but you actually want me to take advice on technology from this fossil?
its hard to be an authority on a subject matter you do not fully and freely partake of, don't you think?
"Just because the guy doesn't take the well-worn path he's out of touch?"
considering that the concept of taking "the well worn path" and the concept of being "out of touch" are pretty much antonyms, then yes
as for being an "intellectual conformist": conforming the validity of opinions to those who actually attempt to engage in the subject matter... that's not intellectual conformity, that's topical conformity
i mean i have a great opinion for you on the proper engine to use in race cars. but i don't actually race cars. pffffffft
if i said i didn't believe in blood transfusions, would that color your impression of any medical ethics opinions i might have?
lets be intellectually honest here: anyone who doesn't browse the web is completely out of touch with the main thrust of anything and everything computer related in the last 15 years
that your idea of what a "responsible libertarian" is is permanently fringe?
that what people want, the world over, strictly out of simple human desires/ shortcomings, is permanently and forever at war with your conception of some sort of ideal. to bring the usa into the equation is a simple red herring. you are attempting to blame basic aspects of simple human nature on some sort of american mind control experiment, apparently. if the usa never existed, you'd have the same complaints
you will never ever see what you think your ideals stand for appear in this world as a major societal structure, anywhere. simply because your entire ideological formulation is based on a failed understanding of basic human nature. see? that what has to be done, is you have to understand human nature better
the communists also had a failed understanding of how the world and simple human nature works. communism on paper is actually completely wonderful, and those who formulated it actually and genuinely believed they were making the world a better place. until all the stalins that come along and turn the country into a new monarchy, and without that pesky thing called selfish desire for oneself, one's family, one's immediate community... that actually leads to a richer society for all, in a way better than any communist plan ever could
you are not the first naive ideologue in this world, and you won't be the last. but what you share in common with all utopianists throughout history is a fundamentally flawed understanding of the human beings you inhabit the planet with. you have a passion, but your passion is based upon a model of human behavior THAT NO HUMAN GROUP HAS EVER BEHAVED OR EVER WILL
a revolution IS necessary
in your mind and how you view your world and the people who live in it
not controversial in terms of dealing with abortion or gun control, but controversial in terms of some people really found the movie totally stupid, while some people really found the movie to be really funny
movies like napolean dynamite are genre edge conditions, and people who apparently agree on everything else about movies in general encounter movies like this one and suddenly dramatically differ on their opinion of it, in completely unpredictable ways
by simply ignoring data from anyone who ever rented SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2, Gigli, From Justin to Kelly, Disaster Movie, any movie by Uwe Boll and any movie starring Paris Hilton
could be a consequence of this superswitch turning off a whole bunch of things, not just whether or not hgh is produced. perhaps her body has always produced hgh? the superswitch might only govern response to hgh, not hgh production. or it might govern both, or a whole bunch of other developmental issues and causes and effects. not responding to hgh is just one small piece i bet of the puzzle. but the bizarre thing is to find someone with a mutation in this one hypothetical superswitch
the mutation would be not in the HGH pathway, but in some pathway ABOVE the HGH pathway that governs the HGH pathway and a bunch of other growth pathways, like brain development. some deeper aspect of growth initiation, some sort of growth "superswitch" this girl has given us unique insight into
i mean superficially, the answer is definitely no. but perhaps at some other level of early development it does
or, alternately, maybe her mutation is in some previously unknown, deeper biological pathway. a deep growth superswitch pathway that controls HGH reception/release AND whatever governs brain development
it is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent, outmaneuver, and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce it
i am not in any way joking. copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work. it is all about extracting cash from you for your own culture for the sake of some bottom line on some accounting sheet
copyright must be destroyed, we must outright waged war on it on all fronts
perhaps a large conglomerate could claim intellectual property on this mutation, and mass produce cute little baby pets that never grow up and become surly teenagers. perhaps you could even clone yourself, and have a little pet baby you to waddle around in diapers and make cute cooing noises. when the novelty wears off and they become a hassle, just leave them by the side of the road, like people always do with golden retriever puppies at the end of the summer and such*
*this post brought to you in an attempt to offend every shred of ethics you have
Doctors recommended growth hormone therapy early in Brooke's life, but the treatment produced no results.
