the war on drugs will never end. its a maintenance function of civilization. to keep the population of addicts low. this is what happens to a country's well-being when it doesn't fight supply and demand for hard drugs:
marijuana should be legalized. its not addictive. meth, heroin, coke: war will wage on them forever. any highly addictive drug. this isn't to say the war on drugs has no bad effects on society. the point is noting fight hard core addictive drug addiction proliferation is a lot worse in effects on society. or i suppose you believe easier legal access to highly addictive substances will result in less addicts somehow?
the war on drugs is about minimizing addict populations. there will always be addict populations. the point is to simply minimize the population through various means, to rpevent people from falling in this sad pathetic state of existence
if you have a better idea about how to minimize addict populations, please tell me (please note the swiss and portuguese models have the same goal in mind that i do, although their addict populations seem proportionally larger unfortunately, so efficacy is in doubt)
it helps when criticizing someone for a certain behavior not to engage in it yourself. for then you are a hypocrite
hypocrite: that's something i called you. not an empty insult. an objective characterization of you based on your demonstrated behavior. which is what i was doing beforehand as well, before you starting calling me a prick and saying fuck you... while you bemoan me for talking down to people? LOL
"All that you've written assumes that Anonymous is hierarchical"
if you actually read what i wrote, you would see this isn't true at all
but, having no idea who i am and persisting in declaring that i have nothing to do with anonymous, i see that making rash assumptions from fuzzy impressions is the way you work. that's a shame, and your eventual downfall if you do not correct this character weakness of yours. good luck kid
my point is simply that you can't talk about anonymous as a movement and not see that it is subject to the same observations of any movement in all of human history. because it is still composed of human beings
what the internet does to the functioning of anonymous is indeed new, but its a twist, not a fundamental recompositioing of human sociology. people make all sorts of rash, wrong commentary about anonymous's true nature and say all sorts of ridiculous things about its strengths, as if it were the borg from star trek, some sort of untouchability it doesn't have
not necessarily just you. i was using your words to criticize this ridiculous tendency to ascribe to anonymous mythological strengths it actually does not have, and i apologize if it seems like i was only piling on just you. i was piling on the mythologizing of anonymous in general
i'm interesting in dispelling the dreamy mythology of wanna be teenaged anarchists about the supposed untouchability of anonymous and anarchist activity in general
if you were to analyze anonymous's larger domain of overlapping grievances, you would characterize what anonymous is about. and you would also describe the motivation that brings people together under the banner of anonymous. this list of grievances can accurately described as internet freedoms. so, for example, anonymous has nothing to do with islamic militant fundamentalism, which, like anonymous, is also largely organic in nature and self-organizing around a set of grievances, also mostly "anonymous"
now if you took away what motivated anonymous: passed a set of laws and enforced them in regards to internet freedoms to the satisfaction of most people identifying with anonymous, then anonymous would dissolve and cease to exist. neutralize the motivation, neutralize the movement. a movement exists to satisfy a grievance. once the grievance is satisfied, the movement becomes history
then, for the cachet, imagine that some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous, islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms. but according to you, it would be the same anonymous, because according to you, anyone can claim the mantle
no, you have to be fighting for internet freedoms to claim the true mantle of anonymous
Re:Dissension always points to government invovlem
on
Anonymous Under Civil War?
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
the usa has an agenda, like any other country. like any other group of citizens within a country. when the agenda of a group within a country at civil war lines up with the agenda of a foreign country, then funding follows. this was also true for the ussr in the cold war in latin america, but i don't see you talking about that, interestingly enough. its also still true today, around the world, for the usa, china, russia, india, etc.: countries mess with each other's internal affairs. even, and especially, within latin america. always has been true, is still true, always will be true. yet you only wish to focus on the usa doing this?
