so insights into human psychology have no meaning to issues that are rooted in human psychology?
(!?)
yes, you are correct: many incorrect things are rooted in human psychology. but it is impossible to remove the human psychology from the equation. therefore you need to understand human psychology to understand the problem
or is your thinking you an magically snap your fingers and remove the human factor from policy decisions? and how the hell does that work?
over time, complacency will rot security, and over time, creative malintentioned individuals or organizations will exploit that. a smallpox outbreak would be like 10-100 9/11s or 10-100 fukushimas. destruction then seems preferable. you don't even need an actual smallpox virus to make a vaccine
but you are operating against human psychology: we aren't made to discard such power, even if the power is completely malicious
it may sound odd, but consider the lord of the rings, when humans had the chance to destroy the one ring, but chose to keep it instead. yes, its fiction, but all potent fiction is rooted in real human psychology, or such fiction wouldn't have any resonance or attraction to us in terms of storytelling ability. and with the lord of the rings we have valuable insight into how our own weaknesses and greed and lust for power hurt us in the long term
we won't destroy smallpox. and we will be hurt by that decision, many years from now
inebriation: inability to function in a job or a relationship. due to internal factors (altered senses) or external factors (altered behavior). so caffeine is quite low in that regard. something like lsd would be high
make a graph: x axis is addictiveness, y axis is inebriation
something like caffeine is low on both x and y: harmless
something like nicotine is high in addictiveness, but low on inebriation: legal, because you can feed your habit but still have a relationship/ job
marijuana and alcohol are middling x and y: not harmless, but not harmful enough to warrant illegality: marijuana and alcohol should be legal
something like lsd/ psilocybin (mushrooms): high inebriation, low addictiveness: should be legal, because you can use these products and stop using them at will: not be addicted to them. although of course, you might rip your eyeballs out or walk out a window, so responsible use is a necessity: you should be properly babysitted or you are risking your life/ other people's lives
now, the final quadrant: high addictiveness, high inebriation: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine. the problem with these drugs is you don't just use them and forget about them. like nicotine, once you start it is hard to quit. but, unlike nicotine, it blots out your entire day
meaning a force greater than your willpower draws you to use the chemical, and then you are unable to hold a job or a relationship. without economic support, you become a drag on society: we who are not addicted to heroin/ cocaine/ meth have to support you. well we don't want to support you, we don't want that drain on our economics, for what purpose? to feed an addict? not a valid purpose
we'd rather pay to fight a war on drugs, and prevent the creation of new addicts, because that's cheaper when compared to the cost of proliferating addicts (you do realize easier access means more addicts, and more addicts costs society, right?)
of course, addicts to these drugs will always exist, the war on drugs will never end. but the point never was to win it. its a maintenance function of civilization: minimize the addict population, by any means possible. the point is to minimize the amount of addicts to meth/ cocaine/ heroin, forever. that's it. there will always be murderers, rapists, and bank robbers. because murderers and rapists and bankr obbers will always exist, we should stop fighting them? does that make any sense to you? so why does it make sense to you that the war on drugs never ending means we should stop fighting drug addict proliferation?
and this is the cheapest route, in terms of loss of freedom (to a highly addictive drug, you do realize highly addictive drugs are a greater impediment to your freedom than any government ever could be, right?) and economic cost: minimize the addict population
what i DO accept as a criticism of the war on drugs is TACTICS. maybe our current tactics can be improved. ANY way you can minimize the addict population is valid. the war on drugs takes into account all methods of minimizing addict population. this includes healthcare efforts
you will also note, programs in portugal and switzerland are ALSO about minimizing addict populations. its not about legalizing these scourges on freedom and society, its about new TACTICS for the same GOAL. NO ONE wants these drugs to be used, even those in charge of the programs in lisbon and geneva. the portuguese/ swiss models HAVE THE SAME GOAL IN MIND
are they effective? if not, the portuguese/ swiss experiment should end. if they are effective (in terms of MINIMIZING ADDICT POPULATIONS) then we should adopt these models. but please note the goal is the same in washington dc and lisbon, even if the approach is different: minimize addict populations, in the name of maximizing freedom... since you understand drug addiction is a greater impediment on your freedom than the most orwellian government possible. right? right? unless... that orwellian government used heroin to turn people into slaves, weaponizing the greatest destroyer of freedom ever known to mankind: drug addiction
please understand the greatest enemy personal freedom has ever known is no government, but addiction. a constant interrupt cycle in your mind, greater than your willpower, to feed an essentially useless need. please understand the real relationship between drug use and freedom
i showed you the link where the officials said capture was the ideal
but when it comes to planning, you plan for what is most likely, not in fantasy land. so you talk about killing him, out of practicality. you do understand the difference between idealism and realism, right? you want to send the SEALs in there with a workable plan or a wish and a charm?