Howard Greenberg recalled the follow-up visit to the endocrinologist. "We took her back in six months, and the doctor looked at us and said, 'Why didn't you give Brooke the growth hormones?' And I said, 'We gave Brooke the growth hormones. We gave her everything you told us to do.' And Brooke didn't put on a pound, an ounce; she didn't grow an inch."
not that i know a damn thing about endocrinology, but i would speculate that this failed therapy suggest that, as we all have receptors for various hormones, her body has no such receptors for HGH. if someone is born genetically male, but has no male secondary characteristics, then either: 1. his body produces no testosterone, 2. his body produces testosterone, but his body doesn't react to it
i would say that this girl, uh, young woman, has an incredibly rare, unique mutation: insensitivity to human growth hormone. it would explain all of her symptoms
as if millions of sequined gloves and nippleated red swimsuits cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened, and the '80s will never be the same again.
and is underfunded and ending soon anyways, give atlantis the same proper ghetto treatment a contemporary of its time would receive, like 25 year old plymouth horizon: plastic sheeting and duct tape
also knock out a back tail light and finger daub "wash me" in the cosmic dust on its hood
one of mickey rourke's opponents in the ring is called "the ayatollah". nevermind the fact that in the movie "the ayatollah" is actually the wrestler's good friend when they are out of the ring. the irony of nationalism being a superficial game for the sake of ridiculous shallow spectacle apparently escapes a real ultranationalist iranian
the practice of bread and circuses goes back to ancient times, in all world cultures, and has been in continuous use since forever. you even use the goddamn latin words to describe the practice, showing you know it was once roman in convention, but apparently you're hatred of the usa is such that you can't even make the superficial connection
you know its ok to hate the american government. you are 100% vindicated and it is your right to do that. there is plenty to hate about the usa. fuck the usa. i am not defending the usa
all i ask from you is some logical coherence: if you want to at least pretend that you stand for some sort of principles, rather than simply being a blatantly transparent antiamerican tool, you should try to apply the principles you stand for equally to all world governments
in other words, its actually ok to hate the us government AND hate the iranian govt at the same time. imagine fucking that. hating the usa does not mean you have to love iran or view it as a victim, and visa versa
the enemy of your enemy is not really necessarily your friend. that is, unless you are simply trying to be yet another braindead partisan player in the geopolitical games that create so much of the suffering in this world. suffering you probably loathe. and yet you play the game, all the same, by taking sides. a hypocrite, rather than actually taking the principles you say you stand for to heart, and hating all the players in the game
Slashdot Mirror
but you actually want me to take advice on technology from this fossil?
its hard to be an authority on a subject matter you do not fully and freely partake of, don't you think?
"Just because the guy doesn't take the well-worn path he's out of touch?"
considering that the concept of taking "the well worn path" and the concept of being "out of touch" are pretty much antonyms, then yes
as for being an "intellectual conformist": conforming the validity of opinions to those who actually attempt to engage in the subject matter... that's not intellectual conformity, that's topical conformity
i mean i have a great opinion for you on the proper engine to use in race cars. but i don't actually race cars. pffffffft
what is this "backwoods" that you speak of?
what subway line do i need to take to get there?
is there any parkland, you know, trees, which i have heard fables of, in this "backwoods" place?
if i said i didn't believe in blood transfusions, would that color your impression of any medical ethics opinions i might have?
lets be intellectually honest here: anyone who doesn't browse the web is completely out of touch with the main thrust of anything and everything computer related in the last 15 years
you say its not related. i'm saying it is
that your idea of what a "responsible libertarian" is is permanently fringe?
that what people want, the world over, strictly out of simple human desires/ shortcomings, is permanently and forever at war with your conception of some sort of ideal. to bring the usa into the equation is a simple red herring. you are attempting to blame basic aspects of simple human nature on some sort of american mind control experiment, apparently. if the usa never existed, you'd have the same complaints
you will never ever see what you think your ideals stand for appear in this world as a major societal structure, anywhere. simply because your entire ideological formulation is based on a failed understanding of basic human nature. see? that what has to be done, is you have to understand human nature better
the communists also had a failed understanding of how the world and simple human nature works. communism on paper is actually completely wonderful, and those who formulated it actually and genuinely believed they were making the world a better place. until all the stalins that come along and turn the country into a new monarchy, and without that pesky thing called selfish desire for oneself, one's family, one's immediate community... that actually leads to a richer society for all, in a way better than any communist plan ever could
you are not the first naive ideologue in this world, and you won't be the last. but what you share in common with all utopianists throughout history is a fundamentally flawed understanding of the human beings you inhabit the planet with. you have a passion, but your passion is based upon a model of human behavior THAT NO HUMAN GROUP HAS EVER BEHAVED OR EVER WILL
a revolution IS necessary
in your mind and how you view your world and the people who live in it
from the excellent nyt article about the competition in november:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/22/0526216
it isn't bad movies that are the problem, taste in bad movies can still be uniform
the real problem is extremely controversial movies, most notably Napoleon Dynamite
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/
not controversial in terms of dealing with abortion or gun control, but controversial in terms of some people really found the movie totally stupid, while some people really found the movie to be really funny
