the most important thing is to take the emphasis off of "the truth". when you realize how malleable the truth is in many complicated issues, you learn to stop appealing to the ascendency of an idea which is weak and frail
the truth is often what we make it to be. so we need to trust to people's individual bullshit meters, and we need to stop appealing to some arbitrary class of people or publication or other supposed fount of authority on matters of truth that in the end is just another source of bias
if you simply rationalize every development in the world, and never draw a line, you don't actually stand for anything. its this weird sort of person who says they are acting according to the highest of principles, but all those principles seem to come down to is: accept anything that happens
sometimes you need to take action in this world that is risky and with a cloudy outcome, sometimes you do need to go to war, for the best of reasons. sometimes violent conflict is something you need to choose to engage in, in the name of upholding your values
not that i support invading iran either. but i would certainly support covert sabotage, or another action which is provocative and aggressive but short of full-scale war
but in general, i am very suspicious of people who always seem to advocate accepting vile things in this world. tell me on what grounds you would engage in violent conflict, and i will relax about my impression of your words, comfortable that you stand for something. but some people's "morality" seems to be pretty much let a rape take place in front of them, for fear of offending the rapist
its the bizarre desperate and failing attempt at rationalization that accepts nuclear proliferaiotn in the name of nuclear disarmament. and so far, that absurdity is what you represent to me
frankly, your words are morally and logically incoherent, unless you enunciate the conditions under which you would engage in violent conflict with iran
there's this weird alien line of thought out there that goes like this: "if the usa has nukes, why shouldn't iran?"
what that thought represents is tribal nationalistic thinking trumping common sense
common sense holds that NO ONE should have nukes. so proliferation is bad, for whomever. the most logical approach to iranian proliferation then is this: "i am against iran having nukes, AND i am against the usa having nukes"
but this whole "i support iran having nukes, to balance out the usa" is a level of stupidity beneath respect
another caveat is that this approach, of seeking impartial media and using google news, only works in a country with a robust and vibrant respect for freedom of the press
using google news in china, or russia, or iran, for example, means nothing. the governments there actively seek out and destory media that does not tow the party line. china and iran may make due with detention and "reeducation" camps, but in russia, spectacular public assassination of leading opposition reporters works just as well for intimidation purposes
you could go further and say something that might strike people as absurd on the surface, but actually holds some water:
a media environment of openly partisan biased media is superior to a media environment with media that assumes impartiality
huh?
my proof of this statement would be that media that assumes impartiality is suspect. since impartiality is unattainable, you never quite know what stories are being ignored or hyped by the "impartial" media
meanwhile, consider a hypothetical city dominated by two newspapers: one openly right-leaning, one openly left-leaning. if a story happens that threatens the right's biases, they will poopoo the story, while the left-leaning media will trumpet it. and when the opposite happens, the left-leaning media will shove the story to 8 pt font on the bottom of page 34, while the right-leaning media will put it front page lead
now, all you have to do is read both sources of information (the vital "gotcha" in this scenario), and you have as close an approximation of impartiality in your news as is humanly possible. the truth is of course, unfortunately, that people pick the media that fits their preconceptions, and very few will attempt to seek out sources of information that are hostile to their worldview
furthermore, those on the fringe, the far left or far right, would view BOTH sources of information as left-leaning or right-leaning. this is because extremists on the left see left-leaning folks as to their right, and extremists on the right see right-leaning folks as to their left. but extremists see all media as biased all the time regardless of the media's level impartiality, so we can ignore the opinions of extremists when it comes to a determination of media bias, since they will never be able to see it any other way
as long as you read two sources of information that are openly left-leaning and right-leaning, you get a more impartial covering of your news than reading two supposedly impartial news sources, since you have no idea what the "impartial" sources are ignoring or hyping, but you know exactly how the biased media balance each other out
i am proud to say i even put this into some practice: two of my favorite sources of news are the bbc and the drudgereport. i think between the two i'm getting some impartiality in my news, i really do
the crticism offered in the story summary is accurate, but pointless. the idea would be to find some sort of impossibly noble source of information for which the criticism leveled at wikipedia does not also apply. since all sources of media suffer from the same sort of suspect appeal to authority or questionable fact checking, then the criticism leveled against wikipedia is not valid in the sense that it makes wikipedia any different from any other media source you can find
all media is suspect, anywhere. you go through life with a good bullshit meter, or you don't go through life at all. there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a perfectly verifiable and 100% trustworthy media, anywhere on this planet. media is a human endeavour, and as such, it is as flawed as we are. it is not a question of purposeful intent or partisan manipulation, it is a question of the unattainability of true impartiality
it is impossible for you to discover a media source that does not also suffer from the same criticism leveled at wikipedia. so continue using wikipedia, with a healthy functioning bullshit meter, teh same bullshit meter you should have on when reading any other media soruce. the criticism is useless
learn to accept the fundamental limitations of media in your world, and stop expecting the impossible out of media. it is biased, and always will be