you continue to assume the worst intentions, when the only problem is the bad scenario
your judgment is without merit, it is based on prejudice and impossible standards
it is a kill operation, since a capture operation is impossible. it doesn't mean that if capture becomes possible- if bin laden is all by himself in an empty room without any weapons and doesn't put up a fight, that he is still killed. capture is, was, and always will be the best option. but anyone who is a realistic who needs to plan and execute this operation understands that it is going to be a kill operation out of the range of possible scenarios that will inevitably confront the SEALs. got it?
you wish to imagine that everyone in command just wanted to kill him, to hell with capture. they understand why capture is best. they also understand they need to go into the operation with a realistic appraisal of what they are going to confront
you wish to imagine that bloodlust overwhelms reason here
no, operational parameters overwhelms idealism here. understand yet?
btw, caffeine is a drug. an exceedingly mild one, of course, but a drug with pharmacological effects nonetheless, including withdrawal (mild, of course)
btw, i responded to this thread while eating a burrito laced with hot sauce. capsaicin evolving to discourage animals from eating peppers. my mouth burning from heat receptors artificially firing, i experience pleasure
i don't believe anything i wrote, it's just for the pleasure of arguing a ridiculous point of view to exhaustion... an acquired taste i have for what might initially seem a displeasurable exercise;-)
people change over time. the ruthless become guiltridden. the desperate become mindful of making amends. decades pass. conspiracies are never airtight
there was a fountain of conspiracy theories one hundred years ago. there will be a fountain of conspiracy theories one hundred years from now. 99.99999% of them aren't even remotely real, just products of the feverish imaginations of small or paranoid schizophrenic minds
"Are you trying to say that this multi-billion-dollar industry and these billions of people are all engaged in some mass group hypnosis, hysteria, or hallucination?"
yes
it's classic pavlov: ring a bell, give a dog food, and eventually, the dog will salivate just because you rang a bell
likewise, you perceive pleasure at a taste which is essentially repulsive, because of pavlovian conditioning: you got drunk on the alcohol or amped on the caffeine, and that's the true source of your pleasure, not the taste. but, just like a dog salivating at a bell, a completely nonsensical reaction, you now perceive pleasure in nasty bitterness. equally nonsensical. you now confuse the secondary meaning, the taste, with the primary motivation, the drug. you associate pleasure with the pointless and essentially repulsive. it's about drug delivery, and always has been
"I find that unlikely. Are you trying to say that, universally, coffee really tastes horrible to everyone but they pretend to like it for social reasons or are addicted to caffeine?"
yup. children are repulsed by the taste of coffee. children's reactions are psychologically honest. adult reactions are due to the pharmaceutical qualities, not aesthetic ones. i am sure there are people who like certain bitter tastes on the merit of the bitter taste alone. but there isn't a radish or tonic water stand on every other corner in every city in the world. the reason for the existence of millions of coffeehouses is about the drug, not the taste. anyone who professes it is the taste is suffering from the same pavlovian conditioning as the dog salivating at the sound of a bell
bitter taste evolved as part of an arms race between plants and animals. plants that acquired a poison got eaten less because animals that ate them got sick. animals then evolved the ability to taste bitter aromatic poisonous compounds to avoid poisonous plants. next, animals evolved livers that could metabolize and neutralize some bitter tasting poisonous plants, all the while plants trying to cook up more fiendish poisons. as a side effect, some of the poisons, whether partially metabolized or taken in low doses, had psychological effects, like caffeine, or physiological ones, like nightshade/ digitalis, that modern medicine and modern cubicle workers are able to exploit
but there's no reason to seek out the bitter compounds (unless you are some insects which seek out bitter plants and eat them to sequester the plant poisons in their own flesh, thereby inheriting the repulsive bitter poisonous taste themselves)
what i just wrote is hard science. not subjective aesthetics. in fact, morning sickness in women is triggered by bitter taste. because an embryo is very sensitive to plant poisons at early stages of fetal development, unlike an adult. therefore early in pregnancy, women must avoid bitter compounds, and evolution has forced them too
children's reactions are psychologically honest. adult reactions are due to the pharmaceutical qualities, not aesthetic ones
