well, i was trying to be kind, but since you forced my hand:
utopianists always fail. and they should always fail
this isn't some empty cynical observation that the world can never be made better. progress is real in this world and i believe in progress
it's more of a criticism that:
1. the world isn't as bad as idealists think it is, and 2. idealists mostly have ideas which actually make the world worse, despite all their good intentions, due to a failed ability to understand true human nature
not that i understand human nature better than anyone else. but i can clearly identify a really bad understanding of human nature when i see it. we should all endeavor to understand human nature as well as we can. its just a shame that those who understand it the least are always the loudest and most strident idealists in the room
an idealist, such as yourself, looks down from on yonder ivory tower at us here struggling in the mud, and turns their noses up at us, and imagines the world is better in the ivory tower, and we should all live there. so sayeth you
no, the world is down here in the mud, and always will be. the ivory tower only exists in your mind, and isn't actually an improvement. its just the triumph of the ego over feeble abilities of perception. because its not as muddy as you believe it is down here, and its not any nicer up in your tower. in fact, its worse
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." -Winston Churchill
i understand you think the world needs improving, and it does: get rid of the idealists. like many idealists who came before you, i ask that you understand that sometimes those with the best intentions do the most damage. for example, osama bin laden is an idealist. he has good intentions, he really does, according to his definition of what a good intention is: to save all of us non-fundamentalist muslims by killing or converting us and resurrecting the caliphate. that's what an idealist is. free market fundamentalist tea party types believe no healthcare or social safety nets for the poor, social darwinism, will make them work harder and save society and we'll all be happier and richer. people who think homosexuals can be converted: idealists. people who think creationism deserves to be taught alongside evolution: idealists
in fact, much of what you see wrong in the world, that you want to improve as an idealist, is actually as bad as it is, because of the effort of other idealists. got that? i'll say it again:
much of what you see wrong in the world, that you want to improve as an idealist, is actually as bad as it is, because of the effort of other idealists
nothing ruins debate like a rambling 5 paragraph diatribe. if a debate is limited to 140 characters, the quality of the debate would improve over endless rants
and Berners-Lee, bless him, is trotting out an archaic idealistic vision that has long since died
the debate, succinctly, is whether the Internet represents
1. a library of philosophers dedicated to erudite passionate commentary on important issues of the day, culminating in a second Enlightenment of intellectual endeavor
2. a bar at 3 AM, busy with drunks full of murderous rage and nonsensical babbling
look at comments on youtube, or under any political blog, or heck, look at encyclopedia dramatica or fark or 4chan: it is clear that Berners-Lee's image of the Internet died in September of 1993
all DRM is eventually defeated (region free playing, sharpie on the inner ring, etc), but if BluRay makes you jump through more hoops, and spend more money, for less rights, it's a turn off
1. where someone can be guaranteed to post a mindlessly negative and/ or cynical response to your comment
2. someone else can read into what you say with the most radical assumptions you never even remotely alluded to, and respond with an angry tirade as if you had said something totally different
3. someone else can take the most throwaway ridiculous joke... and consider it with the utmost seriousness
not to destroy them, but to send them out into space, in a random trajectory, like voyager 1. 300 centuries hence, our distant children, or aliens, can find them, decipher them, and find all about the wonders of cookies, porn spam, twitpics, and excel 2003, among other digital detritus of our lives
i've gotten experts exchange results in google searches forever, and i loathe them
however, not once, in years, have i seen "experts exchange" written in such a way in your post that it makes me think "expert sex change"
so thanks. thanks a lot. for making a bane of my existence somehow even worse. because now i will never look at "experts exchange" in google results again without seeing "expert sex change"
it would hasten the return of the the mahdi, the hidden imam. if you are promised salvation at armageddeon, and you are a true believer, maybe you can hasten salvation by hastening armageddeon. you have to kill some people to save them right?
if that sounds like religious fundamentalist self-fulfilling prophecy kookery, well yes, yes it is
you do realize that iran is a theocracy, right? power is invested in a bunch of grumpy old men who somehow have a monopoly on interpreting the willpower of god. that's their government. that bothers me. not because its muslim, but because its FUNDAMENTALIST. a fundamentalist christian theocracy with nukes would bother me too (and this is where some of you call the usa that, and reveal yourselves to be complete morons unworthy of commenting on world affairs)
Article 1
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.
