring upon themselves through violations of the rules, or through confrontational acts toward other inmates.
Anyways, you are right, I have no experience with the judicial system. I have never been to jail. Never been caught doing anything that would warrant my having to stand trial. So, yes, I am totally ignorant of the judicial system. Did you do some hard time? Is that what makes you an expert on not only the judicial system but also gives you the ability to determine in others that they know nothing about the judicial system? Or are you a lawyer, paralegal, court reporter, baliff, judge, supreme court justice?
Maybe you misread my intent. Many people are proponents of "rehabilitation." Some people with this mindset believe that the criminal responds to authority the way he does because of lack of socio-economical choices and proper vocational training. Given the support and the funding, the situation I described would be commonplace, ie. job training and job placement. I believe that the idea of "rehabilitation" stems from ignoring the victims and misunderstanding the basis for criminality.
The idea behind the last comment you quoted is to draw a picture of the dichotomy of victims rights versus the rights of the convicted criminal. Again, many of those who support "rehabilitation" would love to see the criminal educated at the expense of the taxpayers and then "reintroduced" into society as a functioning member.
I personally would like to balance the scales in favor of the victim, not the criminal. Statements like, "This murderer is no longer a threat to society" have no meaning in my mind. They are not justification for reduced sentences, leniency in form of punishment, or for weighing the possible future contribution of the individual to society. The reason: they already comitted murder, what they do in the future is of no consequence. The punishment they are given is not being given for future actions, why should it be modified on the basis of supposed future acts of a possible neutral of good nature? This statement was attributed to the defense in the Andrea Yates trial recently. The only reason that it was applicable is that she was successful in killing all of her children. Had she failed to kill one of them this statement could not have been used by the defense. If we assume that this idea of "no longer being a threat" is effective in modifying the results of the punishment phase of a jury trial then we have an interesting problem on our hands. That is this: if she had failed in killing one of her children she could have had a more severe punishemnt.
Anyways, I will be surprised if you respond to this post, as I am admittedly ignorant of the entire judicial system, unless you see fit, in your magnanimous alacrity, to enlighten me with your overflowing wisdom.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. Please take no offense at the things I say. If I come off a little over-the-top it is because my opinions are very strong with regard to this subject.
"My argument is more logically and morally based than anything"
Let's take this one in order. The logic you state can be argued both ways. A simple basic argument in logic would go something like this: A person has life, someone takes it thereby incurring a debt of 1 "life." They must therefore forfeit their life to satisfy the debt. Society collects the debt through the instrument of the justice system so that "vengeance" is not the motivation. Vengeance is PERSONAL and subjectively applied...the justice system is impersonal and is applied with objectivity and impartiality. The criminal knows the penalty before they commit the crime. With vengeance you never know what you will get.
Now look at the "moral" part. What is morality? The OED says it is a system of right and wrong. More specifically it is a system of conventions that ensure freedom, liberty, property, and life. It is circular to argue that DP is immoral because people define morality differently. Just like war is not murder, and self defense is not murder, so the death penalty, to some, is not murder. Some view it as an instrument designed to support morality; with morality being the system that ensures the rights of life liberty property and freedom. In other words, some people believe that it is integral to morality, not a by-product or appendage or marginal, but central. It is the ultimate penalty to those who oppose the morality itself.
Ok, as for the psychotherapy and education of criminals, it is definitely a generalization. However, it does happen and is well documented. Unfortunately I cannot at the moment recall the huge 2 volume analysis of criminality that I read it in...I will post it later. You may be able to google something online. Oh, and I did not say they were sociopaths (though many are), but psychopaths, and then not always.
As for the death penalty being a deterrent and your statement about the drug war I kind of lost you there. Here is my experience. A friend of mine went to jail in Texas ( I happen to live in Texas) for a crime just short of RICO type drug charges not to mention posession of narcotics with intent to distribute, etc, etc. Of a 10 year term he spent 18 months in jail. Tell me again about longer sentences?
