This will continue to be more and more true as they keep changing the definition of "drunk" to be closer to "sober". Next time MADD wins one of their new-prohibition battles, don't be surprised to find out that having a passenger in the car is as dangerous as driving "drunk".
What if the ants basically know how tired they are after they get home?
I know when I walk a long way, I get tired at about the same distance. I'm not counting my steps and I don't think my brain is doing it subconsciously.
They need to weigh an ant down or attach it to a tiny helium balloon for the trip to rule it out. It's no sillier than putting stilts on them.
He was asked about prices going higher. He didn't bring it up. He didn't say they would go higher. He didn't hint they would go higher. He meerly refused to rule it out as a possibility in an uncertain future.
No one who needs a gun needs it to fail to shoot once in a while. No police officer would carry such a weapon. He'd be better off unarmed rather than thinking he's armed and finding out the hard way that he isn't.
One other thing you can maybe help me with. This fight against the prevailing societal sexual norms seems to be a popular cause. Why?
You've mentioned wanting to prevent pregnancy and STDs. But it's a fact that you don't have to get pregnant or catch an STD if you don't want to. Every individual has that within their control, barring rape or some sort of freak accident.
I also understand that the abolition of sexual norms benefits those who wish to behave outside of those constraints. But the number of people fighting the anti-constraint fight seems too high for this to be the primary motivation.
Is it just a social position? "I say these things because I'm with the in crowd and that's what they want to hear"?
The Janet Jackson thing was punished for the same reason we don't allow guys in trenchcoats to walk around flashing gradeschool playgrounds. You'd likely see a similar reaction if they'd slaughtered a steer on the 50-yd line for a post-game BBQ.
It's just out-of-place in that context. The punishment was to keep them from trying it again.
I don't think it's a good example to support your point. I also don't think comparing other (carefully chosen) cultures to the US really supports any behavioral arguments at all. Cultures are complex, with lots of different parts and different histories.
The only thing remotely similar to a common cause I see during war is the anti-war movement.
Indeed. You agree with me then. A war leads individuals in the anti-war movement to have a common cause. Individuals who support a war also have a common cause with each other. Soldiers who fight together, on either side, have a common cause. I'm sure some lasting friendships will develop among people because of what they share.
The rest of your post seems to be missing the point. The point is to identify factors that lead to close friendships and to point out what stands in the way.
Congradulations on saying words that lead to you being congradulated though.
If this is true, why is teenage pregnancy dramatically in places such as Europe which aren't as puritanical? Good sex education reduces these problems, it doesn't increase them.
Pregnancy at all ages is down in Europe. Europe is heading for some serious demographic changes due to low birth rates. Cultures differ in more ways that their perceived level of puritanism.
What, exactly, is wrong with suing someone? It's a legitimate and often necessary thing to do.
Good question.
What's wrong with killing someone? It's often a necessary thing to do. Opinions differ on whether it's legitimate.
What's wrong with just beating someone up instead of killing them or suing them? What's wrong with just taking what you want instead of hiring a lawyer to do it for you?
Those other things are illegal, which means that a bunch of guys got together and decided to substitute their authority for yours. But illegal is not the same as wrong. Ask Anne Frank if you're confused on the difference.
What's wrong with suing someone? When you sue someone, you are attempting to take something from them, by force, against their will. That's inherently wrong. It has been decided that it be allowed in this special circumstance, with many special protections placed on the process. Those special protections have been eroded (by lawyers and politicians, for profit) to the point where they are inadequate.
The process is a lot more like stealing or extortion or kidnapping for ransom than it used to be. With the current rules, it's simply unjust. That's what's wrong.
I don't care if it gets modded up. It obviously offended some people. I just want to know which part, and why. For amusement, and because I just can't figure it out.
I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your post. In general, I think it would be better if people tried to do the right thing rather than what makes them happy for the moment. It would go a long way.
It was a really long (-winded) discussion that ended with poorly summarized conclusions:
Good friends are compassionate and generous without expecting an equal measure in return. These people are increasingly hard to find. And not because of the Internet.