so in the end, your thinking points to two cognitive failures on your part:
1. the inability to see that there are other countries in the world that mess around with the internal affairs of others
its not the exclusive domain of the usa to do these things. it reveals you have a grudge, an obsession, not a valid global point of view or valid set of principles. maybe you think you have a set of principles, but currently your words boil down to "i don't like the usa." actually, it's fine not to like the usa, the usa has done plenty of things to dislike. however, you need to admit to yourself that you aren't motivated by justice or morality, you are only motivated by typical, story-as-old-as-time tribal chest thumping turf wars. because you won't condemn the other players in the world on the basis of your self-stated principles, you will only condemn the usa. you don't have to pick sides you know. it is actually logically coherent to condemn the usa AND europe AND iran AND china, all at the same time, for example. in fact, if you are motivated by principles and not empty tribal chest thumping, condemning all countries is in fact your only logically coherent line of thought
2. the inability to see that a country at war with itself is composed of organic citizens of that country that actually believe in a point of view that is the organic creation of those people
in other words, if the usa never existed in the first place, then those people fighting for their point of view (that the usa happens to, secondarily, support), they would still exist. by saying that these people wouldn't exist without the existence of the usa is very patronizing and condescending of you: that people outside the usa can't have their own motivations, their own self-realized ideas. to you, they can only be robotic puppets of some imaginary american overlord. for example: al qaeda. the usa gave it funding once. therefore, so goes the moron's reasoning, everything bad al qaeda does is the usa's fault. nevermind that al qaeda is motivated by things that has nothing to do with the usa, but has to do with their twisted view of islam and recreating the medieval caliphate. and that al qaeda has more enemies of this bizarre goal other than the usa, and if the usa never existed, al qaeda would be fighting those other enemies (and in fact, are fighting other enemies besides the usa). and nevermind that the usa was only a temporary ally in the cold war fight against the ussr. no, to you, only the usa can be a source of motivating ideas. everyone else in the world is a derivative reflection of what the usa thinks, for or against, never human beings with their own original thoughts and ideas. how fucking retarded and, frankly, racist of you
pure intellectual and logical fail on your part: you don't understand the world as a set of three dimensional players, you understand the world as only one player: the usa, and everyone else, friend and foe, only act because the usa caused them to do something. in your worldview, only the usa is a responsible player, everyone else, friend and foe, is just reacting. what a dimwitted, condescending way to view your fellow human beings. your anti-americanism has infected and destroyed your ability to perceive human beings and the world at large, your dimwitted mind only see shades of americanism and anti-americanism. you're a hyper-obsessed moron. that's not a baseless insult. that's an objective appraisal of your reasoning abilities
There's a fallacy in your thinking: that any group, bearing any label, can proceed without some sort of organization. Even a mob takes its cues form certain charismatic/ loud/ exemplary actors. Anonymous is not immune from this observation. But this doesn't stop dreamers and mythologizers from thinking about anonymous in dreamy ways that may be romantic and inspiring, but simply isn't real.
Anonymous has a structure, and that structure is simply its most active members, coordinating with each other. You can kill this rudimentary structure, and hurt anonymous. Yes, you can do that. 90% of what anonymous does is dome by 10% of its "members". If you were to profile who that 10% were, and take them all out at once, (not one-by-one, there is an organic retirement/ replacement continuum at work here) you would destroy anonymous.
It would of course reconstitute itself, but if you continued this "observe most active members, and then take them all out at once" tactic at a regular tempo, you would kill anonymous, dry the well, poison it, and prevent it from refilling.
Most assuredly, you can kill anonymous, all romantic dreamy notions of what anonymous is to the contrary.
"Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly."
Yes, that's an accurate metaphor. Please note that jelly actually has some cohesion.
You can kill Al Qaeda. You can kill the borg. You can kill anonymous. It takes effort and a longstanding commitment, and the most effective longterm methodology is to neutralize what motivates its organic membership. But for all the romanticizing dreamy anarchists out there: you just don't understand the intrinsic nature of human social organization. We self-organize, and this is a strength we reply on subconsciously, and a weakness to exploit.
what this tells me is that design went into making sure it wouldn't be easy for a random individual to open the fuel cap, and tamper with fuel. it also tells me that all these fuel caps have to be replaced, because now the ratchet with the right face needed open this fuel cap can be produced by our enemies for perhaps covert sabotage
and this is just the damned fuel cap!