Anyways, the act of comitting crime changes the criminal. Just like perverse sexual acts change the sex addict. If you can provide sufficient levels of deterence throught the function of a harsh judicial system, many criminals will not progress to the point of requiring the death penalty.
"If people believe in murder, fine, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case"
I like this one. How about we just apply the morality of the criminal back to the criminal? That is your argument in a microcosm.
"They have rights, the highest of which is the right to life."
EXACTLY! Remember the victim! The victim had the same right to life. The criminal decided to disregard and violate that sacred, holy, highest of rights.
What punishment seems fitting for this violation? What is the life of the victim worth? Seven years of living in a confined space? Maybe ten? Maybe if I kill someone I should go to a place where they feed me and send me to vocational school and then offer me job placement after I get out early for "good behavior?"
All I have to say is UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE.
Unbelievable that anyone who holds life so sacred can think that violating that right means that the most that the violator can lose is a handful of years of being able to walk around where he wants to.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that we have a kind of evolutionary track being blazed in the networks.
/. community has to say about this idea. What changes would you make? How, technically, could it be done?
One side percieves an attack and develops a defense. The other sees that defense as an attack and changes it's behavior and methods to counteract the attack. This holds true for crackers, pirates, and spammers and their counterparts of software companies/programmers, media companies, and ISP's, mailhosts, and ultimately end users.
The problem with this is escalation ie.: each side considering progressively more desperate and intrusive/harmful ways of accomplishing their goals. Because of this even the "good guys" entertain ideas that they shouldn't, like remotely disabling others systems, trying to circumvent due process (ie. Verizon customer lists), cripling media, closed-box arcitecture, licenses that infringe on rights of fair use, etc.
Compound the escalation with intelligence on both sides being driven by profit and self betterment (a somewhat higher drive than profit if you ask the psychiatrists) and you have quite a volitile and competetive atmosphere.
The question then arises, how do you sucessfully combat a foe that has use of all the same tools that you do, but none of the ethical or idealogical restraints? Unfortunately, history has little in the way of help in this category, as it is filled with examples of how the weak and morally destitute control and eventually destroy the strong/ethical.
If you think of this as an evolutionary process, some ideas begin to take shape.
What if we assume that the escalation is no longer the symptom but the problem itself.
One possible approach is to take a holiday from escalation, or more colorfully, quit trying to put bandaids on the punctured aorta because they just get shot across the room after each heartbeat, meanwhile the patient is still dying! In other words, the attempts to fix the problem are just stopgaps that make the enemy stronger and more resistant. Therefore, we remove the resistance. This in turn will hopefully dull the edges on the opposition, as they have no stone of conflict to constantly sharpen themselves on.
Then, after a sufficiently mind-numbing period of tranquility has expired, attack the newly weakened and complacent enemy with redoubled efforts. Hopefully, the opposition will be so devastated that they cannot recover.
The only problem with this soultion is that it can be used by either side.
Antoher idea comes to mind based upon the evolutionary model. Changes in the food chain at the lowes levels have the greatest impact. Now, in this model we consider the entire conflict including the escalation to be a symptom of the current structure
As everyone knows, the internet was designed without serious consideration being given to the security measures we now require. As a result, we see the climate of increased government regulation, corporate backlash, and end user disilusionment and exploitation. If we abdicate the ability to rectify these problems ourselves they will be resolved in a closed boardroom, or in a court with little understanding of the technical issues and a heavy hand that is unmindful of the repercussions.
Maybe a change at the lowest level of the food chain is exactly is what is required. I have seen it proposed before, but is anyone seriously considering changing the communication protocols of the internet with a mind for eliminating the problems at hand?
Maybe the open source type approach applied to this problem could lead to some wonderful results?
The benefits would include an insiders view of the problems at hand plus the technical expertise (and access!!)to actually impliment the changes.
It would be great to see what the
Girls?!? We don't need no stinking girls!
Hrm...come to think of it we don't have any girls, stinky or otherwise.