It's a good conclusion, but it was a long (thirst-inducing) way to go. I'm not sure how this conclusion relates to the original advice to leave the office a little earlier, but nevermind.
More to the point though, it's clear that everyone wants compassionate, generous, low-maintenance friends. Who wouldn't? Being one of these people doesn't lead to finding these people though. So the rule is that no one gets to be happy. Just stop blaming the Internet.
If that's not an argument in favor of a beer, then I've never heard one.
Solution? I didn't mention a solution. I was describing the problem.
There is no solution. You can't make other people do what you want. Therefore, you can't make them be good friends. Therefore, you can't solve the problem of people not being able to have good friends.
There are some ways to partly stop causing the problem, but there's certainly no way to solve it.
You know maybe if we spent more money on trying to educate the masses they wouldn't be such clueless fucktards.
Yes. Profanity and mass-condescension are sure to make things better. Also taking other people's money to enforce your worldview on the "clueless". Very progressive.
Maybe they would demand facts from their news outlets. They would elect representatives that actually represent them. They wouldn't buy into all the mindless consumerborg bullshit.
Do you know Jane Smiley? Her attitude can be summarized: We hate middle America so much, why won't they vote for us? I think you'd like her.
Not that I mind, but I'm really curious why this got modded down. Anyone have any idea? Not anti-corporate enough? Failure to acknowledge the superiority of the museum and classical music crowd or bow at the altar of institutional education? People scandalized to learn that sex-taboos weren't invented by Ronald Reagan?
Enduring adversity does not appear to have any appreciable impact on their character.
You probably have a different definition of character that I do. I'm not taliking about political beliefs. I don't confuse the two.
Ordinary trials of life, like temporary difficulty paying for necessities, lead to people learning how to take care of themselves in tough situations. It leads to an understanding of the value of help from family and friends. And it leads people to value something besides their immediate whimsical happiness. That's what I mean by character in this context.
And in this context, someone with character would be more likely to be a good friend.
Peace deprives people of having to die, maybe, but it never hurt anyone's ability to bond socially.
Are you saying that war doesn't lead to people sharing a common cause? Because it obviously does. And having things in common helps people to bond socially. It's silly to argue. And I don't understand why you'd want to.
That aside, the worst people I have ever known were those with "resolve" and "steadfastness."
So don't make friends with them then?
But if you make friends with shallow, flighty, lightweights then they'll abandon or betray you at their whim. It doesn't seem wise.
Of course, you loath having to pay lip service to a culture that is not your own, and you have a strong urge to devalue you it and attack it, citing "political correctness" as some sort of liberal conspiracy, making yourself look like the brave little guy sticking it to the man. Spare me.
I think you miss the point. The loss of right and wrong is the problem. Someone who doesn't know right from wrong can't be a trustworthy friend.
I know you have a big political axe to grind, but it's off topic.
Our government has attempted at every turn to shield us from sex
This is just ignorant. Sex-related prohibitions have existed for tens of thousands of years (and undoubtedly longer). Here's the reason why, in the simplest possible terms:
- Sex leads to a baby. - Killing babies is discouraged - Babies are expensive to raise - When a baby is born outside of a marriage, the expense of raising a baby falls on a girl's father, the girl's future husband, or the girl herself. - Typically none of those people want that expense. - Therefore, sex outside of marriage is discouraged.
No government involvement. Tens of thousands of years of history. Simple.
Spend more time with our kids. Get them interested in education.
Educational institutions are the ultimate in places where no one cares about anyone else. I don't think you're going to solve the problem of shallowness there.
Expose them to culture other than sesame street - take them to kids museums, and when they're old enough, take them to classical music concerts. Instill a notion of self-worth and personal enrichment in them at a young age, and they won't grow up to be glassy eyed corporate whores. Maybe. Or maybe the cycle of cultural degredation is too strong to break - maybe this is why so many people are looking at other cultures for new ideas, whether in foreign films or obscure religions.
Museums and classical music are no better (or worse) than violent videogames and punk rock. Reciting anti-corporate slogans has no more value than singing jingles from ads.
Pretentiousness is an aspect of shallowness.