imagine all the other intel this downed copter produces
it's definitely a loss. but in the larger scheme of killing bin laden, an acceptable sacrifice
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
2. as someone who has laughed at what others said in seriousness, and someone who has been mortified at what some meant as a joke, i share and feel your pain. the internet is a wondrous and frightening window on half-communicated things
"objectivsts" and ayn rand cultists are nothing more than a study in 3 types of individuals:
1. 20 something philosophy majors with no real world experience with real human beings 2. genuinely selfish 40 something sociopathic assholes behind on their alimony payments 3. clueless low iq talk radio propagandized sheep
they all share a certain social defect in the realm of give and take and how human societies really work
you may respond with yet more indignation that i'm engaging in name calling and uncivil behavior and straw men. well: yes, yes i am. i am being very uncivil towards you. i am openly mocking and deriding you. and?
i'm not a nice person. i never pretended to me. i'm not your father. it's not my job to gently hold your hand and listen to your ignorance. i don't owe you anything, certainly not respect or civility. because you are in open warfare with the basic social truths of human existence that makes all of this, civilization, work
so most unfortunately for you, i may be uncivil, but i am truthful. truth is often ugly in this life. lack of civility is a sign of impatience on my part with you ayn rand morons, not a lack of understanding or logical coherence on the subject matter you so ignorantly inject yourself into with no real understanding
i am simply tired of dealing with you fucking ayn rand retards. what you believe is more akin to a fundamentalist religious sect than any grasp on human nature or reality. so i have no interest in treating you civilly, i only have the interest of avoiding or mocking you, as you might a creationist or a ufo cultist. "objectivist" is the same sort of person to me: completely beyond the realm of logical reason and completely beyond the realm of respect. because you get the basics so laughably wrong, there's nothing else to do except roll one's eyes
you are assuming "objectivism" and those who are proponents of it deserve some sort of consideration and respect. you don't. anyone who takes the ideas of ayn rand seriously is only establishing themselves as a village idiot that deserves only to be laughed at, so out of touch with human nature or so hobbled by some failure of psychology
maybe someone else will calmly take you by the hand and try to bring you back to the realm of the level-headed. i'm sorry, i'm not that person. i don't have the patience for this low iq mental vomit. i've seen how out of touch you are with the basics, how much effort it would take to show you how you are in denial or violation of the basics, how antagonistic you are towards the simple basic idea of human altruism, and it simply means you're not worth the effort
selfishness is just an ugly basic human instinct we all have. it is even useful at times. but if you try to dress that $5 crack whore up in the most haute couture fashion, and try to present her as a respectable, what do you want me to do but laugh? she's still just a gap toothed crack whore
same with the "philosophy" of objectivism. it's not a respectable philosophy. it's just simple selfishness, dressed up to be more than it supposedly is with the trappings of "philosophy." maybe someday you'll see through the charade and see the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, to see the gap toothed crack whore you've fallen in starry eyed love with for what she really is. but right now, you are a feverish true believer, a fundamentalist religious nutbag. not someone you have a coherent logical conversation with, and sorry, certainly not someone i respect or is worthy of civil treatment
i'm simply saying, you can't come at me with ignorance, and expect me to treat you as someone with a respectable ideology. no, you're just an ignorant douchebag
sorry, douchebag, i'm not your dad. i have no respect for you. i have mild derision on my best days, but mostly unbridled hate at how you fucking retards in your low iq cult hurt the country i love
my supposition is also absurd because the milky way itself is "moving" (orbitting?), in relation to other galaxies. there is no fixed point we are moving against
however, it is a slightly intriguing possibility, no? that say, some fundamental constant we take for granted as constant actually might vary slightly across a 250 million year period... for some reason. wouldn't that be interesting? yes, this is wild conjecture, but you could certainly sit around and construct a few "what ifs" that would suggest such a possibility. even though we aren't remotely able to ask serious science questions about such a hypothetical periodicity to... something, right now in our scientific maturity
at least the thought is the basis for some perhaps compelling speculative science fiction, if not real science
"The Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy in a galactic year—once every 225-250 million Earth years."