No problem though!
CowboyNeal volunteered...
The grandparent poster was talking about how people need to not hold things sacred and to objectively re-examine the theories in place as new evidence comes into view.
All I stated is that punctuated equilibrium fits the facts of the fossil record quite well while Darwin's original theory does not.
"Funny, the people who actually study it think it is an overwhelming success"
If this were the case, no one would have ever even thought of inventing the idea of punctuated equilibrium. There would have been no need. The fossil record would have been exactly as Darwin predicted it to be, a slow gradual morphing of one creature into another. However, it is not. Therefore my statement stands. The fossil record sucks as corroborating evidence that natural selection works as a gradual process over millions of years to slowly change one form of creature into another (Which is what Darwin predicted).
"to distract observers from the fact that you don't have any theory of your own at all."
Actually, the last thing anyone needs is ANOTHER theory of evolution. There are way too many competing ones now. Again I will refer to the grandparent poster and say that he was exactly right in that ideas should be weighed by how well they are supported by the facts and not by how often they have been repeated by the community at large. Maybe with that approach, minds greater and better trained than mine can start factoting some of the theories out.
As for me, punctuated equilibrium is the most plausible theory. It fits the observed facts better than the old, steady, slow-paced evolution theory, and really helps explain the jumps in creature development that are seen in the earliest part of the fossil record.
"Aren't those guys all union members anyway?"
Here's the Irony: the only reason that you can get movies online before they debut in the theatres is because of the people who work in the industry.
Go figure!
One: My post has a prerequisite requirement of knowledge of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The theory was designed as a rebuttal to the actual evidence contained in the fossil record. The fossil record evidence shows that the oldest specimen of a particular species and the youngest specimen are almost indistinguishable in appearance and composition. Since these creatures are sometimes millions of years different in age this poses quite a quandry for the gradual evolutionists.
Punctuated equilibrium states that there are short periods of intense evolution. Thus, because of the shortened sampling time, the fact that there are no intermediate forms is not a problem for the theory, and it furthermore explains why creatures appear to be unchanged over millions of years and then in the next strata there are radically differnt organisms that seem to have no precursor forms.
Two: The number of bones collected worldwide that are used to substantiate the evolutionary trail of mankind will fit on a standard sized billiard table with space to spare. Look it up.
!!!!Eggregious troll feeding!!!
Misquoth the parent:
You see, the same standards that apply to other scientific theories do not apply to evoultion. Experiments of the highest kind (genetic inspection and comparison) only provide circumstantial evidence to those who begin with the idea that evolution is where the similarities and correlations come from.
Furthermore, talking about abuse of terminology, evolution is probably the slipperiest scientific term of record in all of history. One person will point to eugenics or selective breeding and say "Evolution." I would personally say " Reproduction..." Others try to find transitional forms and variation in the fossil record and whisper "Evolution?" Some point to the same fossil record, observing how the creatures stay the same for millenia upon millenia upon millenia and then change abruptly and shout "EVOLUTION!!!"
Not only does this piss off the other people who are studying the fossils, but outbursts like this, along with all the other mutterings and pseudo-scientific babblings of those who espouse evolution as the One True Way, muddy the water so much it's almost like tuning into Rush Limbaugh for the first time: lots of content that refers to something that he seems to think everyone knows all about, but he never actually mentions what it actually is.
Confusing? You bet! However, the wonderful side effect is that when you try to discuss the underpinnings of evolution the unstability of the actual definition allows the true and faithful acolyte of the Church of Darwin to skillfully avoid any real conversation.
Here's the real deal, and don't forget it. The same people who accuse religious types of "needing God" because they "can't handle it without Him" are in the same boat as those they so reproachfully condemn. They have to have an alternative to God, so they cling desperately to the theory of evolution and defend it at all costs, overlooking it's pitfalls and foibles all the while. Sound familiar? Of course it does, the pot calling the kettle black, or the assumpiton of posessing special traits that you don't actually have, is one of the oldest, most well know weaknesses of the human species. Monkeys do it too, I wonder if it's genetic?