The blanket disdain of those so-called "glassy eyed corporate whores" is part of the problem. They are real people (and a huge percentage of the population, I might add). Stereotyping them isn't shallow?
Just ask yourself: how many of these are tied to industry/capital? Constructions of women and the culturally feminine are the primary engines of immaterial consumption; mass-marketing supports consumption and rationalized labor; families dilute the body of individual consumption units by tying multiple units into a single one; television provides an avenue for market-making; "fair and balanced" news reporting reinforces a consumptive status quo; sex sells more than all else...
Yeah, that's a lot of free-form brainstorming you have there. Some quick counterpoints:
- Commerce didn't cause feminization - Commerce didn't cause people in government to favor handouts in place of families - Commerce didn't cause people to forget the difference between right and wrong - Commerce didn't cause peace (though it does support peace once you have it)
Only to attack the problem from your direction is to need a dozen monographs to explain it, and even then to be attacked from all sides, whereas to follow the Frankfurt school methodology and simply tie it all to measure and increase is to attack a single problem: rationalization/rationality/instrumentality.
So assume the conclusion "commerce is bad" and try to make vague connections to commerce from every other symptom of every other problem anyone can think of? No sale.
Commerce is part of the problem because commerce is part of life. I even connected it a few times (prosperity, marketing, TV, etc). But commerce isn't the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Do something against Google, which is, today, the equivalent of doing something against cute kittens.
Those kittens are only acting cute and doing cute things to trick you into feeding them and letting them into your bed. Don't be another victim.
This will continue to be more and more true as they keep changing the definition of "drunk" to be closer to "sober". Next time MADD wins one of their new-prohibition battles, don't be surprised to find out that having a passenger in the car is as dangerous as driving "drunk".
I RTFA. (first mistake -- I know)
What if the ants basically know how tired they are after they get home?
I know when I walk a long way, I get tired at about the same distance. I'm not counting my steps and I don't think my brain is doing it subconsciously.
They need to weigh an ant down or attach it to a tiny helium balloon for the trip to rule it out. It's no sillier than putting stilts on them.
And you didn't come to expect that Slashdot would spin it this way already?
No surprise.
It's still worth pointing out that the article is essentially dishonest.
This article is flat-out misleading.
He was asked about prices going higher. He didn't bring it up. He didn't say they would go higher. He didn't hint they would go higher. He meerly refused to rule it out as a possibility in an uncertain future.
But the key question is:
Is this new chip AMD compatible?
No one who needs a gun needs it to fail to shoot once in a while. No police officer would carry such a weapon. He'd be better off unarmed rather than thinking he's armed and finding out the hard way that he isn't.
Why would I buy ammunition that's designed to fail to shoot sometimes?
blu-ray disks don't scratch
So we need war and to kill each other... [rest of your nonsense deleted]
Who said that? Certainly not me. Not anyone else either. Pay attention and get a clue.
The article is a troll. Don't feed the trolls.
One other thing you can maybe help me with. This fight against the prevailing societal sexual norms seems to be a popular cause. Why?
You've mentioned wanting to prevent pregnancy and STDs. But it's a fact that you don't have to get pregnant or catch an STD if you don't want to. Every individual has that within their control, barring rape or some sort of freak accident.
I also understand that the abolition of sexual norms benefits those who wish to behave outside of those constraints. But the number of people fighting the anti-constraint fight seems too high for this to be the primary motivation.
Is it just a social position? "I say these things because I'm with the in crowd and that's what they want to hear"?
Just wondering.
The Janet Jackson thing was punished for the same reason we don't allow guys in trenchcoats to walk around flashing gradeschool playgrounds. You'd likely see a similar reaction if they'd slaughtered a steer on the 50-yd line for a post-game BBQ.
It's just out-of-place in that context. The punishment was to keep them from trying it again.
I don't think it's a good example to support your point. I also don't think comparing other (carefully chosen) cultures to the US really supports any behavioral arguments at all. Cultures are complex, with lots of different parts and different histories.
The only thing remotely similar to a common cause I see during war is the anti-war movement.