has there ever been any research into odd or bad events in our geological record that occur with 237 million year frequency?
because right now, at this moment, we are plowing through space we haven't plowed through in 237 million years. what the hell are we hitting? everything from asteroids to comets to various kinds of background radiation to fundamental particles could potentially vary periodically, according to this 237 million year loop
yes, i take solace that most stuff around us is orbiting right along with us
fuck tablets. i want something i can fold up or roll up and stick in a pocket
essentially, a smaller form of the traditional morning newspaper, except i only need one plasticy page and one copy, forever. something with the consistency of those durable hiking maps
phone, text, video, camera, audio: yeah, it's all in there too. batteries? pfffft, we don't need no stinkin' batteries: it runs off you. the thing will be low power enough that it will tap something about our biology unobtrusively to derive some power. walking maybe?
basically, a piece of eInked paper that Gutenberg himself wouldn't see anything out of the ordinary about, until the images started moving on their own or the paper made a sound
so we have our star trek tricorders already: smartphones. fuck that
we have our R2D2 3D projections: 3D tv. fuck that
i want a mangy piece of plasticy paper. and i want to carry it in my pocket, and i want to wallpaper my rooms with it
Slashdot Mirror
anonymity is a new invention of the internet?
that's what you're going with?
you want to be taken seriously?
the war on drugs will never end. its a maintenance function of civilization. to keep the population of addicts low. this is what happens to a country's well-being when it doesn't fight supply and demand for hard drugs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
marijuana should be legalized. its not addictive. meth, heroin, coke: war will wage on them forever. any highly addictive drug. this isn't to say the war on drugs has no bad effects on society. the point is noting fight hard core addictive drug addiction proliferation is a lot worse in effects on society. or i suppose you believe easier legal access to highly addictive substances will result in less addicts somehow?
the war on drugs is about minimizing addict populations. there will always be addict populations. the point is to simply minimize the population through various means, to rpevent people from falling in this sad pathetic state of existence
if you have a better idea about how to minimize addict populations, please tell me (please note the swiss and portuguese models have the same goal in mind that i do, although their addict populations seem proportionally larger unfortunately, so efficacy is in doubt)
wait... if you aren't defending rand, why are you arguing with me?
you just like arguing with me for some strange reason?
yeah but you can see and read the headline. it isn't crowded out by a million little busy div boxes
sparse. simple. plain. perfection
another tip for you little kid:
it helps when criticizing someone for a certain behavior not to engage in it yourself. for then you are a hypocrite
hypocrite: that's something i called you. not an empty insult. an objective characterization of you based on your demonstrated behavior. which is what i was doing beforehand as well, before you starting calling me a prick and saying fuck you... while you bemoan me for talking down to people? LOL
anonymity leading to unrestricted expression is a new invention of the internet?
that's what you're going with?
seriously?
"All that you've written assumes that Anonymous is hierarchical"
if you actually read what i wrote, you would see this isn't true at all
but, having no idea who i am and persisting in declaring that i have nothing to do with anonymous, i see that making rash assumptions from fuzzy impressions is the way you work. that's a shame, and your eventual downfall if you do not correct this character weakness of yours. good luck kid
because it is simple, elegant, utilitarian, and spare, like the google front page. it gets the job done without unnecessary showing off
whenever substance trumps style, i am an ally, even though i hate drudge's politics
my point is simply that you can't talk about anonymous as a movement and not see that it is subject to the same observations of any movement in all of human history. because it is still composed of human beings
what the internet does to the functioning of anonymous is indeed new, but its a twist, not a fundamental recompositioing of human sociology. people make all sorts of rash, wrong commentary about anonymous's true nature and say all sorts of ridiculous things about its strengths, as if it were the borg from star trek, some sort of untouchability it doesn't have
not necessarily just you. i was using your words to criticize this ridiculous tendency to ascribe to anonymous mythological strengths it actually does not have, and i apologize if it seems like i was only piling on just you. i was piling on the mythologizing of anonymous in general
I think movements in 1850 were composed of human beings. I think in 2011 they still are.