And, sure, evolution may ultimately be true in one form or another. However, as long as those who "study" it and try to "prove it" are staunch and faithful believers in it, you will never have an unbiased examination of the theory that is really necessary to fulfil the requirements of true science. And as for those who speak fervently about evolution, all the while knowing that there are literally as many competing theories of evoultion as there are religions in the world, it just sounds like they are proselytizing to me.
Perhaps this part of Darwin's book will be instructive OOGG.
Darwin stated that the fossil record, incomplete and meager as it was at the time, would eventually substantiate his theory by showing the gradual progression of creatures and intermediate forms. It is now evident due to the overwhelming preponderance of fossil evidence that has been found and cataloged, that the fossil record is a dismal failure in this role of corroborating evidence.
In fact, punctuated equilibrium is a theorist's patch designed specifically to cover this gaping hole in Darwin's evidence trail.
Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of progresion/re-examination that the grandparent poster is talking about.
How can you feel comfortable making this kind of statement when there are so many things (missing mass, quasars, etc) that are not fully explained by current theory?
)
My EYES!!! DEAR GOD MY EYES!!!
yes mr. filter software I am yelling, you would too if someone poked out your eyes.
This reminds me of the first time I sat with a world known Greek and Hebrew scholar and heard him translate Bible verses from some of the oldest known manuscripts.
The King James Version in my hand suddenly became almost worthless.
What I'd really like to see is someone try to clone one of those massively large deep-sea squids from their washed up remains.
Now that would be a great pet!
Not only would it be good for scientific research into deep sea life, but you could also sic it on powerboaters and those bungholes with jetskis!
Googlehole No. 3: Book Learning
Ok, I won't blame this one on google, I think this is due to the internet as a whole.
Hear hear!
I don't see the guy writing the article complaining about the "holes" in the library because he can't find free porn, shockwave games, or moronic microsoft propoganda articles on the shelves.
"but you know how this works. There's one outrageous law that everybody knee-jerks at, and then there's another that's still horrible, but seems reasonable in comparison"
This works on many levels, from the individual to the government level. Here is an example of the personal level.
Ever seen those cartoons where the protagonist is presented with a particularly vexing moral dilema and immediately is assisted in his decision by the proverbial angel and devil figures perched upon his shoulders?
Imagine now, that instead of a being of goodness and light on one shoulder and a being of evil and darkenss on the other, the individual was posessed of 2 (TWO) devils, and 0 (ZERO) angels. The only difference between the two devils is that one of them is a little larger and more intimidating and tends to reply to every moral question in the most outrageous manner.
Me: "Hmmm...I'm kinda bored...wonder what I should do tonight."
*POOF*
Devil 1(The BIG, CRAZY one): "Sodomize the pope! That'll do it...yeah a lil' pope sodomization will cure that boredom right up. Course we gotta poke his eyes out when we're done."
*POOF*
Devil #2 (slightly better dressed and not slobbering at all): "Man is he crazy (thumbing at Devil #1 on the other shoulder)...let's just smoke some crack and shoot at the police."
Me: "Hmmmm...Ok, I'll go with devil #2. Hold on a sec while I load my gun."
I think you see the problem.
I never did that or anything else that resulted in dead toads. However, we did take liberties with the toad's vertical displacement in a non-life-threatening fashon.
Observe: Take a 3' by 3' square of trash bag plastic and pop a hole in each corner about 1" from the edges (you can adjust the size of the trash bag according to the size and weight of the toad). Get a 2' length of twine to tie to each hole (that's 4 total). Tie them on and then find yourself a toad who looke like he can handle high gees.
Now attach the four strings to the toad in a harness like manner (around the forelegs and torso). Now fold up the trash bag with the twine sticking out...wrap the whole mess around the toad, but not too tightly. You want it to come free of his lil' warty body easily, otherwise it's splat city for Mr. Toad. Now throw him up in the sky as high as you can.
