Germany is pretty cold compared to most of the US, and it has more of a coastal climate (warmer winters, colder summers) than inland (warmer summers, colder winters). Few people have AC.
Re:The Improbability of Improbability
on
The Magicians
·
· Score: 1
"IIRC Tolkien was pretty adamant about there not being any meaning or message beyond the story."
Well, this may have had something to do with a wish to say "I am not C.S Lewis!". Kind of like Brahms' adamant rejection of "programme music", insisting that his music had no content whatsoever besides what it was in itself... yeah, you can sort of see why he says it, but when you look at what he did, it's not really clear it was all that simple.
Now don't get me wrong. LotR is no allegory, far from it. But still, Tolkien's characters are very different - and way more sympathetic - than the characters in the myths and legends that inspired him. He couldn't have told a story where the hero was a complete bastard, or even a hero according to old germanic ideals. Instead, his heroes are noble, but with flaws: Frodo is weak-willed and gives up in the end (should I have put a spoiler warning here? Nah, this is slashdot, if people don't know, they deserve it). Sam is in many ways more reliable, but he lacks forgiveness (has no pity for Gollum). In the end, they win despite their flaws, but not in such a way that anyone can take credit - they all failed. That's no coincidence, is all I'm saying. He may not have set out to preach a message, but there is a message nonetheless, and it's very much coloured by the author's beliefs.
I think there was someone in Adbusters who tried that a while back. Nothing(tm) - just what you need. Apparently lots of people called to ask what it was and where you could get it.
Disney, perhaps in anticipation of such laws elsewhere, or in response to consumer discontent, are already dealing with in their own way. No ads. But you see, there are Disney characters on that channel...ALL the time...
Marketing is also a war of attrition of sorts. Beyond a certain points, it's mostly a big, black hole you have to plug with money, because your competitors are also doing it.
You're right about false identification. While targeted ads is a nice idea in theory, targeted ads will often overstep certain bounds that generic ads do not - with embarrassing results when they miss. Also, the mere knowledge that an ad is targeted will affect how the audience responds - "they think I'm like that?" Sometimes, like when gmail points me to a fine purveyor of Torah scrolls, I am merely amused. Other times, it annoys me enough to block it (I dare say some 90% of the ads at boardgamegeek are for computer games, because idiot advertisers think all games are the same).
Dogs are great for lonely people. They are also great for lots of other things, but "self defense" should not be one of them. A dog is not unduly bothered by the things we call "conscience", and it is by human standards retarded and hopelessly emotionally dependent (upon its owner). Its natural weapon will hurt you in much the same way a pair of rusty, dirty scissors would do. What would people say if you hired a human bodyguard like that?
Oh, I'm sure they would be afraid of your Norman Bates-with-scissors bodyguard. No one questions that combat breed dogs are effective at scaring people. But they scare people because they are willing and eager to harm people in nasty ways.
I don't mind a ban of dogs like these. IMO, if you want to intimidate and harm people, you should do it yourself. But since even police use dogs to escape the emotional impact of performing violence themselves, I don't hold out much hope for change.
"I am pretty sure they're able to be dissatisfied with living their entire lives in an overcrowded box doing nothing but gaining weight."
Animals are certainly capable of that - if they were Gazelles, they would be dead. But they're cows... that they can sort of deal with such conditions is part of why we domesticated them in the first place, as opposed to, say, those Gazelles. And I don't know if an animal would be unhappy about gaining weight. Why should they? A reliable food supply is n.1 on most animal's priority list, and even a cat would gladly eat to obesity if given the chance.
Not that I'm against animal welfare, mind you, but I think part of respecting animals is realizing they aren't all that interested in climbing Maslow's pyramid all the way to the top.
Well, Socrates wasn't exactly executed yesterday either. If the context of the question was "why it was kind of understandable that Og's family poisoned Thag's water in return", then maybe it'd make more sense?
And the Spartans WERE fascist. They were the arguably the original totalitarians. I don't say it out of spite, they're all dead now, but it's true.
Not necessarily. Being ignorant isn't so dangerous, if you know the extents of your ignorance. I'm ignorant about football; that would be a problem if I managed to convince someone I was a very good football coach. But since I know I am, I won't try.
If you know you're ignorant, you know you can be fooled, and you are more careful about who you trust.
They had a rule of law. They even had trial by jury (actually by popular assembly, but that's just a large jury).
Republics of any time and type have a poor record of being fair in trials at the end of large wars. Socrates may have been innocent. Then again, he may not have been. It's no denying that a lot of his students were pro-Spartan fascist trash. (Plato in particular!)
