imagining someone said something they didn't and then overreacting to that voice in your head hysterically is not the slashdot way. it is, unfortunately, the way of the world, from marriages to national politics
what makes captain america so good is that it is straightforward, honest, and unironic
it's a throwback to the pulp of the 1940s, and when i say that, i'm not talking about speech and clothing, i'm talking about worldview and attitude and theme
the world today is cynical and oh-so-knowing. the world back then was uncomplicated: good was good and evil was evil
now, pleae: don't get me wrong: abandoning modern day wordliness is not be a good idea for your ideological health
but in order to make an entertaining MOVIE, it works quite effectively
will you fanboys please shut up about magic anonymous? it's governed by the same simple social hacks everyone and everything is. it's not more vulnerable, it's not less vulnerable. there is no magic pixie dust. it has not reinvented the human social function or the rules by which every group of human beings has always behaved since the dawn of time
no one can figure out who anyone is in real life, it can never be killed, and never influenced. it is above and beyond the rules that govern any other group of people, because it has internets. right?
what is the source of your emotional, factless animosity to logic and reason?
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 0
convergence: do you understand the concept?
focus: do you understand the concept?
focus and convergence in parallel: how vision in our bloodline works, for tens of millions of years, since we developed binocular vision
3D tech: asks our eyes and brain to focus and converge on different tracks
do you fucking understand the logic here?
apparently, not. you are either stupid or being purposefully intellectual dishonest
simulated 2D does not in anyway ask our eyes to behave as they haven't behaved in tens of millions of years of evolution. do you understand logic and reason?
you have to oppose my words with a logical and reasonable argument of your own. you can't simply reject it because you're the king of france
you don't have to agree with me. but if your disagreement is an emotional rejection, without any logic and reason, your disagreement simply marks you as idiot
come out with a logical and reasonable disagreement with my logic and reason, or admit you're a hysterical emotion-driven nitwit
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 1
fear based hysteria about the unknown is a problem in this world
reasonable concerns based on logic and science is not
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 0
you know what, i explained it very simply and straightforward. if you understand the idea of convergence and focus, you can follow along with my words. do you understand the concepts?
it doesn't take a PhD to understand this. it doesn't take you trusting me without proof to agree with me. it simply takes your intellectual ability to follow along and understand what i am saying. can you do that? i'm not asking you to trust me. i'm asking you to THINK
you don't have to agree with me. but you have to have a logically valid argument to pose against my words. that's 100% fine. i have given you a proof. you have given me an atavistic rejection my words without thought, just because i am challenging you to THINK
oppose my logical and reasonable words on logic and reason, or fuck off
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 2
because images moving in rapid succession do not ask our eyes to do anything unnatural to their physiological and neurological design
present day 3D technology (some future tech may solve this problem), by splitting our eyes' naturally parallel efforts of focus and convergence, DOES ask our eyes to do something unnatural to their physiological and neurological design
do you understand now?
anything else i can help you with today?
i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
the source of the discomfort is that millions of years of simian and primate eye evolution has created an eye that focuses and converges in parallel
look at a mountain, and your eyes are pointed nearly straight out, and are focused wide
look at a book, and your eyes are slightly cross-eyed, and are focused close in
but, for million of years, this focus and this convergence has always been in parallel. millions of years of our ancestors have never had the need for eyes that, for example, cross in, but focus wide, or point straight, but focus close in. 3D expects our eyes, to, for the first time ever, or, since tens of millions of years ago, take your pick, to work in this unnatural way, unnatural for primates
much like blind cave fish or flightless birds: if the function is not needed, the ability atrophies. of course, BEFORE binocular vision, animals with eyes on either side of their head, for example herbivores and ungulates and certain primitive carnivores, can certainly focus, converge, and even point in independent ways. look at a chameleon: its eyes are pretty much independent entities neurologically and physiologically
but this has not been the case, since before even our distant lemur-like ancestors really started working binocular vision, for our bloodline to have eyes that focus and converge on different tracks. we simply can't do it any more without stress and pain. so this is the source of the discomfort with 3D technology, physically and mentally
there is also some concern that very young eyes, that are still developing, can actually be permanently harmed by 3D
star formation results in a range of star sizes. some sizes are below ignition threshold. we don't see them, simply because they're dark. but, statistically speaking, there should be a lot more failed stars than ignited stars. so take a random section of space, count the number of stars you can see in that, and there should be a mathematical relationship between the number of visible stars, and the number of invisible unignited smaller "stars". and this relationship should be proportional by orders of magnitude. say: for every 10 stars you see, there are 1,000 unignited balls of hydrogen sitting out there in the dark, undiscovered, and to, some extent, undiscoverable. even transit in front of distant stars would be fleeting and one time only affairs
i especially like the part where random assholes define for themselves what their natural rights are. these "natural rights" often run roughshop over other people's actual natural rights
you need government because on their own, people act irresponsibly. doesn't even have to be menace involved, just abject stupidity usually suffices for irresponsible behavior
capitalism promotes maximal market function, which results in maximum financial yields. this is good. capitalism will also happily market baby organ donation and human slavery as well. this is bad
pure capitalism then is a form of evil. capitalism is a great beast. it must be harnessed and yoked and it must be controlled and it must be tightly curtailed. or it will run roughshod over your society
having said all this, noncapitalistic societies are doomed to grinding poverty. so you NEED capitalism. you just need to keep the great beast harnessed under a strong yoke
"Hi, we would like you to voluntarily limit your sources of revenue by not giving your customers, advertisers, the tracking options that they want."