it's classic pavlov: ring a bell, give a dog food, and eventually, the dog will salivate just because you rang a bell
likewise, you perceive pleasure at a taste which is essentially repulsive, because of pavlovian conditioning: you got drunk on the alcohol or amped on the caffeine, and that's the true source of your pleasure, not the taste. but, just like a dog salivating at a bell, a completely nonsensical reaction, you now perceive pleasure in nasty bitterness. equally nonsensical. you now confuse the secondary meaning, the taste, with the primary motivation, the drug. you associate pleasure with the pointless and essentially repulsive. it's about drug delivery, and always has been
and i am sure there are people like you who like certain bitter tastes on the merit of the bitter taste alone. but there isn't a radish or tonic water stand on every other corner in every city in the world. because its about the drug, not the taste
bitter taste evolved as part of an arms race between plants and animals. plants that acquired a poison tasted bitter due to the poisonous compounds, and animals that then evolved the ability to taste the bitter were able to avoid the bitter tasting, and therefore poisonous, plants. some animals eventually evolved livers that could metabolize and neutralize some bitter tasting poisonous plants, but there's no reason to seek out the bitter compounds (unless you are some insects which seek out bitter plants and eat them to sequester the plant poisons in their own flesh, thereby inheriting the repulsive bitter poisonous taste themselves)
what i just wrote is hard science. not subjective aesthetics. in fact, morning sickness in women is triggered by bitter taste. because an embryo is very sensitive to plant poisons at early stages of fetal development, unlike an adult. therefore early in pregnancy, women must avoid bitter compounds, and evolution has forced them too
you grow to understand informality, and recognize the effort to be formal and proper all the time is pointless and without merit
that some brittle mind expects formality where none is due, like in a fucking comment board, is someone that does not deserve any respect. demonstrate to me flexibility of mind, and i will begin to consider your opinions worthy of consideration. otherwise, fuck off
i don't understand how bitter becomes a desirable taste attribute. ever
but regardless, you have to admit that if it weren't for the alcohol or caffeine, there would be no driving reason to ignore the repulsive bitter taste and "acquire" a taste for it. children are repulsed by the taste of beer and coffee. children's reactions are psychologically honest. adult reactions are due to the pharmaceutical qualities, not the aesthetic ones
it's classic pavlov: ring a bell, give a dog food, and eventually, the dog will salivate just because you rang a bell. likewise, you perceive pleasure at a taste which is essentially repulsive, because of pavlovian conditioning: you got drunk on the alcohol or amped on the caffeine, and that's the true source of your pleasure, not the taste. but, just like a dog salivating at a bell, a completely nonsensical reaction, you now perceive pleasure in nasty bitterness. equally nonsensical. you now confuse the secondary meaning, the taste, with the primary motivation, the drug. you associate pleasure with the pointless and essentially repulsive
it's about drug delivery, and always has been. no matter how many people fool themselves with empty symbolic meaning to subtle variations of shit flavor. the emperor's new clothes: a bunch of fools wasting money on empty pavlovian signifiers of "quality" when its just about some asshole getting drunk or amped. stupid
the borg eyewear on the bill gates icon is a joke, not something to take as a realistic observation. you also might have noticed it is 2011, and google and apple are eating microsoft's lunch. in such a business environment, extending.NET use works to microsoft's advantage, and not something they want to discourage
if you put a blueberry in a pile of shit i think it would change the flavor subtly, but it will still taste like shit
likewise, i have no doubt that bean type, soil, growing conditions, etc., changes the taste of the coffee bean... something that tastes bitter, and always tasted bitter, and always will taste bitter, as the overarching flavor, no matter what the subtleties
what i am saying is that it does not matter the subtleties when the overarching flavor always dominates. and since with coffee the overarching flavor is hot and bitter, that condemns all flavors of coffee, no matter what the slight modifications that fills your mind with supposed merit that is essentially meaningless, since you are willfully ignoring the dominant flavor for psychological and addictive reasons
Slashdot Mirror
forgot the parentheses
(10-1009)/11 = - 90.81818181818181818182
so insights into human psychology have no meaning to issues that are rooted in human psychology?