"...but rather that they think that the rules don't apply to them this time."
Indeed they think so. But how many times to I have to repeat it? This is a social effect, not a chemical one. If our culture stopped excusing drunk people, drunk people would no longer do the things that needed excuses - not more than sober people, anyway.
"You are aware that alcohol inhibits judgement abilities at even quite low doses?"
No. It doesn't. Not in the way most people think. That's the problem.
Guys, I know it's a hard idea to get used to, but please try.
Alcohol does not (by itself) make you half as stupid as you want to believe, and even then, it's "slow" stupid, not "clown" stupid.
You know that, if you think about it. Ever been shocked sober? Do you think the alcohol actually leaves your system when that happens? No? Well, then you know how your sense of judgement really is when you're drunk - or at least would be, if you weren't partaking in the big, cultural self-deception that alcohol changes your personality in exciting ways.
That's the legal theory. In fact, as the anonymous coward above examplifies, people are all too ready to excuse your behaviour somewhat if you did it when drunk. Judges and juries do it too. The problem is that most people use alcohol as an excuse, in order to "dare" to make some comment or advance that might not be well-recieved. If they didn't recognise alcohol at least as a partial excuse, they would be condemning themselves.
(Another thing is that alcohol will not make you forget driving under influence is a bad idea. It slows your thinking, it doesn't change what knowledge or morals you might have)
"If anything driving while texting is worse since your decision making abilities are not hindered by an altered state of mind."
Alcohol slows your thinking, but it does not in itself change the nature of it - it doesn't take much thinking to know that DUI is a bad idea.
Please don't further this myth. The thing about alcohol and other drugs is that their primary social function is providing excuses. The cliche is the teenager who drinks to dare to take a chance at the opposite sex, but everyone does the same thing to some degree. People DO judge each other less harshly when they've been drinking, whether the offense was an inappropriate comment, an unwanted sexual advance or domestic violence. That's why it's mostly drunk people who do these things. (It's not a chemical property of alcohol, as most people believe.)
Drinking alcohol does NOT make you forget that DUI is a bad idea (unless you drink to unconsciousness, at which point it's not much of an issue anyway)
"The statistics will of course show that fatal crashes are dropping as cell phone use is increasing, which is likely why you don't want to look at them."
Apparently, you don't need to look at them either.
WTF? This bargain sounds like the kind you make with the devil involving souls. I'd like to see where in the constitution (or whatever) this legal theory is explained!
IMO, vigilantism for vengeance is just another crime, and on no account deserves special appeasement. If the family of some victim wants revenge, too bad for them. It is not a just demand, and should not be acceded to, no matter what the majority may think.
The only actual differences in how people of different cultures react to alcohol is actually genetic, and involves genes for alcohol processing and genes for alcoholism.
There ARE huge differences in culture how people react to alcohol. The most well-known one is that people in the "wine countries" will not get boisterous or uninhibited to nearly the same degree as, say, Scandinavians. This is because they culturally used it as a nutrient, not a drug. (Since that is not true any longer, this is changing, and young people in the wine countries usually follow "international" drinking patterns and behaviours. If you have been partying with young Russians, Mexicans or even Italians, you have probably observed just one drinking culture.)
There are even cultures where the traditional alcoholic beverage "makes" people drowsy and peaceful, but imported beverages behaves as you expect alcohol to do. I'd like to see genes explain that.
Fwiw, you appear to misunderstand something. The people in the twenties who thought pot made you violent did NOT believe drug effects were culturally determined. They knew about smoked hemp. They didn't observe it's supposed effects in Mexicans, indeed they thought they saw something completely different - they may well have been racists and poor scientific observers, quite true, but you'd think they'd be able to recognize something they were familiar with.
But they didn't. They reached a wrong conclusion, namely that it was a different kind of hemp. Later on they might have favoured the "genetic differences between cultures" explanation you propose, but that has been soundly rejected as well.
So to repeat: Alcohol does make some people violent who weren't already.
No, it doesn't, strictly speaking. Alcohol lets some people be violent who would like to be violent, because they have an excuse in being drunk. When both you and everyone else thinks alcohol makes you violent, it's a pretty effective excuse, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany is pretty cold compared to most of the US, and it has more of a coastal climate (warmer winters, colder summers) than inland (warmer summers, colder winters). Few people have AC.
"IIRC Tolkien was pretty adamant about there not being any meaning or message beyond the story."