"will never understand anonymous, nor the internet, or routing or torrents."
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/One_of_These_Things
"But that doesn't happen in real life."
Yes, I agree it won't happen. It's a thought exercise for you to follow to see the flaw in your reasoning. I guess you can't follow it.
"You are analyzing Anonymous without ever experiencing it."
What, is anonymous like having sex or something? And how do you know who I am or what I do?
i'm not interested in killing anonymous
i'm interesting in dispelling the dreamy mythology of wanna be teenaged anarchists about the supposed untouchability of anonymous and anarchist activity in general
if you were to analyze anonymous's larger domain of overlapping grievances, you would characterize what anonymous is about. and you would also describe the motivation that brings people together under the banner of anonymous. this list of grievances can accurately described as internet freedoms. so, for example, anonymous has nothing to do with islamic militant fundamentalism, which, like anonymous, is also largely organic in nature and self-organizing around a set of grievances, also mostly "anonymous"
now if you took away what motivated anonymous: passed a set of laws and enforced them in regards to internet freedoms to the satisfaction of most people identifying with anonymous, then anonymous would dissolve and cease to exist. neutralize the motivation, neutralize the movement. a movement exists to satisfy a grievance. once the grievance is satisfied, the movement becomes history
then, for the cachet, imagine that some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous, islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms. but according to you, it would be the same anonymous, because according to you, anyone can claim the mantle
no, you have to be fighting for internet freedoms to claim the true mantle of anonymous
the usa has an agenda, like any other country. like any other group of citizens within a country. when the agenda of a group within a country at civil war lines up with the agenda of a foreign country, then funding follows. this was also true for the ussr in the cold war in latin america, but i don't see you talking about that, interestingly enough. its also still true today, around the world, for the usa, china, russia, india, etc.: countries mess with each other's internal affairs. even, and especially, within latin america. always has been true, is still true, always will be true. yet you only wish to focus on the usa doing this?
so in the end, your thinking points to two cognitive failures on your part:
1. the inability to see that there are other countries in the world that mess around with the internal affairs of others
its not the exclusive domain of the usa to do these things. it reveals you have a grudge, an obsession, not a valid global point of view or valid set of principles. maybe you think you have a set of principles, but currently your words boil down to "i don't like the usa." actually, it's fine not to like the usa, the usa has done plenty of things to dislike. however, you need to admit to yourself that you aren't motivated by justice or morality, you are only motivated by typical, story-as-old-as-time tribal chest thumping turf wars. because you won't condemn the other players in the world on the basis of your self-stated principles, you will only condemn the usa. you don't have to pick sides you know. it is actually logically coherent to condemn the usa AND europe AND iran AND china, all at the same time, for example. in fact, if you are motivated by principles and not empty tribal chest thumping, condemning all countries is in fact your only logically coherent line of thought
2. the inability to see that a country at war with itself is composed of organic citizens of that country that actually believe in a point of view that is the organic creation of those people
in other words, if the usa never existed in the first place, then those people fighting for their point of view (that the usa happens to, secondarily, support), they would still exist. by saying that these people wouldn't exist without the existence of the usa is very patronizing and condescending of you: that people outside the usa can't have their own motivations, their own self-realized ideas. to you, they can only be robotic puppets of some imaginary american overlord. for example: al qaeda. the usa gave it funding once. therefore, so goes the moron's reasoning, everything bad al qaeda does is the usa's fault. nevermind that al qaeda is motivated by things that has nothing to do with the usa, but has to do with their twisted view of islam and recreating the medieval caliphate. and that al qaeda has more enemies of this bizarre goal other than the usa, and if the usa never existed, al qaeda would be fighting those other enemies (and in fact, are fighting other enemies besides the usa). and nevermind that the usa was only a temporary ally in the cold war fight against the ussr. no, to you, only the usa can be a source of motivating ideas. everyone else in the world is a derivative reflection of what the usa thinks, for or against, never human beings with their own original thoughts and ideas. how fucking retarded and, frankly, racist of you
pure intellectual and logical fail on your part: you don't understand the world as a set of three dimensional players, you understand the world as only one player: the usa, and everyone else, friend and foe, only act because the usa caused them to do something. in your worldview, only the usa is a responsible player, everyone else, friend and foe, is just reacting. what a dimwitted, condescending way to view your fellow human beings. your anti-americanism has infected and destroyed your ability to perceive human beings and the world at large, your dimwitted mind only see shades of americanism and anti-americanism. you're a hyper-obsessed moron. that's not a baseless insult. that's an objective appraisal of your reasoning abilities
There's a fallacy in your thinking: that any group, bearing any label, can proceed without some sort of organization. Even a mob takes its cues form certain charismatic/ loud/ exemplary actors. Anonymous is not immune from this observation. But this doesn't stop dreamers and mythologizers from thinking about anonymous in dreamy ways that may be romantic and inspiring, but simply isn't real.