Indeed. You agree with me then. A war leads individuals in the anti-war movement to have a common cause. Individuals who support a war also have a common cause with each other. Soldiers who fight together, on either side, have a common cause. I'm sure some lasting friendships will develop among people because of what they share.
The rest of your post seems to be missing the point. The point is to identify factors that lead to close friendships and to point out what stands in the way.
Congradulations on saying words that lead to you being congradulated though.
If this is true, why is teenage pregnancy dramatically in places such as Europe which aren't as puritanical? Good sex education reduces these problems, it doesn't increase them.
Pregnancy at all ages is down in Europe. Europe is heading for some serious demographic changes due to low birth rates. Cultures differ in more ways that their perceived level of puritanism.
What, exactly, is wrong with suing someone? It's a legitimate and often necessary thing to do.
Good question.
What's wrong with killing someone? It's often a necessary thing to do. Opinions differ on whether it's legitimate.
What's wrong with just beating someone up instead of killing them or suing them? What's wrong with just taking what you want instead of hiring a lawyer to do it for you?
Those other things are illegal, which means that a bunch of guys got together and decided to substitute their authority for yours. But illegal is not the same as wrong. Ask Anne Frank if you're confused on the difference.
What's wrong with suing someone? When you sue someone, you are attempting to take something from them, by force, against their will. That's inherently wrong. It has been decided that it be allowed in this special circumstance, with many special protections placed on the process. Those special protections have been eroded (by lawyers and politicians, for profit) to the point where they are inadequate.
The process is a lot more like stealing or extortion or kidnapping for ransom than it used to be. With the current rules, it's simply unjust. That's what's wrong.
That, and a collection of cats, who seem to be generally smarter than my neighbors as well.
Your neighbors are probably better off without your company. Just a guess.
I don't care if it gets modded up. It obviously offended some people. I just want to know which part, and why. For amusement, and because I just can't figure it out.
I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your post. In general, I think it would be better if people tried to do the right thing rather than what makes them happy for the moment. It would go a long way.
Yeah, but in a bar, there would have been beer.
It was a really long (-winded) discussion that ended with poorly summarized conclusions:
Good friends are compassionate and generous without expecting an equal measure in return. These people are increasingly hard to find. And not because of the Internet.
It's a good conclusion, but it was a long (thirst-inducing) way to go. I'm not sure how this conclusion relates to the original advice to leave the office a little earlier, but nevermind.
More to the point though, it's clear that everyone wants compassionate, generous, low-maintenance friends. Who wouldn't? Being one of these people doesn't lead to finding these people though. So the rule is that no one gets to be happy. Just stop blaming the Internet.
If that's not an argument in favor of a beer, then I've never heard one.
So your solution is..
Solution? I didn't mention a solution. I was describing the problem.
There is no solution. You can't make other people do what you want. Therefore, you can't make them be good friends. Therefore, you can't solve the problem of people not being able to have good friends.
There are some ways to partly stop causing the problem, but there's certainly no way to solve it.
You know maybe if we spent more money on trying to educate the masses they wouldn't be such clueless fucktards.
Yes. Profanity and mass-condescension are sure to make things better. Also taking other people's money to enforce your worldview on the "clueless". Very progressive.
Maybe they would demand facts from their news outlets. They would elect representatives that actually represent them. They wouldn't buy into all the mindless consumerborg bullshit.
Do you know Jane Smiley? Her attitude can be summarized: We hate middle America so much, why won't they vote for us? I think you'd like her.
Not that I mind, but I'm really curious why this got modded down. Anyone have any idea? Not anti-corporate enough? Failure to acknowledge the superiority of the museum and classical music crowd or bow at the altar of institutional education? People scandalized to learn that sex-taboos weren't invented by Ronald Reagan?
Anyone?
what is this "character" thing of which you speak?
Vague term. My fault. In this context, I meant the willingness to forgo momentary happiness to achieve an important goal or to fulfill an obligation.
It's a good quality to look for in a friend.
what is this "common cause" of which you speak
It's where a group of people all want the same thing.
why is it worthy of keeping over peace
It isn't. Peace is better. Prosperity is better than character-building too. I never said, nor implied anything else.