(!?)
yes, you are correct: many incorrect things are rooted in human psychology. but it is impossible to remove the human psychology from the equation. therefore you need to understand human psychology to understand the problem
or is your thinking you an magically snap your fingers and remove the human factor from policy decisions? and how the hell does that work?
over time, complacency will rot security, and over time, creative malintentioned individuals or organizations will exploit that. a smallpox outbreak would be like 10-100 9/11s or 10-100 fukushimas. destruction then seems preferable. you don't even need an actual smallpox virus to make a vaccine
but you are operating against human psychology: we aren't made to discard such power, even if the power is completely malicious
it may sound odd, but consider the lord of the rings, when humans had the chance to destroy the one ring, but chose to keep it instead. yes, its fiction, but all potent fiction is rooted in real human psychology, or such fiction wouldn't have any resonance or attraction to us in terms of storytelling ability. and with the lord of the rings we have valuable insight into how our own weaknesses and greed and lust for power hurt us in the long term
we won't destroy smallpox. and we will be hurt by that decision, many years from now
inebriation: inability to function in a job or a relationship. due to internal factors (altered senses) or external factors (altered behavior). so caffeine is quite low in that regard. something like lsd would be high
we speak of facebook in the same way
make a graph: x axis is addictiveness, y axis is inebriation
something like caffeine is low on both x and y: harmless
something like nicotine is high in addictiveness, but low on inebriation: legal, because you can feed your habit but still have a relationship/ job
marijuana and alcohol are middling x and y: not harmless, but not harmful enough to warrant illegality: marijuana and alcohol should be legal
something like lsd/ psilocybin (mushrooms): high inebriation, low addictiveness: should be legal, because you can use these products and stop using them at will: not be addicted to them. although of course, you might rip your eyeballs out or walk out a window, so responsible use is a necessity: you should be properly babysitted or you are risking your life/ other people's lives
now, the final quadrant: high addictiveness, high inebriation: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine. the problem with these drugs is you don't just use them and forget about them. like nicotine, once you start it is hard to quit. but, unlike nicotine, it blots out your entire day
meaning a force greater than your willpower draws you to use the chemical, and then you are unable to hold a job or a relationship. without economic support, you become a drag on society: we who are not addicted to heroin/ cocaine/ meth have to support you. well we don't want to support you, we don't want that drain on our economics, for what purpose? to feed an addict? not a valid purpose
we'd rather pay to fight a war on drugs, and prevent the creation of new addicts, because that's cheaper when compared to the cost of proliferating addicts (you do realize easier access means more addicts, and more addicts costs society, right?)
of course, addicts to these drugs will always exist, the war on drugs will never end. but the point never was to win it. its a maintenance function of civilization: minimize the addict population, by any means possible. the point is to minimize the amount of addicts to meth/ cocaine/ heroin, forever. that's it. there will always be murderers, rapists, and bank robbers. because murderers and rapists and bankr obbers will always exist, we should stop fighting them? does that make any sense to you? so why does it make sense to you that the war on drugs never ending means we should stop fighting drug addict proliferation?
and this is the cheapest route, in terms of loss of freedom (to a highly addictive drug, you do realize highly addictive drugs are a greater impediment to your freedom than any government ever could be, right?) and economic cost: minimize the addict population
what i DO accept as a criticism of the war on drugs is TACTICS. maybe our current tactics can be improved. ANY way you can minimize the addict population is valid. the war on drugs takes into account all methods of minimizing addict population. this includes healthcare efforts
you will also note, programs in portugal and switzerland are ALSO about minimizing addict populations. its not about legalizing these scourges on freedom and society, its about new TACTICS for the same GOAL. NO ONE wants these drugs to be used, even those in charge of the programs in lisbon and geneva. the portuguese/ swiss models HAVE THE SAME GOAL IN MIND
are they effective? if not, the portuguese/ swiss experiment should end. if they are effective (in terms of MINIMIZING ADDICT POPULATIONS) then we should adopt these models. but please note the goal is the same in washington dc and lisbon, even if the approach is different: minimize addict populations, in the name of maximizing freedom... since you understand drug addiction is a greater impediment on your freedom than the most orwellian government possible. right? right? unless... that orwellian government used heroin to turn people into slaves, weaponizing the greatest destroyer of freedom ever known to mankind: drug addiction
please understand the greatest enemy personal freedom has ever known is no government, but addiction. a constant interrupt cycle in your mind, greater than your willpower, to feed an essentially useless need. please understand the real relationship between drug use and freedom
i showed you the link where the officials said capture was the ideal
but when it comes to planning, you plan for what is most likely, not in fantasy land. so you talk about killing him, out of practicality. you do understand the difference between idealism and realism, right? you want to send the SEALs in there with a workable plan or a wish and a charm?