movies like napolean dynamite are genre edge conditions, and people who apparently agree on everything else about movies in general encounter movies like this one and suddenly dramatically differ on their opinion of it, in completely unpredictable ways
batman even has a better sense of humor than you ;-)
the new york times had a great story about it in november
slashdot story below includes links to that nyt article, and other slashdot stories about the netflix prize:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/22/0526216
for simple intellectual satisfaction, like a giant puzzle or a game of chess
money is not the motivation for everything in this world
by simply ignoring data from anyone who ever rented SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2, Gigli, From Justin to Kelly, Disaster Movie, any movie by Uwe Boll and any movie starring Paris Hilton
suddenly, everything made sense
and no receptors
as if something far deeper and of greater consequence was being switched off
could be a consequence of this superswitch turning off a whole bunch of things, not just whether or not hgh is produced. perhaps her body has always produced hgh? the superswitch might only govern response to hgh, not hgh production. or it might govern both, or a whole bunch of other developmental issues and causes and effects. not responding to hgh is just one small piece i bet of the puzzle. but the bizarre thing is to find someone with a mutation in this one hypothetical superswitch
the mutation would be not in the HGH pathway, but in some pathway ABOVE the HGH pathway that governs the HGH pathway and a bunch of other growth pathways, like brain development. some deeper aspect of growth initiation, some sort of growth "superswitch" this girl has given us unique insight into
(scowl... limp... vicodin chomp)
i mean superficially, the answer is definitely no. but perhaps at some other level of early development it does
or, alternately, maybe her mutation is in some previously unknown, deeper biological pathway. a deep growth superswitch pathway that controls HGH reception/release AND whatever governs brain development
to ignore copyright law
no, more than that
it is your moral duty to do your utmost to circumvent, outmaneuver, and otherwise destroy copyright law and the tools that enforce it
i am not in any way joking. copyright law has nothing to do with artists rights and rewarding artists for their work. it is all about extracting cash from you for your own culture for the sake of some bottom line on some accounting sheet
copyright must be destroyed, we must outright waged war on it on all fronts
perhaps a large conglomerate could claim intellectual property on this mutation, and mass produce cute little baby pets that never grow up and become surly teenagers. perhaps you could even clone yourself, and have a little pet baby you to waddle around in diapers and make cute cooing noises. when the novelty wears off and they become a hassle, just leave them by the side of the road, like people always do with golden retriever puppies at the end of the summer and such*
*this post brought to you in an attempt to offend every shred of ethics you have
not that i know a damn thing about endocrinology, but i would speculate that this failed therapy suggest that, as we all have receptors for various hormones, her body has no such receptors for HGH. if someone is born genetically male, but has no male secondary characteristics, then either:
1. his body produces no testosterone,
2. his body produces testosterone, but his body doesn't react to it
i would say that this girl, uh, young woman, has an incredibly rare, unique mutation: insensitivity to human growth hormone. it would explain all of her symptoms
as if millions of sequined gloves and nippleated red swimsuits cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened, and the '80s will never be the same again.
and is underfunded and ending soon anyways, give atlantis the same proper ghetto treatment a contemporary of its time would receive, like 25 year old plymouth horizon: plastic sheeting and duct tape
also knock out a back tail light and finger daub "wash me" in the cosmic dust on its hood
i can type my password without even looking
watch, i'll enter my bank account password without looking
fluffybunnies
see? i didn't even need to...
oh crap...
unsubmit
where's the damn unsubmit!
mindless ethnocentrism and partisanship drives me into a rage
sorry (not really)
another movie they protested: alexander
also: the wrestler
why?
one of mickey rourke's opponents in the ring is called "the ayatollah". nevermind the fact that in the movie "the ayatollah" is actually the wrestler's good friend when they are out of the ring. the irony of nationalism being a superficial game for the sake of ridiculous shallow spectacle apparently escapes a real ultranationalist iranian
http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/wrestling-with-the-ayatollah/
the practice of bread and circuses goes back to ancient times, in all world cultures, and has been in continuous use since forever. you even use the goddamn latin words to describe the practice, showing you know it was once roman in convention, but apparently you're hatred of the usa is such that you can't even make the superficial connection
you know its ok to hate the american government. you are 100% vindicated and it is your right to do that. there is plenty to hate about the usa. fuck the usa. i am not defending the usa
all i ask from you is some logical coherence: if you want to at least pretend that you stand for some sort of principles, rather than simply being a blatantly transparent antiamerican tool, you should try to apply the principles you stand for equally to all world governments
in other words, its actually ok to hate the us government AND hate the iranian govt at the same time. imagine fucking that. hating the usa does not mean you have to love iran or view it as a victim, and visa versa
the enemy of your enemy is not really necessarily your friend. that is, unless you are simply trying to be yet another braindead partisan player in the geopolitical games that create so much of the suffering in this world. suffering you probably loathe. and yet you play the game, all the same, by taking sides. a hypocrite, rather than actually taking the principles you say you stand for to heart, and hating all the players in the game
if the rest of the map is europe, mordor is pretty much persia
why do you think that thesis is any more valid than the one i put forth?
perhaps you are correct. perhaps i am correct. but most likely, perhaps we both are, in some unknown proportion