Lots of non sequiturs here. I'll ignore them.
Enduring adversity does not appear to have any appreciable impact on their character.
You probably have a different definition of character that I do. I'm not taliking about political beliefs. I don't confuse the two.
Ordinary trials of life, like temporary difficulty paying for necessities, lead to people learning how to take care of themselves in tough situations. It leads to an understanding of the value of help from family and friends. And it leads people to value something besides their immediate whimsical happiness. That's what I mean by character in this context.
And in this context, someone with character would be more likely to be a good friend.
Peace deprives people of having to die, maybe, but it never hurt anyone's ability to bond socially.
Are you saying that war doesn't lead to people sharing a common cause? Because it obviously does. And having things in common helps people to bond socially. It's silly to argue. And I don't understand why you'd want to.
That aside, the worst people I have ever known were those with "resolve" and "steadfastness."
So don't make friends with them then?
But if you make friends with shallow, flighty, lightweights then they'll abandon or betray you at their whim. It doesn't seem wise.
Of course, you loath having to pay lip service to a culture that is not your own, and you have a strong urge to devalue you it and attack it, citing "political correctness" as some sort of liberal conspiracy, making yourself look like the brave little guy sticking it to the man. Spare me.
I think you miss the point. The loss of right and wrong is the problem. Someone who doesn't know right from wrong can't be a trustworthy friend.
I know you have a big political axe to grind, but it's off topic.
The enter key assists in online communication.
Our government has attempted at every turn to shield us from sex
This is just ignorant. Sex-related prohibitions have existed for tens of thousands of years (and undoubtedly longer). Here's the reason why, in the simplest possible terms:
- Sex leads to a baby.
- Killing babies is discouraged
- Babies are expensive to raise
- When a baby is born outside of a marriage, the expense of raising a baby falls on a girl's father, the girl's future husband, or the girl herself.
- Typically none of those people want that expense.
- Therefore, sex outside of marriage is discouraged.
No government involvement. Tens of thousands of years of history. Simple.
Spend more time with our kids. Get them interested in education.
Educational institutions are the ultimate in places where no one cares about anyone else. I don't think you're going to solve the problem of shallowness there.
Expose them to culture other than sesame street - take them to kids museums, and when they're old enough, take them to classical music concerts. Instill a notion of self-worth and personal enrichment in them at a young age, and they won't grow up to be glassy eyed corporate whores. Maybe. Or maybe the cycle of cultural degredation is too strong to break - maybe this is why so many people are looking at other cultures for new ideas, whether in foreign films or obscure religions.
Museums and classical music are no better (or worse) than violent videogames and punk rock. Reciting anti-corporate slogans has no more value than singing jingles from ads.
Pretentiousness is an aspect of shallowness.
The blanket disdain of those so-called "glassy eyed corporate whores" is part of the problem. They are real people (and a huge percentage of the population, I might add). Stereotyping them isn't shallow?
Just ask yourself: how many of these are tied to industry/capital? Constructions of women and the culturally feminine are the primary engines of immaterial consumption; mass-marketing supports consumption and rationalized labor; families dilute the body of individual consumption units by tying multiple units into a single one; television provides an avenue for market-making; "fair and balanced" news reporting reinforces a consumptive status quo; sex sells more than all else...
Yeah, that's a lot of free-form brainstorming you have there. Some quick counterpoints:
- Commerce didn't cause feminization
- Commerce didn't cause people in government to favor handouts in place of families
- Commerce didn't cause people to forget the difference between right and wrong
- Commerce didn't cause peace (though it does support peace once you have it)
Only to attack the problem from your direction is to need a dozen monographs to explain it, and even then to be attacked from all sides, whereas to follow the Frankfurt school methodology and simply tie it all to measure and increase is to attack a single problem: rationalization/rationality/instrumentality.
So assume the conclusion "commerce is bad" and try to make vague connections to commerce from every other symptom of every other problem anyone can think of? No sale.
Commerce is part of the problem because commerce is part of life. I even connected it a few times (prosperity, marketing, TV, etc). But commerce isn't the problem.