you continue to assume the worst intentions, when the only problem is the bad scenario
your judgment is without merit, it is based on prejudice and impossible standards
it is a kill operation, since a capture operation is impossible. it doesn't mean that if capture becomes possible- if bin laden is all by himself in an empty room without any weapons and doesn't put up a fight, that he is still killed. capture is, was, and always will be the best option. but anyone who is a realistic who needs to plan and execute this operation understands that it is going to be a kill operation out of the range of possible scenarios that will inevitably confront the SEALs. got it?
you wish to imagine that everyone in command just wanted to kill him, to hell with capture. they understand why capture is best. they also understand they need to go into the operation with a realistic appraisal of what they are going to confront
you wish to imagine that bloodlust overwhelms reason here
no, operational parameters overwhelms idealism here. understand yet?
DDoL
you heard it here first
it was some woman in germany. and she called him, she didn't write a letter /steven wright joke snob
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2163136&cid=36155912
btw, caffeine is a drug. an exceedingly mild one, of course, but a drug with pharmacological effects nonetheless, including withdrawal (mild, of course)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2163136&cid=36155912
"Oh, you're just bitter. ;-)"
lol
you win the thread
btw, i responded to this thread while eating a burrito laced with hot sauce. capsaicin evolving to discourage animals from eating peppers. my mouth burning from heat receptors artificially firing, i experience pleasure
i don't believe anything i wrote, it's just for the pleasure of arguing a ridiculous point of view to exhaustion... an acquired taste i have for what might initially seem a displeasurable exercise ;-)
people change over time. the ruthless become guiltridden. the desperate become mindful of making amends. decades pass. conspiracies are never airtight
there was a fountain of conspiracy theories one hundred years ago. there will be a fountain of conspiracy theories one hundred years from now. 99.99999% of them aren't even remotely real, just products of the feverish imaginations of small or paranoid schizophrenic minds
uh... that's an original comment. google any segment of the text above and you won't find any matches except this comment. it's not copypasta
now it might not be an original THOUGHT. i am certain other people have expressed this sentiment before
"Are you trying to say that this multi-billion-dollar industry and these billions of people are all engaged in some mass group hypnosis, hysteria, or hallucination?"
yes
it's classic pavlov: ring a bell, give a dog food, and eventually, the dog will salivate just because you rang a bell
likewise, you perceive pleasure at a taste which is essentially repulsive, because of pavlovian conditioning: you got drunk on the alcohol or amped on the caffeine, and that's the true source of your pleasure, not the taste. but, just like a dog salivating at a bell, a completely nonsensical reaction, you now perceive pleasure in nasty bitterness. equally nonsensical. you now confuse the secondary meaning, the taste, with the primary motivation, the drug. you associate pleasure with the pointless and essentially repulsive. it's about drug delivery, and always has been
"I find that unlikely. Are you trying to say that, universally, coffee really tastes horrible to everyone but they pretend to like it for social reasons or are addicted to caffeine?"
yup. children are repulsed by the taste of coffee. children's reactions are psychologically honest. adult reactions are due to the pharmaceutical qualities, not aesthetic ones. i am sure there are people who like certain bitter tastes on the merit of the bitter taste alone. but there isn't a radish or tonic water stand on every other corner in every city in the world. the reason for the existence of millions of coffeehouses is about the drug, not the taste. anyone who professes it is the taste is suffering from the same pavlovian conditioning as the dog salivating at the sound of a bell
bitter taste evolved as part of an arms race between plants and animals. plants that acquired a poison got eaten less because animals that ate them got sick. animals then evolved the ability to taste bitter aromatic poisonous compounds to avoid poisonous plants. next, animals evolved livers that could metabolize and neutralize some bitter tasting poisonous plants, all the while plants trying to cook up more fiendish poisons. as a side effect, some of the poisons, whether partially metabolized or taken in low doses, had psychological effects, like caffeine, or physiological ones, like nightshade/ digitalis, that modern medicine and modern cubicle workers are able to exploit
but there's no reason to seek out the bitter compounds (unless you are some insects which seek out bitter plants and eat them to sequester the plant poisons in their own flesh, thereby inheriting the repulsive bitter poisonous taste themselves)
what i just wrote is hard science. not subjective aesthetics. in fact, morning sickness in women is triggered by bitter taste. because an embryo is very sensitive to plant poisons at early stages of fetal development, unlike an adult. therefore early in pregnancy, women must avoid bitter compounds, and evolution has forced them too
bitter is nasty and poisonous
