1. it is proven that comic book movie adaptations are a good return on the investment. therefore, from a strictly risk/ return financial analysis, you want to make a comic book movie as opposed to say, a mafia musical. therefore, any comic book property out there is going to get a good looking at, down to the fringe. it's inevitable, and what exactly then is the problem with mining comic book properties like that? what is the rationale for which you take offense at that?
2. you don't own your favorite comic book. if someone wants to turn it into a movie, why do you feel like something has been stolen from you? why do you think something will be ruined? just don't watch. why is that so difficult for you?
but when another country does something wrong in this world, guess what? you blame that country, not the usa
i know, this is some radical thinking i'm playing with over here
to actually suppose that there are, get this, other countries in this world and, i know, floor yourself, they have their own governments and make their own decisions, and aren't just cut out cardboard characters who simply reflect what the usa is doing
there most definitely is such a thing as saltwater mist. sea spray from waves crashing on rocks drifts. salt collects on land near the ocean from the mist, making agirculture difficult except for salt hardy plants. iron implements are known to rust faster near the seashore due to the increase incorrosion from saltwater mist
anything that can be dissolved in water can become a mist if agitated
makes ads that interfere with user experience, they will get less traffic, and less ad revenue
duh
its a self-correcting problem
what are you? the self appointed czar of ad appropriateness? don't worry about it. the ad experience will always be on the sideline, it will never overwhelm your browsing experience, because if it did, those websites that use such methods would see a decrease in revenue. what happens instead is that a maximum of ads will be placed in a maximum of intrusiveness, mindful of the audience's tolerance of either
look at ads in a magazine, or ads on tv. those are carefulyl calibrated rates of display so as to maximize revnue and minimize audience intolerance
meanwhile, i made a joke about ads jumping out the monitor and mauling you, and you took that as a serious exposition
wtf? billboards interfering with your drive? are you for real?
its like dealing with someone with some sort of nervous disorder
you would root for more insidious advertising, since you make money off of cleaning it up
'Well, I work in computer security and mmm "advertising" (usually in its more insidious forms) accounts for about 40% of the security problems in most organizations.'
hilarious and ignorant
let's see if i can play your game:
Wellll, I work for NSA and uuuhh aaah mmmm "trolls" (usually the smellier kind) account for 39.4202458% of terroristic threats to NATO member states.
pffft
1. grandiose inflation of importance 2. autistic speech cadence (aahh mmm) 3. bullshit made up statistics
based on those 3 points, you know what would be a better use of your time?
almost as if ads crawl out of the monitor and maul you
reading your words i feel like i'm dealing with one of those autistic kids who clap their ears and cower and stoop at the sound of a loud noise or bright light
hey assholes: what do you think PAYS for all of the shiny fun websites you like? what do you think pays for slashdot? the hot air in your comments? your sense of self-regard?
not that you have to click on ads you don't like and never will, but maybe you can show the slightest sense of humility and simply shut up: SOMEONE is clicking them, and that someone is paying for the site you like. you think they are morons? your enjoyment of the websites you like is due to the "morons" who click on the ads you hate
in other words, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. all you have to do so that what pays for your websites continues paying for your websites is to learn to shut up when you are smart enough to know you should shut up
some of you apparently are not smart enough to know when to shut up
but say that the sum total of our potential to go completely extinct is rate {X}
if we colonize mars, or venus, that rate goes to {X}/100
simply because you remove off the table a huge range of threats: asteroids, megalomaniacs who unleash nuclear armageddeon, grey goo, etc
then, if we colonize a planet around another sun, that rate goes to {X}/1,000,000
because we remove a whole host of other factors, including the various threats posed by our sun doing something nasty
of course, that other planet in another star system will still be close by, so if something goes bad in the stellar neighborhood, we can still all go, but you get my drift:
colonizing at least one other planet in the solar sytem dramatically increases our survival rate, and colonizing at least one other planet outside our solar system takes our survival rate to yet another dramatic orders of magnitude increase
so we must do at least these two things before we can relax