Article 2
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws; 3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God; 4.the justice of God in creation and legislation; 5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;...
you can say all you want about the usa and israel. they both do plenty wrong in the world and the middle east. but regardless about how you feel about the usa and israel, do you really want a THEOCRACY armed with nuclear weapons in this world?! does that somehow neutralize or make up for the sins of israel and the usa? how's that work?
there's a lot of strange people out there, who, in their hatred of the usa and israel, will embrace and excuse the behavior of far worse entities. i don't understand that thinking. and when i say "far worse entities," don't take my word for it: a few years ago some people in iran voted, and their votes were ignored, and they protested, and they were brutally crushed. ask an IRANIAN what they think of their government, that freely ignores them, they whom the government is supposed to represent
so in your hatred of the usa and israel, don't move to embrace entities far worse
do you know its actually possible to dislike the usa, israel AND iran at the same time? try it. then you will find yourself adhering to actual principles, rather than moronic chest thumping tribalism. its not a football game. you don't have to pick sides. you can actually reject all sides. just don't be a complete moron and embrace and defend the murderer because you dislike the rapist
the american economy suffered a burst bubble from an overheated real estate market in 2008. it might be a long painful recovery
but if it gets your political inclinations excited to derive deeper portents, have at it
people trade in the currency that is seen most stable RELATIVELY. some background: as the 2008 crisis began, people began to flee the dollar. then, as the crisis began to ripple across the rest of the world, some places wound up weaker than the usa, and people began to return the dollar. why? not because the dollar was stable, but because the dollar was RELATIVELY stable compared to the problems in many other places, like europe
currently, the yuan is probably the most stable currency, but china has plenty of exposure to potential problems that could blow up worse than the usa. then the dollar might again be the most RELATIVELY stable currency, or not, or some other currency. i don't know. neither do you
financial chicanery is something that only happens in the west?
genuine economic activity only happens outside the west?
the us dollar has weakened, so it makes sense to look at other currencies for transactions. if those other currencies also weaken, well then you look around again for the next safest currency
that's the beginning and end of the entire story here
currently, the chinese real estate market is overheating. some say china could go through the same bust followed by anemia that japan has suffered since its real estate market tanked in 1990. or maybe it won't. either way, the yuan looks safest right now, but that is subject to change. just like any other currency, including the dollar
we are entering an era which is more fluid financially, so people will be trading in all sorts of currencies, depending on various perceptions of strength, that should shift over time. nothing pro- or anti-western about it. stop trying to inject politics into a subject matter which is pretty bloodless and simple: "what's the safest currency?" when they think about that, they think relative stability, nothing more
so you get false positives ands false negatives. i accept that reality. you minimize it the best you can, but that you get false negatives and positives doesn't mean the definition is without meaning and isn't worth pursuing
analogy: the justice system often convicts innocent people. it also doesn't catch many perpetrators. your conclusion: the pursuit of justice is without meaning and isn't worth pursuing. same ridiculous argument
the constitution is a living pact with the people and subject to change. it is not a holy document from a fundamentalist religion that is above amendment or questioning
there should be a term for it, because i see this fallacy a lot. "reducto ad grey area"?
anyway, the point is simple: because a grey area exists does not mean we can't define black and white. people are always saying "ooh! ooh! look! a grey area! therefore there is no black and white, good and evil, right and wrong" etc. this is some lame loser teenager bullshit in your thinking
a site that instructs women how to inspect their breasts in the shower for lumps/ breast cancer is NOT pornography
a site that shows a woman being penetrated by two guys and giving a blowjob to a horse IS pornography
and in between exists a grey area, yes. so what?
the existence of that grey area does not nullify or change the fact that black and white are real, nor does it argue anyone should try to stop classifying pornography as pornography. pornography is real, pornography can be defined. the existence of grey areas doesn't change that. got it?
that's like saying music pirates will get a lobby and become respectable. not going to happen because of the music industry's entrenched lobbyists, right?
same here: the part your missing is the entrenched players: the brick-and-mortar gambling industry, which sees the online world as a threat. their lobbyists are behind this move
Slashdot Mirror
it tastes like diesel to me
what kind of shit have you eaten that has an acetone bouquet and an arsenate metallic tang on the tongue?