doesn't work folks
sorry, the market doesn't regulate itself in some respects. mostly in those respects that involve moral behavior. you need regulation and enforcement for that
reasonability is not a prerequisite in an attempt dodge moral consequences. in fact, it is often the prerequisite not to be reasonable. in domestic situations, force and intimidation often work as a suitable replacement for reasonability too
and if asked to explain their behavior, it's "the devil made me do it" or any number of variations on the age old dodge, not least of which is the new variation "my brain structure made me do it"
Slashdot Mirror
lol ;-)
imagining someone said something they didn't and then overreacting to that voice in your head hysterically is not the slashdot way. it is, unfortunately, the way of the world, from marriages to national politics
what makes captain america so good is that it is straightforward, honest, and unironic
it's a throwback to the pulp of the 1940s, and when i say that, i'm not talking about speech and clothing, i'm talking about worldview and attitude and theme
the world today is cynical and oh-so-knowing. the world back then was uncomplicated: good was good and evil was evil
now, pleae: don't get me wrong: abandoning modern day wordliness is not be a good idea for your ideological health
but in order to make an entertaining MOVIE, it works quite effectively
anonymous is the borg!
pffffffft
will you fanboys please shut up about magic anonymous? it's governed by the same simple social hacks everyone and everything is. it's not more vulnerable, it's not less vulnerable. there is no magic pixie dust. it has not reinvented the human social function or the rules by which every group of human beings has always behaved since the dawn of time
sorry to rain on your parade
no one can figure out who anyone is in real life, it can never be killed, and never influenced. it is above and beyond the rules that govern any other group of people, because it has internets. right?
"Never blame malice for what can adequately be blamed on stupidity." -R. Feynman
dude, you are one hard working troll
great troll stamina!
i'm not a dinosaur. i'm a primate. i have binocular vision. my eyes converge and focus in parallel
are you telling me you are immune to the basic limitations of primate biomechanics?
http://www.google.com/search?q=3d+young+children
do you work for a 3D company or something?
what is the source of your emotional, factless animosity to logic and reason?
convergence: do you understand the concept?
focus: do you understand the concept?
focus and convergence in parallel: how vision in our bloodline works, for tens of millions of years, since we developed binocular vision
3D tech: asks our eyes and brain to focus and converge on different tracks
do you fucking understand the logic here?
apparently, not. you are either stupid or being purposefully intellectual dishonest
simulated 2D does not in anyway ask our eyes to behave as they haven't behaved in tens of millions of years of evolution. do you understand logic and reason?
you have to oppose my words with a logical and reasonable argument of your own. you can't simply reject it because you're the king of france
you don't have to agree with me. but if your disagreement is an emotional rejection, without any logic and reason, your disagreement simply marks you as idiot
come out with a logical and reasonable disagreement with my logic and reason, or admit you're a hysterical emotion-driven nitwit
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/2059205/3D-Displays-May-Be-Hazardous-To-Young-Children
fear based hysteria about the unknown is a problem in this world
reasonable concerns based on logic and science is not
you know what, i explained it very simply and straightforward. if you understand the idea of convergence and focus, you can follow along with my words. do you understand the concepts?