is a story fretting about nasa funding shortfalls under the obama administration
so the larger take home message is that yes, while the american space program is but a shadow of its former glory, the global space race is alive and well, with china with its space walks and india with its moon landings, rising in prominence. the eu, australia, japan, brazil... lots of nations are in the game, no longer is it a cold war chest thumping exercise between the ussr and the usa
well, its still a tribal chest thumping exercise, but there are a lot more chest thumpers;-)
and you can fret that such a low brow motivation should fund such a high brow cause, but personally, i think in this case, the ends justify the means. with all of our problems we have in the world, its amazing we can get any space funding at all. and if we harness nationalistic pride to propel mankind into space, so be it. i don't care how we get there, as long as we get there. the higher and nobler causes can only be served by getting us into space
sacrificing biologically for a good meme is absolutely valid
but all those good memes won't mean a thing if a bad meme is also allowed to propagate
i'm not aruging against the idea of sacrificing for a meme, i'm arguing against the idea of sacrificing for a bad meme
where "bad meme" is any that could result in our extinction
such as religious extremism, or nihilism. both armageddeon and the meaningless of life are ideas that are self-fulfilling prophecies
and whereas genetic has a pretty good track record of weeding out bad genes, civilization's existence is too short to fully understand if it has the mechanisms for weeding out bad ideas, or fatal ideas
in all other species, the idea is optimization of genes expressed for maximum survival. it's a feedback loop that has worked very well for billions of years
however, in humanity, with our brains and our language and our civilization, our biological survival has become of secondary importance to the survival of our memes. we sacrifice for larger ideas. suicide bombers will sacrifice that which genetic imperative considers the ultimate sin: extinguishing of life before reproduction. but from a meme's point of view, if it reinforces an idea's survival, its a good thing. memes are kind of like genes in that they look for maximum expression, but unlike genes in that they don't care if we actually survive
therefore, you could have a meme propogate in civilization that embraces our own extinction. nihilism is an example of a meme which embraces the meaningless of life and pointlessness of survival, for example. just look at the tags on the slashdot summary: "letthemdienews". there are a lot of people out there for whom cynicism and learned helplessness has led to not caring and even actively embrace our extinction
humanity as a biological entity, a growth, if you will, has done remarkably well. 7 billion is a good number in terms of judging success for the large mammals that we are. our brains and our tool use has allowed us to survive in the tundra and in the desert. we've done really good as animals so far
but our memes, a recent development in civilization that has not stood the test of time and has no direct genetic allegory, has no real stake in the survival of the biological organism which creates them with our language
space funding was, is, and always will be about tribal chest thumping. it's a pretty lowbrow motivation, but if it gets our ass into space, one of our most highbrows endeavours, who cares? the ends justify the means
and what do we have in the world today?
india just set down on the moon, today, right now:
russian and american space efforts, while anemic as compared to the glory days of the past, are still very much alive and kicking. japan, the eu, brazil, australia... lots of countries are in the space game nowadays
so i don't understand the panicked tones you often hear when mentioning humanity in space. the golden era is not over, its very much alive and kicking and growing... as a GLOBAL endeavour, not taken cooperatively, but at least undertaken by more than two players
of course, the usa isn't as nearly as potent as it used to be in the space effort, but so what? if that worries you, if that causes you panic, guess what: you seem to be motivated by the low brow rather than the high brow
the idea is to get HUMANITY into space, right? not just americans. as far as getting humanity into space, we're doing fine. with that highbrow goal in mind, you should be happy about mankind's forays into space today. ok, your job prosepects in the us space program might not be as golden anymore, to which i say: who cares? go to india, go to china, or sit back and relax and watch the show on tv
all is going woderfully well in man's efforts in space nowadays. really. relax and enjoy
i didn't presume anything. you presumed that i was talking about all moral codes everywhere, as opposed to a few common sense ones. i'm not talking wearing white after labor day, i'm talking about things like robbing a bank. is robbing a bank something that is controversial? is there a morality where robbing banks is acceptable?