no seriously. the best i can make out from the odd chats i've had with various little old ladies over the years is that my number was previously owned by a high end and antique pen dealership. that explains the demographics of the calls i get. an occasional little old man, sure, but mostly little old ladies make up the customer base for fine crafted pens
that attempting to control the internet also destroys much that is good about the internet. you can't turn the internet into a controlled medium like television without also making it essentially useless for the things that made it useful in the first place
the point is, you really can't warp the internet, you can only kill it. and the absence of the internet is not something people will accept once they get a taste of it
propane is now being touted as a more environmentally friendly refrigerant than freon. major manufacturers ae looking into it. the downside is safety of course, but on the plus side, existing machines that replace freon with propane report a 10-15% efficiency increase
exhibitionists are those who flaunt in public happily that which conventional wisdom has decided should be kept private. usually not for a better intellectual or moral reason, mainly just because of ego. mostly harmless
the west went through world war i and world war ii and saw what blind egotism and bigotry creates. its nothing about islam. the insanity of fundamentalist islam is pretty much the same xenophobia and ethnocentric fascism as nazism in 1930s germany. fundamentalst islam rather than nationalistic racism simply serves as the template that these maggots to congeal around this time. its really the same, the same xenophobia and feeling of superiority, based on arbitrary things like tribe, or race, or nation, or religious creed
unfortunately, i think the islamic world needs to shed some blood before it is humbled by the rotten fruits of its own fury. unfortunate but true. the passions hard at work in the middle east right now will not fade away of their own accord. what will happen is some sort of hitler will rise in the middle east, consolidate all that has inspired him, and wage holy war against all neighbors. after much death, and defeat, what rises from the ashes will have learned what bigotry reaps. too many in the islamic world right now do not realize what religious bigotry really reaps: your own downfall. the same downfall arrogance, egotism, racism, ultranationalism, tribalism reaps
people make it there concern, because they care about the state of their world. this is the noble path, and the only one with any moral or intellectual integrity
sure, there's plenty of tribal people in the world, such as yourself, only concerned with your little fiefdom. well then, be honest with your pov and simply stop commenting on that which you have chosen not to concern yourself with. but you will not convince other people to stop caring
the #1 victim of murderous islamic fundamentalists is, always was, and always will be, other muslims
other muslims who don't tow the ultrastrict line. a moderate muslim is worse than an infidel, as they should know better. and so they are job number one for murder. this is why the middle east can't modernize, can't moderate its thought. anyone who tries to do so, its instant open season for assassination
the west only seems to notice or care when these fundamentalist muslim assholes victimize the west. so the truth is, there really has been no drop in their avarice as you suggest. their avarice has simply been confined to their usual nurdering grounds: their own neighborhood
however, there is something the west should take note of: the usa is about to elect a president who is the son of an apostate. obama's father had once been a muslim. amongst the zealots, there is no greater evil than to renounce your muslim faith. worse than an infidel: an apostate. you, or your father, doesn't matter. your entire family must be murdered
certain dimwitted americans believe obama is a sort of muslim mole, like a really bad movie script. however, the truth is more twisted: muslim fundamentalists would much rather have a "crusader" as a president of the usa than an apostate. a "crusader" is an old familiar enemy, they are ready and familiar with that. but an apostate stokes their rage like no other can. they can never understand why anyone would want to abandon their creed... even though, of course, al qaeda doesn't actually represent its creed, islam. just like people who bomb abortion clinics do not represent christianity, no matter what these fundamentalist muslim and christian asshole wackjobs believe, in truth, they are pretty much the definition of evil on this planet
that islam is not represented by al qaeda is the greatest tragedy of all: to lots of people in the west, the insane ramblings and actions of al qaeda is the face of islam. its not. but its not actually the fault of the west that this is all they see of islam. the whole point of terrorism is to buy front page headlines. its very effective in this way. so moderate muslims really do need to be more vocal, to do more to defeat the fungal growth in their midst. and until moderate muslims fight al qaeda more effectively, they will only see more death and destruction... not at the hands of the west, but at the hands of those responsible for the most muslim deaths in this world: al qaeda
even with 10 more neocon american administrations invading 10 more muslim countries, al qaeda would still claim the lions share of dead muslims in this world. this doesn't jive with their recruting propaganda, but its true. a deranged young muslim, angry at the actions of the west and recruited by al qaeda, will most likely have his or her first (and last) suicide bombing job to be: murder fellow muslims. sad and true. all in the name of keeping the moderate muslim cowed and fearful and weak and in line
people really need to understand the nature of this cancer and how difficult it is to extinguish. and if not al qaeda, we will be hearing about death and destruction from religious zealots for a long time to come
but consider that no one really knows anything anymore without double checking it on the web
and how do people reconfirm their preconceptions? they go to the internet, our vast backup memory dump
and how do they check out the meanings of words on the internet?
they go to google
so all google has to do is repoint the word "evil" to pictures of unicorns and rainbows and little girls with flowers and leprechauns (ok, that last one really is evil)
that way, google doesn't once break its word
it merely breaks words themselves
google warps reality as we understand it by subtly redefining the meaning of the words we use!