If you did it right the trash bag should unravel at about apogee of your throw and then you get to see a toad in a parachute. For some reason it's one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
Now I know some of you are gonna try this and think to yourselves...Hmmm, more altitude woudld be cool...I wonder if this would work with a potato launcher. THE ANSWER IS NO! It won't work, and you WILL be cleaning toad parts out of your potato launcher for weeks if you try it.
DEAR GOD!!! Where are my mod points when I need them! That was freakin' hilarious!
Oh, by the way, as I am now wearing a full mouthfull of coke I think you owe me a new shirt.
Machine Sentience: It's not a bug...it's a FEATURE!!
I personally believe that ADHD or whatever you want to call it is the result of two factors (at least in my case):
1) Boredom and lack of challenge.
2) Lack of self-discipline
The self discipline comes with age, however if the first condition is not remidied the second continues to fester and may never properly develop.
I was diagnosed with hyperactivity in 1978.
I slept through almost all of my kindergarten class and the teacher decided that I should repeat it. My mother, knowing that I was definitely smart enough to pass kindergarten, decided to have me tested for learning disorders, psychological problems, Iq, etc.
The results came back that I was reading and doing math on a high school level and my IQ around 150. This in addition immense hyperactivity. Medication was recommended, but my mother was against it. She prefered to use diet (Feingold diet) to try to control my hyperactivity.
The public school I went to still declined to promote me to the first grade, regardless of my test scores, so my mother and father sent me to a private school.
The school I attended for 2 years was set up to have children "work at their own pace" without alot of "structure" that could inhibit them. In other words, they let us run free and provided us with a workbook that encapsulated the whole school year's worth of teaching. Needless to say, this was not the best environment for a super-hyper child.
After two years at private school I returned to a public magnet school. Again I took tests to determine my level of aptitude (because I had been in a private school) and again I tested exceptionally high. I entered the chronologically correct grade (third) and continued to progress chronologically through the grades.
The odd thing, to me, is that never in my young academic life had anyone ever done anything that would challenge me. The facts of my intelligence were plain to those around me. My ability to do the work given was never questioned. I even percieved things that others my age did not understand. The standardized tests I took each year showed 99 percentile in every category. And even thought I would altenately sleep and let my attention wander during class, when examintations were given I always passed with near perfect or perfect scores.
This continued until I reached the seventh grade. This year they were offering Algebra to certain students. I asked my math teacher if I could take Algebra, and she, knowing my aptitude requested that I be able to. I think, however, that the fact that I became a little too talkative in when I was bored kept me out of the class, because, even with the recomendation of my math teacher, I was denied.
Here's the kicker: after the selected students had taken the algebra course for half of a year, the entire grade was given the "algebra palcement test." There were 64 questions on the test. My score was a perfect 64 out of 64. The next best score was from one of the students who had been in the algebra class for half a year already. He scored slightly less than 50% correct. I took my test scores to the principal and asked to be admitted to the algrbra class. I was flatly refused. No reason was given even when I asked.
I would definitely say that was the turning point for me. I completely gave up. My distraction became a way of life for me (in school that is). The school responded by putting me in a class for people with learning disorders where, ironically, it was guaranteed that I would learn absolutely nothing.
The school also assigned me a psychiatrist who immediately gave me more tests and summarily handed me the application to the Mensa society and wondered if I could get into Intertel as well.
To me this was unbelievably fucked up. The school systems I had been in had no regard for my prowess or my intellectual needs, and regarded me as a disciplinary problem, but the psychiatrist they assigned to find out what was wrong with me figures I need to be i
Not only graduate school, but consider the COMPOUND INTEREST that would accumulate on this quantity of money between now and his retirement age.
In reality the RIAA has stolen this guy's retirement which would probably be in excess of $3,500,000 without him having to contribute another cent to it throughout his entire lifetime...
HOLY SHIT!
Talk about robbing the kid of his future.