a society functions when its members obey simple moral codes. when you break those codes, you hurt society. you have given up your side of an obligation. therefore, society owes you no more obligation to honor the code of honorable treatment towards you anymore. you broke an agreement. why do you expect society to continue honoring its side of an agreement you ignored?
an idiot is an idiot. you have to understand the full ramifications of that
by definition, because they can't do the logic you just outlined above, they ar eincapable of engaging in the mechanisms of doing wrong other than being the one is done wrong to
stupidity is not evil. the mind that full well knows what it is doing wrong, and does it anyway, over a carefully planned and sustained period, deserved all accountability for the crime
meanwhile, if you insist on blaming the stupid, for being stupid, you're
1. not going to get any results. we're talking about the stupid again, right? 2. apportioning blame away from real evildoers onto their victims
all blame should go to the one who commits the trangression, and never the one who is transgressed, no matte rhow foolish they behave. this is the only point of view oyu can take and be morally coherent on the larger meaning of what it means to be responsible
you, by blaming the vicitm, ar ehelping to enable the criminal with the "but the devil made me do it" defense
people have two, i guess you could say, prejudices, when it comes to crime
some people automatically blame themselves, some people automatically blame someone else, regardless of who is to actually blame
you can see this play out in all sorts of crimes: say a guy gets drunk and gets in a car accident. as he is being led away by the police, he is screaming at the driver of the car he hit for being a moron. this guy's prejudice is that whenever something goes wrong, its someone else's fault, never his
now let's talk about a domestic beating situation, where the guy comes home, beats the wife senseless for not cooking the pot roast enough, then goes to bed. the wife blames herself, for not cooking the pot roast enough. this woman's prejudice is that whenever something goes wrong, it is her fault, never someone else's
both of these prejudice are alive and well on questions of accountability, blame, morality, etc., on all sorts of events in this world, from small daily snafus to major international events
but these prejudices about who is to blame can often be far off from a logically valid analysis of blame, because they come from a preconcieved notion of how to apportion blame, which can oftentimes stray far from logic and reason
so i understand your attitude, and your approach, but you really have just blame the criminal, the one who commits the transgressive act. yes, you are often in a helpless situation, not able to do anything about a crime except change your own behavior. but that's not morally valid. learning to blame yourself for more than you are actually accountable for is not only morally unsound, it is dangerous to you psychologically. when you blame yourself fro crimes you are the vicitm in, you are doing damage to your psyche
howabout we use a new concept: functional morality, or utilitarian righteousness, or whatever sounds cool to you...
the point being, we wish to live in a world with a bare minimum possible of nigerian scammers, right?
well, what is best focus of our moral and legal imperative to punish?
if we are waging a war on this activity, who do we target, who do we punish?
well, we need stupid people to enable the activities of these criminals
but the stupid victims are just that: stupid. stupidity is an endless bottomless pit. you will never get rid of stupid people in this world
meanwhile, there are only a certain number of scammers. oh sure, its a game of wackamole, and there will always people who will pursue scamming as a way to make cash, just as certainly as there will always be stupid people
however, you are trying to do your best to minimize scammers, therefore, simply because the scammers are the smaller pool in question, you focus all of your righteous fury, functional punishment, whatever you want to call it, on them, and you actually make a larger dent on this activity
you get better results than if you meanwhile hem and haw about stupid people. which will make no difference. there will always be suckers
how's that arugment strike you?:
focus your contempt on the nigerian scammers, get better results
Slashdot Mirror
one-eyed san francisco artist looking for the tech that will allow her to put a webcam in her eye socket:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/15/2008-11-15_san_francisco_artist_looks_to_replace_lo.html
1. it is proven that comic book movie adaptations are a good return on the investment. therefore, from a strictly risk/ return financial analysis, you want to make a comic book movie as opposed to say, a mafia musical. therefore, any comic book property out there is going to get a good looking at, down to the fringe. it's inevitable, and what exactly then is the problem with mining comic book properties like that? what is the rationale for which you take offense at that?