although that yak shit i ate once near the supply depot did have a weird gasoline type perfume
all they will read is "Somebody with mod-"
well, i was trying to be kind, but since you forced my hand:
utopianists always fail. and they should always fail
this isn't some empty cynical observation that the world can never be made better. progress is real in this world and i believe in progress
it's more of a criticism that:
1. the world isn't as bad as idealists think it is, and
2. idealists mostly have ideas which actually make the world worse, despite all their good intentions, due to a failed ability to understand true human nature
not that i understand human nature better than anyone else. but i can clearly identify a really bad understanding of human nature when i see it. we should all endeavor to understand human nature as well as we can. its just a shame that those who understand it the least are always the loudest and most strident idealists in the room
an idealist, such as yourself, looks down from on yonder ivory tower at us here struggling in the mud, and turns their noses up at us, and imagines the world is better in the ivory tower, and we should all live there. so sayeth you
no, the world is down here in the mud, and always will be. the ivory tower only exists in your mind, and isn't actually an improvement. its just the triumph of the ego over feeble abilities of perception. because its not as muddy as you believe it is down here, and its not any nicer up in your tower. in fact, its worse
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." -Winston Churchill
i understand you think the world needs improving, and it does: get rid of the idealists. like many idealists who came before you, i ask that you understand that sometimes those with the best intentions do the most damage. for example, osama bin laden is an idealist. he has good intentions, he really does, according to his definition of what a good intention is: to save all of us non-fundamentalist muslims by killing or converting us and resurrecting the caliphate. that's what an idealist is. free market fundamentalist tea party types believe no healthcare or social safety nets for the poor, social darwinism, will make them work harder and save society and we'll all be happier and richer. people who think homosexuals can be converted: idealists. people who think creationism deserves to be taught alongside evolution: idealists
in fact, much of what you see wrong in the world, that you want to improve as an idealist, is actually as bad as it is, because of the effort of other idealists. got that? i'll say it again:
much of what you see wrong in the world, that you want to improve as an idealist, is actually as bad as it is, because of the effort of other idealists
that's the truth
blindness and ego: fuck you idealists
unfortunately i don't think the parent poster read your comment past "You realize he is the Father of the World-"
nothing ruins debate like a rambling 5 paragraph diatribe. if a debate is limited to 140 characters, the quality of the debate would improve over endless rants
they killed encyclopedia dramatica, 3 days ago
"oh internet"? wtf?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Dramatica
and Berners-Lee, bless him, is trotting out an archaic idealistic vision that has long since died
the debate, succinctly, is whether the Internet represents
1. a library of philosophers dedicated to erudite passionate commentary on important issues of the day, culminating in a second Enlightenment of intellectual endeavor
2. a bar at 3 AM, busy with drunks full of murderous rage and nonsensical babbling
look at comments on youtube, or under any political blog, or heck, look at encyclopedia dramatica or fark or 4chan: it is clear that Berners-Lee's image of the Internet died in September of 1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
there's nothing sadder than an old idealist, still believing in a utopian vision that died a long time ago, and will never exist
unless the DRM is a lot worse
all DRM is eventually defeated (region free playing, sharpie on the inner ring, etc), but if BluRay makes you jump through more hoops, and spend more money, for less rights, it's a turn off
what we need to do is look into the origins of this counterproductive preoccupation to find out how it started
the internet
1. where someone can be guaranteed to post a mindlessly negative and/ or cynical response to your comment
2. someone else can read into what you say with the most radical assumptions you never even remotely alluded to, and respond with an angry tirade as if you had said something totally different
3. someone else can take the most throwaway ridiculous joke... and consider it with the utmost seriousness
http://www.google.com/search?q=internet+serious+business
not to destroy them, but to send them out into space, in a random trajectory, like voyager 1. 300 centuries hence, our distant children, or aliens, can find them, decipher them, and find all about the wonders of cookies, porn spam, twitpics, and excel 2003, among other digital detritus of our lives
i've gotten experts exchange results in google searches forever, and i loathe them
however, not once, in years, have i seen "experts exchange" written in such a way in your post that it makes me think "expert sex change"
so thanks. thanks a lot. for making a bane of my existence somehow even worse. because now i will never look at "experts exchange" in google results again without seeing "expert sex change"
the bible doesn't talk about neutrons
it would hasten the return of the the mahdi, the hidden imam. if you are promised salvation at armageddeon, and you are a true believer, maybe you can hasten salvation by hastening armageddeon. you have to kill some people to save them right?
if that sounds like religious fundamentalist self-fulfilling prophecy kookery, well yes, yes it is
you do realize that iran is a theocracy, right? power is invested in a bunch of grumpy old men who somehow have a monopoly on interpreting the willpower of god. that's their government. that bothers me. not because its muslim, but because its FUNDAMENTALIST. a fundamentalist christian theocracy with nukes would bother me too (and this is where some of you call the usa that, and reveal yourselves to be complete morons unworthy of commenting on world affairs)
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html
you can say all you want about the usa and israel. they both do plenty wrong in the world and the middle east. but regardless about how you feel about the usa and israel, do you really want a THEOCRACY armed with nuclear weapons in this world?! does that somehow neutralize or make up for the sins of israel and the usa? how's that work?