Well, this may have had something to do with a wish to say "I am not C.S Lewis!". Kind of like Brahms' adamant rejection of "programme music", insisting that his music had no content whatsoever besides what it was in itself... yeah, you can sort of see why he says it, but when you look at what he did, it's not really clear it was all that simple.
Now don't get me wrong. LotR is no allegory, far from it. But still, Tolkien's characters are very different - and way more sympathetic - than the characters in the myths and legends that inspired him. He couldn't have told a story where the hero was a complete bastard, or even a hero according to old germanic ideals. Instead, his heroes are noble, but with flaws: Frodo is weak-willed and gives up in the end (should I have put a spoiler warning here? Nah, this is slashdot, if people don't know, they deserve it). Sam is in many ways more reliable, but he lacks forgiveness (has no pity for Gollum). In the end, they win despite their flaws, but not in such a way that anyone can take credit - they all failed.
That's no coincidence, is all I'm saying. He may not have set out to preach a message, but there is a message nonetheless, and it's very much coloured by the author's beliefs.
i'm not sure that's good enough. The catbert way, catapult seats in the toilets, is safer.
I think there was someone in Adbusters who tried that a while back. Nothing(tm) - just what you need. Apparently lots of people called to ask what it was and where you could get it.
So no, you don't have to be Apple.
Disney, perhaps in anticipation of such laws elsewhere, or in response to consumer discontent, are already dealing with in their own way. No ads. But you see, there are Disney characters on that channel...ALL the time...
Marketing is also a war of attrition of sorts. Beyond a certain points, it's mostly a big, black hole you have to plug with money, because your competitors are also doing it.
You're right about false identification. While targeted ads is a nice idea in theory, targeted ads will often overstep certain bounds that generic ads do not - with embarrassing results when they miss. Also, the mere knowledge that an ad is targeted will affect how the audience responds - "they think I'm like that?"
Sometimes, like when gmail points me to a fine purveyor of Torah scrolls, I am merely amused. Other times, it annoys me enough to block it (I dare say some 90% of the ads at boardgamegeek are for computer games, because idiot advertisers think all games are the same).
Dogs are great for lonely people. They are also great for lots of other things, but "self defense" should not be one of them. A dog is not unduly bothered by the things we call "conscience", and it is by human standards retarded and hopelessly emotionally dependent (upon its owner). Its natural weapon will hurt you in much the same way a pair of rusty, dirty scissors would do. What would people say if you hired a human bodyguard like that?
Oh, I'm sure they would be afraid of your Norman Bates-with-scissors bodyguard. No one questions that combat breed dogs are effective at scaring people. But they scare people because they are willing and eager to harm people in nasty ways.
I don't mind a ban of dogs like these. IMO, if you want to intimidate and harm people, you should do it yourself. But since even police use dogs to escape the emotional impact of performing violence themselves, I don't hold out much hope for change.
"I am pretty sure they're able to be dissatisfied with living their entire lives in an overcrowded box doing nothing but gaining weight."
Animals are certainly capable of that - if they were Gazelles, they would be dead. But they're cows... that they can sort of deal with such conditions is part of why we domesticated them in the first place, as opposed to, say, those Gazelles.
And I don't know if an animal would be unhappy about gaining weight. Why should they? A reliable food supply is n.1 on most animal's priority list, and even a cat would gladly eat to obesity if given the chance.
Not that I'm against animal welfare, mind you, but I think part of respecting animals is realizing they aren't all that interested in climbing Maslow's pyramid all the way to the top.
"the use of a duck quack as a noise made by tourists on an amphibious vehicle tour."
Whatever else it is, it's not exactly an overly broad claim...
Well, Socrates wasn't exactly executed yesterday either. If the context of the question was "why it was kind of understandable that Og's family poisoned Thag's water in return", then maybe it'd make more sense?
And the Spartans WERE fascist. They were the arguably the original totalitarians. I don't say it out of spite, they're all dead now, but it's true.
"They should be erecting a monument to him as the Father of the Information Age."
One of the fathers. Claude Shannon may have been even more important.
Btw, I do think there's something wrong with building brides.
Not necessarily. Being ignorant isn't so dangerous, if you know the extents of your ignorance. I'm ignorant about football; that would be a problem if I managed to convince someone I was a very good football coach. But since I know I am, I won't try.
If you know you're ignorant, you know you can be fooled, and you are more careful about who you trust.
They had a rule of law. They even had trial by jury (actually by popular assembly, but that's just a large jury).
Republics of any time and type have a poor record of being fair in trials at the end of large wars. Socrates may have been innocent. Then again, he may not have been. It's no denying that a lot of his students were pro-Spartan fascist trash. (Plato in particular!)