2. you don't own your favorite comic book. if someone wants to turn it into a movie, why do you feel like something has been stolen from you? why do you think something will be ruined? just don't watch. why is that so difficult for you?
it can't be proved. it can't be disproved. end of discussion
but when another country does something wrong in this world, guess what? you blame that country, not the usa
i know, this is some radical thinking i'm playing with over here
to actually suppose that there are, get this, other countries in this world and, i know, floor yourself, they have their own governments and make their own decisions, and aren't just cut out cardboard characters who simply reflect what the usa is doing
pretty far out stuff huh?
you know, fractal scarves and tesseract mittens with quasicrystal fabric patterns
you can smell the salt
there most definitely is such a thing as saltwater mist. sea spray from waves crashing on rocks drifts. salt collects on land near the ocean from the mist, making agirculture difficult except for salt hardy plants. iron implements are known to rust faster near the seashore due to the increase incorrosion from saltwater mist
anything that can be dissolved in water can become a mist if agitated
educate yourself
I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT
Mom! Christmas Present!
{collapses, quivering}
not to throw cold water on this idea (pun intended), but a waterfall creates mist
furthermore, a warm saltwater aquarium, with all of the agitation to keep the fish alive = saltwater mist
hmm, mist + server components (or worse, saltwater mist + server components) = BZZZZT
of course you could put an airlock and dehumidifiers in the server area, but thats a lot of extra expense
but hell, i think when you faithfully recreate a supervillain's lair, you're not exactly worried about being green or saving on power consumption
makes ads that interfere with user experience, they will get less traffic, and less ad revenue
duh
its a self-correcting problem
what are you? the self appointed czar of ad appropriateness? don't worry about it. the ad experience will always be on the sideline, it will never overwhelm your browsing experience, because if it did, those websites that use such methods would see a decrease in revenue. what happens instead is that a maximum of ads will be placed in a maximum of intrusiveness, mindful of the audience's tolerance of either
look at ads in a magazine, or ads on tv. those are carefulyl calibrated rates of display so as to maximize revnue and minimize audience intolerance
meanwhile, i made a joke about ads jumping out the monitor and mauling you, and you took that as a serious exposition
wtf? billboards interfering with your drive? are you for real?
its like dealing with someone with some sort of nervous disorder
you would root for more insidious advertising, since you make money off of cleaning it up
'Well, I work in computer security and mmm "advertising" (usually in its more insidious forms) accounts for about 40% of the security problems in most organizations.'
hilarious and ignorant
let's see if i can play your game:
Wellll, I work for NSA and uuuhh aaah mmmm "trolls" (usually the smellier kind) account for 39.4202458% of terroristic threats to NATO member states.
pffft
1. grandiose inflation of importance
2. autistic speech cadence (aahh mmm)
3. bullshit made up statistics
based on those 3 points, you know what would be a better use of your time?
writing ad copy
(snicker)
almost as if ads crawl out of the monitor and maul you
reading your words i feel like i'm dealing with one of those autistic kids who clap their ears and cower and stoop at the sound of a loud noise or bright light
thanks for the laugh
i really can't tell if you are a real moron or a clever troll, which makes the humor even better
bravo (fake?) retard!
joke predates you!
"pervasive ads are less effective"
"i just use ad block"
"no one clicks on ads anymore"
blah blah blah
hey assholes: what do you think PAYS for all of the shiny fun websites you like? what do you think pays for slashdot? the hot air in your comments? your sense of self-regard?