there's a lot of strange people out there, who, in their hatred of the usa and israel, will embrace and excuse the behavior of far worse entities. i don't understand that thinking. and when i say "far worse entities," don't take my word for it: a few years ago some people in iran voted, and their votes were ignored, and they protested, and they were brutally crushed. ask an IRANIAN what they think of their government, that freely ignores them, they whom the government is supposed to represent
so in your hatred of the usa and israel, don't move to embrace entities far worse
do you know its actually possible to dislike the usa, israel AND iran at the same time? try it. then you will find yourself adhering to actual principles, rather than moronic chest thumping tribalism. its not a football game. you don't have to pick sides. you can actually reject all sides. just don't be a complete moron and embrace and defend the murderer because you dislike the rapist
the american economy suffered a burst bubble from an overheated real estate market in 2008. it might be a long painful recovery
but if it gets your political inclinations excited to derive deeper portents, have at it
people trade in the currency that is seen most stable RELATIVELY. some background: as the 2008 crisis began, people began to flee the dollar. then, as the crisis began to ripple across the rest of the world, some places wound up weaker than the usa, and people began to return the dollar. why? not because the dollar was stable, but because the dollar was RELATIVELY stable compared to the problems in many other places, like europe
currently, the yuan is probably the most stable currency, but china has plenty of exposure to potential problems that could blow up worse than the usa. then the dollar might again be the most RELATIVELY stable currency, or not, or some other currency. i don't know. neither do you
financial chicanery is something that only happens in the west?
genuine economic activity only happens outside the west?
the us dollar has weakened, so it makes sense to look at other currencies for transactions. if those other currencies also weaken, well then you look around again for the next safest currency
that's the beginning and end of the entire story here
currently, the chinese real estate market is overheating. some say china could go through the same bust followed by anemia that japan has suffered since its real estate market tanked in 1990. or maybe it won't. either way, the yuan looks safest right now, but that is subject to change. just like any other currency, including the dollar
we are entering an era which is more fluid financially, so people will be trading in all sorts of currencies, depending on various perceptions of strength, that should shift over time. nothing pro- or anti-western about it. stop trying to inject politics into a subject matter which is pretty bloodless and simple: "what's the safest currency?" when they think about that, they think relative stability, nothing more
How does it work?
grey area: some people think its ok, some people don't. grey area
anything else i can help you with today?
"No. You're missing the point. The issue is not that there's a grey area"
ok
", it's that what is sexual stimulation for one is just a medical curiosity for someone else"
in other words, a gray area
get back to us when you can say something logically coherent
so you get false positives ands false negatives. i accept that reality. you minimize it the best you can, but that you get false negatives and positives doesn't mean the definition is without meaning and isn't worth pursuing
analogy: the justice system often convicts innocent people. it also doesn't catch many perpetrators. your conclusion: the pursuit of justice is without meaning and isn't worth pursuing. same ridiculous argument
i said gray areas don't argue against the stark black and white
stop pointing at gray areas and thinking they mean the blatantly obvious isn't blatantly obvious
you define pornography, and you are going to hit some gray areas. so fucking what?
welcome to reality. because you can't get an exact fit doesn't meant the definition is without value, meaning, or usefulness
the constitution is a living pact with the people and subject to change. it is not a holy document from a fundamentalist religion that is above amendment or questioning
there should be a term for it, because i see this fallacy a lot. "reducto ad grey area"?
anyway, the point is simple: because a grey area exists does not mean we can't define black and white. people are always saying "ooh! ooh! look! a grey area! therefore there is no black and white, good and evil, right and wrong" etc. this is some lame loser teenager bullshit in your thinking
a site that instructs women how to inspect their breasts in the shower for lumps/ breast cancer is NOT pornography
a site that shows a woman being penetrated by two guys and giving a blowjob to a horse IS pornography
and in between exists a grey area, yes. so what?
the existence of that grey area does not nullify or change the fact that black and white are real, nor does it argue anyone should try to stop classifying pornography as pornography. pornography is real, pornography can be defined. the existence of grey areas doesn't change that. got it?
that's like saying music pirates will get a lobby and become respectable. not going to happen because of the music industry's entrenched lobbyists, right?
same here: the part your missing is the entrenched players: the brick-and-mortar gambling industry, which sees the online world as a threat. their lobbyists are behind this move
that great spark of power, that has propelled mankind from fetid caves, cruel and dark,
to chariots, to sailing ships, to steam locomotives, to automobiles, to jet engines, to the moon...
and eventually to fetid internet comment boards, cruel and dark