Anonymous has a structure, and that structure is simply its most active members, coordinating with each other. You can kill this rudimentary structure, and hurt anonymous. Yes, you can do that. 90% of what anonymous does is dome by 10% of its "members". If you were to profile who that 10% were, and take them all out at once, (not one-by-one, there is an organic retirement/ replacement continuum at work here) you would destroy anonymous.
It would of course reconstitute itself, but if you continued this "observe most active members, and then take them all out at once" tactic at a regular tempo, you would kill anonymous, dry the well, poison it, and prevent it from refilling.
Most assuredly, you can kill anonymous, all romantic dreamy notions of what anonymous is to the contrary.
"Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly."
Yes, that's an accurate metaphor. Please note that jelly actually has some cohesion.
You can kill Al Qaeda. You can kill the borg. You can kill anonymous. It takes effort and a longstanding commitment, and the most effective longterm methodology is to neutralize what motivates its organic membership. But for all the romanticizing dreamy anarchists out there: you just don't understand the intrinsic nature of human social organization. We self-organize, and this is a strength we reply on subconsciously, and a weakness to exploit.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/06/world/06helicopter.html
what this tells me is that design went into making sure it wouldn't be easy for a random individual to open the fuel cap, and tamper with fuel. it also tells me that all these fuel caps have to be replaced, because now the ratchet with the right face needed open this fuel cap can be produced by our enemies for perhaps covert sabotage
and this is just the damned fuel cap!
imagine all the other intel this downed copter produces
it's definitely a loss. but in the larger scheme of killing bin laden, an acceptable sacrifice
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
two things:
1. yes, i am joking
2. as someone who has laughed at what others said in seriousness, and someone who has been mortified at what some meant as a joke, i share and feel your pain. the internet is a wondrous and frightening window on half-communicated things
no, you didn't say randroid
i did
you fucking randoid
"objectivsts" and ayn rand cultists are nothing more than a study in 3 types of individuals:
1. 20 something philosophy majors with no real world experience with real human beings
2. genuinely selfish 40 something sociopathic assholes behind on their alimony payments
3. clueless low iq talk radio propagandized sheep
they all share a certain social defect in the realm of give and take and how human societies really work
you may respond with yet more indignation that i'm engaging in name calling and uncivil behavior and straw men. well: yes, yes i am. i am being very uncivil towards you. i am openly mocking and deriding you. and?