not that you have to click on ads you don't like and never will, but maybe you can show the slightest sense of humility and simply shut up: SOMEONE is clicking them, and that someone is paying for the site you like. you think they are morons? your enjoyment of the websites you like is due to the "morons" who click on the ads you hate
in other words, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. all you have to do so that what pays for your websites continues paying for your websites is to learn to shut up when you are smart enough to know you should shut up
some of you apparently are not smart enough to know when to shut up
but say that the sum total of our potential to go completely extinct is rate {X}
if we colonize mars, or venus, that rate goes to {X}/100
simply because you remove off the table a huge range of threats: asteroids, megalomaniacs who unleash nuclear armageddeon, grey goo, etc
then, if we colonize a planet around another sun, that rate goes to {X}/1,000,000
because we remove a whole host of other factors, including the various threats posed by our sun doing something nasty
of course, that other planet in another star system will still be close by, so if something goes bad in the stellar neighborhood, we can still all go, but you get my drift:
colonizing at least one other planet in the solar sytem dramatically increases our survival rate, and colonizing at least one other planet outside our solar system takes our survival rate to yet another dramatic orders of magnitude increase
so we must do at least these two things before we can relax
is a story fretting about nasa funding shortfalls under the obama administration
so the larger take home message is that yes, while the american space program is but a shadow of its former glory, the global space race is alive and well, with china with its space walks and india with its moon landings, rising in prominence. the eu, australia, japan, brazil... lots of nations are in the game, no longer is it a cold war chest thumping exercise between the ussr and the usa
well, its still a tribal chest thumping exercise, but there are a lot more chest thumpers ;-)
and you can fret that such a low brow motivation should fund such a high brow cause, but personally, i think in this case, the ends justify the means. with all of our problems we have in the world, its amazing we can get any space funding at all. and if we harness nationalistic pride to propel mankind into space, so be it. i don't care how we get there, as long as we get there. the higher and nobler causes can only be served by getting us into space
sits in his own pew
sacrificing biologically for a good meme is absolutely valid
but all those good memes won't mean a thing if a bad meme is also allowed to propagate
i'm not aruging against the idea of sacrificing for a meme, i'm arguing against the idea of sacrificing for a bad meme
where "bad meme" is any that could result in our extinction
such as religious extremism, or nihilism. both armageddeon and the meaningless of life are ideas that are self-fulfilling prophecies
and whereas genetic has a pretty good track record of weeding out bad genes, civilization's existence is too short to fully understand if it has the mechanisms for weeding out bad ideas, or fatal ideas
is the species
humanity itself is its own greatest enemy
in all other species, the idea is optimization of genes expressed for maximum survival. it's a feedback loop that has worked very well for billions of years
however, in humanity, with our brains and our language and our civilization, our biological survival has become of secondary importance to the survival of our memes. we sacrifice for larger ideas. suicide bombers will sacrifice that which genetic imperative considers the ultimate sin: extinguishing of life before reproduction. but from a meme's point of view, if it reinforces an idea's survival, its a good thing. memes are kind of like genes in that they look for maximum expression, but unlike genes in that they don't care if we actually survive
therefore, you could have a meme propogate in civilization that embraces our own extinction. nihilism is an example of a meme which embraces the meaningless of life and pointlessness of survival, for example. just look at the tags on the slashdot summary: "letthemdienews". there are a lot of people out there for whom cynicism and learned helplessness has led to not caring and even actively embrace our extinction
humanity as a biological entity, a growth, if you will, has done remarkably well. 7 billion is a good number in terms of judging success for the large mammals that we are. our brains and our tool use has allowed us to survive in the tundra and in the desert. we've done really good as animals so far
but our memes, a recent development in civilization that has not stood the test of time and has no direct genetic allegory, has no real stake in the survival of the biological organism which creates them with our language
space funding was, is, and always will be about tribal chest thumping. it's a pretty lowbrow motivation, but if it gets our ass into space, one of our most highbrows endeavours, who cares? the ends justify the means
and what do we have in the world today?
india just set down on the moon, today, right now:
http://news.google.com/news?q=india+moon
where is slashdot's covering of this major story, huh?
china is sending men on spacewalks
http://news.google.com/news?q=china+space
russian and american space efforts, while anemic as compared to the glory days of the past, are still very much alive and kicking. japan, the eu, brazil, australia... lots of countries are in the space game nowadays
so i don't understand the panicked tones you often hear when mentioning humanity in space. the golden era is not over, its very much alive and kicking and growing... as a GLOBAL endeavour, not taken cooperatively, but at least undertaken by more than two players
of course, the usa isn't as nearly as potent as it used to be in the space effort, but so what? if that worries you, if that causes you panic, guess what: you seem to be motivated by the low brow rather than the high brow
the idea is to get HUMANITY into space, right? not just americans. as far as getting humanity into space, we're doing fine. with that highbrow goal in mind, you should be happy about mankind's forays into space today. ok, your job prosepects in the us space program might not be as golden anymore, to which i say: who cares? go to india, go to china, or sit back and relax and watch the show on tv
all is going woderfully well in man's efforts in space nowadays. really. relax and enjoy
so can anyone
your point?