it doesn't take a PhD to understand this. it doesn't take you trusting me without proof to agree with me. it simply takes your intellectual ability to follow along and understand what i am saying. can you do that? i'm not asking you to trust me. i'm asking you to THINK
you don't have to agree with me. but you have to have a logically valid argument to pose against my words. that's 100% fine. i have given you a proof. you have given me an atavistic rejection my words without thought, just because i am challenging you to THINK
oppose my logical and reasonable words on logic and reason, or fuck off
because images moving in rapid succession do not ask our eyes to do anything unnatural to their physiological and neurological design
present day 3D technology (some future tech may solve this problem), by splitting our eyes' naturally parallel efforts of focus and convergence, DOES ask our eyes to do something unnatural to their physiological and neurological design
do you understand now?
anything else i can help you with today?
http://slashdot.org/submission/1454046/3D-Cinema-Doesnt-Work-And-Never-Will
the source of the discomfort is that millions of years of simian and primate eye evolution has created an eye that focuses and converges in parallel
look at a mountain, and your eyes are pointed nearly straight out, and are focused wide
look at a book, and your eyes are slightly cross-eyed, and are focused close in
but, for million of years, this focus and this convergence has always been in parallel. millions of years of our ancestors have never had the need for eyes that, for example, cross in, but focus wide, or point straight, but focus close in. 3D expects our eyes, to, for the first time ever, or, since tens of millions of years ago, take your pick, to work in this unnatural way, unnatural for primates
much like blind cave fish or flightless birds: if the function is not needed, the ability atrophies. of course, BEFORE binocular vision, animals with eyes on either side of their head, for example herbivores and ungulates and certain primitive carnivores, can certainly focus, converge, and even point in independent ways. look at a chameleon: its eyes are pretty much independent entities neurologically and physiologically
but this has not been the case, since before even our distant lemur-like ancestors really started working binocular vision, for our bloodline to have eyes that focus and converge on different tracks. we simply can't do it any more without stress and pain. so this is the source of the discomfort with 3D technology, physically and mentally
there is also some concern that very young eyes, that are still developing, can actually be permanently harmed by 3D
fight this massachusetts citizens, or indeed deserve the epithet "masshole"
http://www.google.com/search?q=picard+facepalm&tbm=isch
star formation results in a range of star sizes. some sizes are below ignition threshold. we don't see them, simply because they're dark. but, statistically speaking, there should be a lot more failed stars than ignited stars. so take a random section of space, count the number of stars you can see in that, and there should be a mathematical relationship between the number of visible stars, and the number of invisible unignited smaller "stars". and this relationship should be proportional by orders of magnitude. say: for every 10 stars you see, there are 1,000 unignited balls of hydrogen sitting out there in the dark, undiscovered, and to, some extent, undiscoverable. even transit in front of distant stars would be fleeting and one time only affairs
Massholes do all drive in the same aggressive manner
(I keed, I keed!)
i especially like the part where random assholes define for themselves what their natural rights are. these "natural rights" often run roughshop over other people's actual natural rights
you need government because on their own, people act irresponsibly. doesn't even have to be menace involved, just abject stupidity usually suffices for irresponsible behavior
capitalism promotes maximal market function, which results in maximum financial yields. this is good. capitalism will also happily market baby organ donation and human slavery as well. this is bad
pure capitalism then is a form of evil. capitalism is a great beast. it must be harnessed and yoked and it must be controlled and it must be tightly curtailed. or it will run roughshod over your society
having said all this, noncapitalistic societies are doomed to grinding poverty. so you NEED capitalism. you just need to keep the great beast harnessed under a strong yoke
morality is absolute, globally. there is one universal standard for all human behavior
some assholes who don't understand morality think it is subjective
personal accountability is the foundation of morality
"Hi, we would like you to voluntarily limit your sources of revenue by not giving your customers, advertisers, the tracking options that they want."
doesn't work folks
sorry, the market doesn't regulate itself in some respects. mostly in those respects that involve moral behavior. you need regulation and enforcement for that
any criminality that involves social interaction will involve a degree of excuse making
reasonability is not a prerequisite in an attempt dodge moral consequences. in fact, it is often the prerequisite not to be reasonable. in domestic situations, force and intimidation often work as a suitable replacement for reasonability too
exactly
and if asked to explain their behavior, it's "the devil made me do it" or any number of variations on the age old dodge, not least of which is the new variation "my brain structure made me do it"