I used to work for Ticket Master.
I was a phone room jock before they went to their hi-tech/low-contact touchtone keypad maze that they have now when you call for tickets.
Due to some devil spawned financial agreement between Ticketmaster and American Express, the grunts and I were forced to answer the phone in a particularly verbose and unweildly manner, saying: "Thank you for calling Ticket Master, where American Express is the preferred method of payment. How can I help you?"
Needless to say, I was genuinely contemptuous of this change. The poetic result of my adolescent angst and peon rebellion was: "Thank you for calling TicketBastard, where your mother is the preferred method of payment. How can I screw you?"
Yes it was childish, but nonetheless it was fantastic to hear it actually spoken into the phone to a live customer (usually on a co-worker's last day).
Hmmm, maybe that's why everyone has to go through that damned touchtone keypad maze everytime they call now.
I don't agree with your sentiments about settling a case.
Regardless of that, I did consider that it would be interesting if a CS bachelors degree became a good basis for entrance into law school.
That might fix a few things.
Thanks, but they make me look like some kind of bondage freak.
Scares the kids.
I have done the same thing with Quake. Try going back to your regular gamespeed and increasing the difficulty of the bots. Rinse and repeat. This is how I got to be able to hold my own on the "nightmare" rating on Q3.
More interestingly, I did this with light. No really!
(CAUTION, This can have unexpected results!)
I used to have this halogen banker's lamp in my room. At night, with all extraneous light blocked from under the door and the windows, I would slowly turn the light down (it had a variable switch). I would wait until my eyes had become acclimated to the lower light level and then slowly readjust the light even lower.
This lamp was "infinitely variable" (It said so on the box!). I could turn the light down where the room was visible to me after about an hour of acclimitization, but if anyone else entered the room they couldn't see the room or even the light from the lamp.
Yes, I realize that this is strange behavior.
Anyways, after about a year of this I found that if I was in a room with ordinary blinds that the light from the moon or from streetlights would make it very difficlut for me to sleep. Even worse, when the moon was full, with my eyes closed I could see the light in the room quite well.
The worst part was one night when my wife was reaching over me to try to turn on the lamp on the nightstand. She thought I was asleep. The room was pitch black to her and she was groping blindly for the lampswitch. I grabbed her hand. She proceeded to freak the fuck out. So did I. She was surprised that I could see her in the dark. I was surprised because I had had my EYES CLOSED when she was reaching over me, and yet I was still able to see her hand and arm.
I sleep with a pillow over my head now.
Don't forget Pi.
$60K American and a totally awesome flick. It ranks with me as one of my favorites for the cinematography and the far out combination of computer science, economics, and mystical numerology.
Keep one thing in mind. The reason that prisons are as bad as they are in the United States is because of the criminals that are inside of them.
There is not state sponsored torture, no daily beatings, no fear of random "negative feedback" as a part of a brainwashing scheme. Sure, they are confined, have no privacy, and have no rights. However, the worst problems that they have they bring upon themselves through violations of the rules, or through confrontational acts toward other inmates.
Anyways, you are right, I have no experience with the judicial system. I have never been to jail. Never been caught doing anything that would warrant my having to stand trial. So, yes, I am totally ignorant of the judicial system. Did you do some hard time? Is that what makes you an expert on not only the judicial system but also gives you the ability to determine in others that they know nothing about the judicial system? Or are you a lawyer, paralegal, court reporter, baliff, judge, supreme court justice?
Maybe you misread my intent. Many people are proponents of "rehabilitation." Some people with this mindset believe that the criminal responds to authority the way he does because of lack of socio-economical choices and proper vocational training. Given the support and the funding, the situation I described would be commonplace, ie. job training and job placement. I believe that the idea of "rehabilitation" stems from ignoring the victims and misunderstanding the basis for criminality.
The idea behind the last comment you quoted is to draw a picture of the dichotomy of victims rights versus the rights of the convicted criminal. Again, many of those who support "rehabilitation" would love to see the criminal educated at the expense of the taxpayers and then "reintroduced" into society as a functioning member.