i didn't presume anything. you presumed that i was talking about all moral codes everywhere, as opposed to a few common sense ones. i'm not talking wearing white after labor day, i'm talking about things like robbing a bank. is robbing a bank something that is controversial? is there a morality where robbing banks is acceptable?
it's not waterboarding
a society functions when its members obey simple moral codes. when you break those codes, you hurt society. you have given up your side of an obligation. therefore, society owes you no more obligation to honor the code of honorable treatment towards you anymore. you broke an agreement. why do you expect society to continue honoring its side of an agreement you ignored?
why? because you aren't an idiot
an idiot is an idiot. you have to understand the full ramifications of that
by definition, because they can't do the logic you just outlined above, they ar eincapable of engaging in the mechanisms of doing wrong other than being the one is done wrong to
stupidity is not evil. the mind that full well knows what it is doing wrong, and does it anyway, over a carefully planned and sustained period, deserved all accountability for the crime
meanwhile, if you insist on blaming the stupid, for being stupid, you're
1. not going to get any results. we're talking about the stupid again, right?
2. apportioning blame away from real evildoers onto their victims
all blame should go to the one who commits the trangression, and never the one who is transgressed, no matte rhow foolish they behave. this is the only point of view oyu can take and be morally coherent on the larger meaning of what it means to be responsible
you, by blaming the vicitm, ar ehelping to enable the criminal with the "but the devil made me do it" defense
people have two, i guess you could say, prejudices, when it comes to crime
some people automatically blame themselves, some people automatically blame someone else, regardless of who is to actually blame
you can see this play out in all sorts of crimes: say a guy gets drunk and gets in a car accident. as he is being led away by the police, he is screaming at the driver of the car he hit for being a moron. this guy's prejudice is that whenever something goes wrong, its someone else's fault, never his
now let's talk about a domestic beating situation, where the guy comes home, beats the wife senseless for not cooking the pot roast enough, then goes to bed. the wife blames herself, for not cooking the pot roast enough. this woman's prejudice is that whenever something goes wrong, it is her fault, never someone else's
both of these prejudice are alive and well on questions of accountability, blame, morality, etc., on all sorts of events in this world, from small daily snafus to major international events
but these prejudices about who is to blame can often be far off from a logically valid analysis of blame, because they come from a preconcieved notion of how to apportion blame, which can oftentimes stray far from logic and reason
so i understand your attitude, and your approach, but you really have just blame the criminal, the one who commits the transgressive act. yes, you are often in a helpless situation, not able to do anything about a crime except change your own behavior. but that's not morally valid. learning to blame yourself for more than you are actually accountable for is not only morally unsound, it is dangerous to you psychologically. when you blame yourself fro crimes you are the vicitm in, you are doing damage to your psyche
howabout we use a new concept: functional morality, or utilitarian righteousness, or whatever sounds cool to you...
the point being, we wish to live in a world with a bare minimum possible of nigerian scammers, right?
well, what is best focus of our moral and legal imperative to punish?
if we are waging a war on this activity, who do we target, who do we punish?
well, we need stupid people to enable the activities of these criminals
but the stupid victims are just that: stupid. stupidity is an endless bottomless pit. you will never get rid of stupid people in this world
meanwhile, there are only a certain number of scammers. oh sure, its a game of wackamole, and there will always people who will pursue scamming as a way to make cash, just as certainly as there will always be stupid people
however, you are trying to do your best to minimize scammers, therefore, simply because the scammers are the smaller pool in question, you focus all of your righteous fury, functional punishment, whatever you want to call it, on them, and you actually make a larger dent on this activity
you get better results than if you meanwhile hem and haw about stupid people. which will make no difference. there will always be suckers
how's that arugment strike you?:
focus your contempt on the nigerian scammers, get better results