i'm not a nice person. i never pretended to me. i'm not your father. it's not my job to gently hold your hand and listen to your ignorance. i don't owe you anything, certainly not respect or civility. because you are in open warfare with the basic social truths of human existence that makes all of this, civilization, work
so most unfortunately for you, i may be uncivil, but i am truthful. truth is often ugly in this life. lack of civility is a sign of impatience on my part with you ayn rand morons, not a lack of understanding or logical coherence on the subject matter you so ignorantly inject yourself into with no real understanding
i am simply tired of dealing with you fucking ayn rand retards. what you believe is more akin to a fundamentalist religious sect than any grasp on human nature or reality. so i have no interest in treating you civilly, i only have the interest of avoiding or mocking you, as you might a creationist or a ufo cultist. "objectivist" is the same sort of person to me: completely beyond the realm of logical reason and completely beyond the realm of respect. because you get the basics so laughably wrong, there's nothing else to do except roll one's eyes
you are assuming "objectivism" and those who are proponents of it deserve some sort of consideration and respect. you don't. anyone who takes the ideas of ayn rand seriously is only establishing themselves as a village idiot that deserves only to be laughed at, so out of touch with human nature or so hobbled by some failure of psychology
maybe someone else will calmly take you by the hand and try to bring you back to the realm of the level-headed. i'm sorry, i'm not that person. i don't have the patience for this low iq mental vomit. i've seen how out of touch you are with the basics, how much effort it would take to show you how you are in denial or violation of the basics, how antagonistic you are towards the simple basic idea of human altruism, and it simply means you're not worth the effort
selfishness is just an ugly basic human instinct we all have. it is even useful at times. but if you try to dress that $5 crack whore up in the most haute couture fashion, and try to present her as a respectable, what do you want me to do but laugh? she's still just a gap toothed crack whore
same with the "philosophy" of objectivism. it's not a respectable philosophy. it's just simple selfishness, dressed up to be more than it supposedly is with the trappings of "philosophy." maybe someday you'll see through the charade and see the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, to see the gap toothed crack whore you've fallen in starry eyed love with for what she really is. but right now, you are a feverish true believer, a fundamentalist religious nutbag. not someone you have a coherent logical conversation with, and sorry, certainly not someone i respect or is worthy of civil treatment
i'm simply saying, you can't come at me with ignorance, and expect me to treat you as someone with a respectable ideology. no, you're just an ignorant douchebag
sorry, douchebag, i'm not your dad. i have no respect for you. i have mild derision on my best days, but mostly unbridled hate at how you fucking retards in your low iq cult hurt the country i love
my supposition is also absurd because the milky way itself is "moving" (orbitting?), in relation to other galaxies. there is no fixed point we are moving against
however, it is a slightly intriguing possibility, no? that say, some fundamental constant we take for granted as constant actually might vary slightly across a 250 million year period... for some reason. wouldn't that be interesting? yes, this is wild conjecture, but you could certainly sit around and construct a few "what ifs" that would suggest such a possibility. even though we aren't remotely able to ask serious science questions about such a hypothetical periodicity to... something, right now in our scientific maturity
at least the thought is the basis for some perhaps compelling speculative science fiction, if not real science
australia is known for arnold schwarzenegger, amadeus mozart, sigmund freud, franz ferdinand, the house of hapsburg, and "the sound of music"
please get a geography education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"The Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy in a galactic year—once every 225-250 million Earth years."
has there ever been any research into odd or bad events in our geological record that occur with 237 million year frequency?
because right now, at this moment, we are plowing through space we haven't plowed through in 237 million years. what the hell are we hitting? everything from asteroids to comets to various kinds of background radiation to fundamental particles could potentially vary periodically, according to this 237 million year loop
yes, i take solace that most stuff around us is orbiting right along with us
but not all of it
i would be angry at the sleight as well, except for the fact that, as an antipodean, you would instead feel pleasure at being overlooked
and my apologies for not writing this upside down and backwards and inside out in meaning, as is antipodean custom
fuck tablets. i want something i can fold up or roll up and stick in a pocket
essentially, a smaller form of the traditional morning newspaper, except i only need one plasticy page and one copy, forever. something with the consistency of those durable hiking maps
phone, text, video, camera, audio: yeah, it's all in there too. batteries? pfffft, we don't need no stinkin' batteries: it runs off you. the thing will be low power enough that it will tap something about our biology unobtrusively to derive some power. walking maybe?
basically, a piece of eInked paper that Gutenberg himself wouldn't see anything out of the ordinary about, until the images started moving on their own or the paper made a sound
so we have our star trek tricorders already: smartphones. fuck that
we have our R2D2 3D projections: 3D tv. fuck that
i want a mangy piece of plasticy paper. and i want to carry it in my pocket, and i want to wallpaper my rooms with it
that's nirvana
star wars and star trek got it wrong
thank you. for taking the time to explain politely