children's reactions are psychologically honest. adult reactions are due to the pharmaceutical qualities, not aesthetic ones
it's classic pavlov: ring a bell, give a dog food, and eventually, the dog will salivate just because you rang a bell
likewise, you perceive pleasure at a taste which is essentially repulsive, because of pavlovian conditioning: you got drunk on the alcohol or amped on the caffeine, and that's the true source of your pleasure, not the taste. but, just like a dog salivating at a bell, a completely nonsensical reaction, you now perceive pleasure in nasty bitterness. equally nonsensical. you now confuse the secondary meaning, the taste, with the primary motivation, the drug. you associate pleasure with the pointless and essentially repulsive. it's about drug delivery, and always has been
and i am sure there are people like you who like certain bitter tastes on the merit of the bitter taste alone. but there isn't a radish or tonic water stand on every other corner in every city in the world. because its about the drug, not the taste
bitter taste evolved as part of an arms race between plants and animals. plants that acquired a poison tasted bitter due to the poisonous compounds, and animals that then evolved the ability to taste the bitter were able to avoid the bitter tasting, and therefore poisonous, plants. some animals eventually evolved livers that could metabolize and neutralize some bitter tasting poisonous plants, but there's no reason to seek out the bitter compounds (unless you are some insects which seek out bitter plants and eat them to sequester the plant poisons in their own flesh, thereby inheriting the repulsive bitter poisonous taste themselves)
what i just wrote is hard science. not subjective aesthetics. in fact, morning sickness in women is triggered by bitter taste. because an embryo is very sensitive to plant poisons at early stages of fetal development, unlike an adult. therefore early in pregnancy, women must avoid bitter compounds, and evolution has forced them too
bitter is nasty and poisonous
you grow to understand informality, and recognize the effort to be formal and proper all the time is pointless and without merit
that some brittle mind expects formality where none is due, like in a fucking comment board, is someone that does not deserve any respect. demonstrate to me flexibility of mind, and i will begin to consider your opinions worthy of consideration. otherwise, fuck off
there isn't a bitter lemon or brussel sprout stand on every other corner in every city in the world. it's about the drugs
i wrote "conspiracy theory" in a bunch of places i should have written "conspiracy". i made it confusing. sorry
i hate beer
i don't understand how bitter becomes a desirable taste attribute. ever
but regardless, you have to admit that if it weren't for the alcohol or caffeine, there would be no driving reason to ignore the repulsive bitter taste and "acquire" a taste for it. children are repulsed by the taste of beer and coffee. children's reactions are psychologically honest. adult reactions are due to the pharmaceutical qualities, not the aesthetic ones
it's classic pavlov: ring a bell, give a dog food, and eventually, the dog will salivate just because you rang a bell. likewise, you perceive pleasure at a taste which is essentially repulsive, because of pavlovian conditioning: you got drunk on the alcohol or amped on the caffeine, and that's the true source of your pleasure, not the taste. but, just like a dog salivating at a bell, a completely nonsensical reaction, you now perceive pleasure in nasty bitterness. equally nonsensical. you now confuse the secondary meaning, the taste, with the primary motivation, the drug. you associate pleasure with the pointless and essentially repulsive
it's about drug delivery, and always has been. no matter how many people fool themselves with empty symbolic meaning to subtle variations of shit flavor. the emperor's new clothes: a bunch of fools wasting money on empty pavlovian signifiers of "quality" when its just about some asshole getting drunk or amped. stupid
the borg eyewear on the bill gates icon is a joke, not something to take as a realistic observation. you also might have noticed it is 2011, and google and apple are eating microsoft's lunch. in such a business environment, extending .NET use works to microsoft's advantage, and not something they want to discourage
please get your mind out of 1996. thanks
so you are saying we can't know intent, but you are going to assume bad intent and pass judgment based on that?
hypocrisy. because you clearly have bad intent yourself. you are not an impartial person. you are unfit to cast judgment
like i said, emperor's new clothes
if you put a blueberry in a pile of shit i think it would change the flavor subtly, but it will still taste like shit
likewise, i have no doubt that bean type, soil, growing conditions, etc., changes the taste of the coffee bean... something that tastes bitter, and always tasted bitter, and always will taste bitter, as the overarching flavor, no matter what the subtleties
what i am saying is that it does not matter the subtleties when the overarching flavor always dominates. and since with coffee the overarching flavor is hot and bitter, that condemns all flavors of coffee, no matter what the slight modifications that fills your mind with supposed merit that is essentially meaningless, since you are willfully ignoring the dominant flavor for psychological and addictive reasons