But would we have remembered Milo of Croton if it wasn't for his connection to Pythagoras?
Yeah well, "Chicken Little" wasn't very well-suited to McDonald's restaurants anyway, it sounds too much like a menu.
We don't play rugby here either. And what's a ruck?
"...but rather that they think that the rules don't apply to them this time."
Indeed they think so. But how many times to I have to repeat it? This is a social effect, not a chemical one. If our culture stopped excusing drunk people, drunk people would no longer do the things that needed excuses - not more than sober people, anyway.
"You are aware that alcohol inhibits judgement abilities at even quite low doses?"
No. It doesn't. Not in the way most people think. That's the problem.
Guys, I know it's a hard idea to get used to, but please try.
Alcohol does not (by itself) make you half as stupid as you want to believe, and even then, it's "slow" stupid, not "clown" stupid.
You know that, if you think about it. Ever been shocked sober? Do you think the alcohol actually leaves your system when that happens? No? Well, then you know how your sense of judgement really is when you're drunk - or at least would be, if you weren't partaking in the big, cultural self-deception that alcohol changes your personality in exciting ways.
That's the legal theory. In fact, as the anonymous coward above examplifies, people are all too ready to excuse your behaviour somewhat if you did it when drunk. Judges and juries do it too. The problem is that most people use alcohol as an excuse, in order to "dare" to make some comment or advance that might not be well-recieved. If they didn't recognise alcohol at least as a partial excuse, they would be condemning themselves.
(Another thing is that alcohol will not make you forget driving under influence is a bad idea. It slows your thinking, it doesn't change what knowledge or morals you might have)
"If anything driving while texting is worse since your decision making abilities are not hindered by an altered state of mind."
Alcohol slows your thinking, but it does not in itself change the nature of it - it doesn't take much thinking to know that DUI is a bad idea.
Please don't further this myth. The thing about alcohol and other drugs is that their primary social function is providing excuses. The cliche is the teenager who drinks to dare to take a chance at the opposite sex, but everyone does the same thing to some degree. People DO judge each other less harshly when they've been drinking, whether the offense was an inappropriate comment, an unwanted sexual advance or domestic violence. That's why it's mostly drunk people who do these things. (It's not a chemical property of alcohol, as most people believe.)
Drinking alcohol does NOT make you forget that DUI is a bad idea (unless you drink to unconsciousness, at which point it's not much of an issue anyway)
"The statistics will of course show that fatal crashes are dropping as cell phone use is increasing, which is likely why you don't want to look at them."
Apparently, you don't need to look at them either.
WTF? This bargain sounds like the kind you make with the devil involving souls. I'd like to see where in the constitution (or whatever) this legal theory is explained!
IMO, vigilantism for vengeance is just another crime, and on no account deserves special appeasement. If the family of some victim wants revenge, too bad for them. It is not a just demand, and should not be acceded to, no matter what the majority may think.
I could have written this myself. Thanks.
The only actual differences in how people of different cultures react to alcohol is actually genetic, and involves genes for alcohol processing and genes for alcoholism.
There ARE huge differences in culture how people react to alcohol. The most well-known one is that people in the "wine countries" will not get boisterous or uninhibited to nearly the same degree as, say, Scandinavians. This is because they culturally used it as a nutrient, not a drug. (Since that is not true any longer, this is changing, and young people in the wine countries usually follow "international" drinking patterns and behaviours. If you have been partying with young Russians, Mexicans or even Italians, you have probably observed just one drinking culture.)
There are even cultures where the traditional alcoholic beverage "makes" people drowsy and peaceful, but imported beverages behaves as you expect alcohol to do. I'd like to see genes explain that.
Fwiw, you appear to misunderstand something. The people in the twenties who thought pot made you violent did NOT believe drug effects were culturally determined. They knew about smoked hemp. They didn't observe it's supposed effects in Mexicans, indeed they thought they saw something completely different - they may well have been racists and poor scientific observers, quite true, but you'd think they'd be able to recognize something they were familiar with.
But they didn't. They reached a wrong conclusion, namely that it was a different kind of hemp. Later on they might have favoured the "genetic differences between cultures" explanation you propose, but that has been soundly rejected as well.
So to repeat:
Alcohol does make some people violent who weren't already.
No, it doesn't, strictly speaking. Alcohol lets some people be violent who would like to be violent, because they have an excuse in being drunk. When both you and everyone else thinks alcohol makes you violent, it's a pretty effective excuse, too.