I personally would like to balance the scales in favor of the victim, not the criminal. Statements like, "This murderer is no longer a threat to society" have no meaning in my mind. They are not justification for reduced sentences, leniency in form of punishment, or for weighing the possible future contribution of the individual to society. The reason: they already comitted murder, what they do in the future is of no consequence. The punishment they are given is not being given for future actions, why should it be modified on the basis of supposed future acts of a possible neutral of good nature? This statement was attributed to the defense in the Andrea Yates trial recently. The only reason that it was applicable is that she was successful in killing all of her children. Had she failed to kill one of them this statement could not have been used by the defense. If we assume that this idea of "no longer being a threat" is effective in modifying the results of the punishment phase of a jury trial then we have an interesting problem on our hands. That is this: if she had failed in killing one of her children she could have had a more severe punishemnt.
Anyways, I will be surprised if you respond to this post, as I am admittedly ignorant of the entire judicial system, unless you see fit, in your magnanimous alacrity, to enlighten me with your overflowing wisdom.
***DISCLAIMER AND WAIVER***
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. Please take no offense at the things I say. If I come off a little over-the-top it is because my opinions are very strong with regard to this subject.
"My argument is more logically and morally based than anything"
Let's take this one in order. The logic you state can be argued both ways. A simple basic argument in logic would go something like this: A person has life, someone takes it thereby incurring a debt of 1 "life." They must therefore forfeit their life to satisfy the debt. Society collects the debt through the instrument of the justice system so that "vengeance" is not the motivation. Vengeance is PERSONAL and subjectively applied...the justice system is impersonal and is applied with objectivity and impartiality. The criminal knows the penalty before they commit the crime. With vengeance you never know what you will get.
Now look at the "moral" part. What is morality? The OED says it is a system of right and wrong. More specifically it is a system of conventions that ensure freedom, liberty, property, and life. It is circular to argue that DP is immoral because people define morality differently. Just like war is not murder, and self defense is not murder, so the death penalty, to some, is not murder. Some view it as an instrument designed to support morality; with morality being the system that ensures the rights of life liberty property and freedom. In other words, some people believe that it is integral to morality, not a by-product or appendage or marginal, but central. It is the ultimate penalty to those who oppose the morality itself.
Ok, as for the psychotherapy and education of criminals, it is definitely a generalization. However, it does happen and is well documented. Unfortunately I cannot at the moment recall the huge 2 volume analysis of criminality that I read it in...I will post it later. You may be able to google something online. Oh, and I did not say they were sociopaths (though many are), but psychopaths, and then not always.
As for the death penalty being a deterrent and your statement about the drug war I kind of lost you there. Here is my experience. A friend of mine went to jail in Texas ( I happen to live in Texas) for a crime just short of RICO type drug charges not to mention posession of narcotics with intent to distribute, etc, etc. Of a 10 year term he spent 18 months in jail. Tell me again about longer sentences?
Anyways, the act of comitting crime changes the criminal. Just like perverse sexual acts change the sex addict. If you can provide sufficient levels of deterence throught the function of a harsh judicial system, many criminals will not progress to the point of requiring the death penalty.
"If people believe in murder, fine, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case"
I like this one. How about we just apply the morality of the criminal back to the criminal? That is your argument in a microcosm.
"They have rights, the highest of which is the right to life."
EXACTLY! Remember the victim! The victim had the same right to life. The criminal decided to disregard and violate that sacred, holy, highest of rights.
What punishment seems fitting for this violation? What is the life of the victim worth? Seven years of living in a confined space? Maybe ten? Maybe if I kill someone I should go to a place where they feed me and send me to vocational school and then offer me job placement after I get out early for "good behavior?"
All I have to say is UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE.
Unbelievable that anyone who holds life so sacred can think that violating that right means that the most that the violator can lose is a handful of years of being able to walk around where he wants to.