Slashdot Mirror
the most important thing is to take the emphasis off of "the truth". when you realize how malleable the truth is in many complicated issues, you learn to stop appealing to the ascendency of an idea which is weak and frail
the truth is often what we make it to be. so we need to trust to people's individual bullshit meters, and we need to stop appealing to some arbitrary class of people or publication or other supposed fount of authority on matters of truth that in the end is just another source of bias
if you simply rationalize every development in the world, and never draw a line, you don't actually stand for anything. its this weird sort of person who says they are acting according to the highest of principles, but all those principles seem to come down to is: accept anything that happens
sometimes you need to take action in this world that is risky and with a cloudy outcome, sometimes you do need to go to war, for the best of reasons. sometimes violent conflict is something you need to choose to engage in, in the name of upholding your values
not that i support invading iran either. but i would certainly support covert sabotage, or another action which is provocative and aggressive but short of full-scale war
but in general, i am very suspicious of people who always seem to advocate accepting vile things in this world. tell me on what grounds you would engage in violent conflict, and i will relax about my impression of your words, comfortable that you stand for something. but some people's "morality" seems to be pretty much let a rape take place in front of them, for fear of offending the rapist
its the bizarre desperate and failing attempt at rationalization that accepts nuclear proliferaiotn in the name of nuclear disarmament. and so far, that absurdity is what you represent to me
frankly, your words are morally and logically incoherent, unless you enunciate the conditions under which you would engage in violent conflict with iran
military responses to economic and ideological problems never works
pro-israel or anti-israel
pro-usa or anti-usa
you should be against iranian proliferation
there's this weird alien line of thought out there that goes like this: "if the usa has nukes, why shouldn't iran?"
what that thought represents is tribal nationalistic thinking trumping common sense
common sense holds that NO ONE should have nukes. so proliferation is bad, for whomever. the most logical approach to iranian proliferation then is this: "i am against iran having nukes, AND i am against the usa having nukes"
but this whole "i support iran having nukes, to balance out the usa" is a level of stupidity beneath respect
it does the gathering for you
another caveat is that this approach, of seeking impartial media and using google news, only works in a country with a robust and vibrant respect for freedom of the press
using google news in china, or russia, or iran, for example, means nothing. the governments there actively seek out and destory media that does not tow the party line. china and iran may make due with detention and "reeducation" camps, but in russia, spectacular public assassination of leading opposition reporters works just as well for intimidation purposes
(assholes)
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=968167&cid=25057155
you could go further and say something that might strike people as absurd on the surface, but actually holds some water:
a media environment of openly partisan biased media is superior to a media environment with media that assumes impartiality
huh?
my proof of this statement would be that media that assumes impartiality is suspect. since impartiality is unattainable, you never quite know what stories are being ignored or hyped by the "impartial" media
meanwhile, consider a hypothetical city dominated by two newspapers: one openly right-leaning, one openly left-leaning. if a story happens that threatens the right's biases, they will poopoo the story, while the left-leaning media will trumpet it. and when the opposite happens, the left-leaning media will shove the story to 8 pt font on the bottom of page 34, while the right-leaning media will put it front page lead
now, all you have to do is read both sources of information (the vital "gotcha" in this scenario), and you have as close an approximation of impartiality in your news as is humanly possible. the truth is of course, unfortunately, that people pick the media that fits their preconceptions, and very few will attempt to seek out sources of information that are hostile to their worldview
furthermore, those on the fringe, the far left or far right, would view BOTH sources of information as left-leaning or right-leaning. this is because extremists on the left see left-leaning folks as to their right, and extremists on the right see right-leaning folks as to their left. but extremists see all media as biased all the time regardless of the media's level impartiality, so we can ignore the opinions of extremists when it comes to a determination of media bias, since they will never be able to see it any other way
as long as you read two sources of information that are openly left-leaning and right-leaning, you get a more impartial covering of your news than reading two supposedly impartial news sources, since you have no idea what the "impartial" sources are ignoring or hyping, but you know exactly how the biased media balance each other out
i am proud to say i even put this into some practice: two of my favorite sources of news are the bbc and the drudgereport. i think between the two i'm getting some impartiality in my news, i really do
of apple fame, got a vanity number once consisting of nothing but 8s. 888-8888
and he got a lot of calls from toddlers
apparently, when you are two feet tall, and reach up to press buttons on the telephone, 8 is what your fingers naturally gravitate too
and that's 100% true. i think the source was wired magazine from the late 90s. wozniak was on the front cover i think
the crticism offered in the story summary is accurate, but pointless. the idea would be to find some sort of impossibly noble source of information for which the criticism leveled at wikipedia does not also apply. since all sources of media suffer from the same sort of suspect appeal to authority or questionable fact checking, then the criticism leveled against wikipedia is not valid in the sense that it makes wikipedia any different from any other media source you can find
all media is suspect, anywhere. you go through life with a good bullshit meter, or you don't go through life at all. there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a perfectly verifiable and 100% trustworthy media, anywhere on this planet. media is a human endeavour, and as such, it is as flawed as we are. it is not a question of purposeful intent or partisan manipulation, it is a question of the unattainability of true impartiality
it is impossible for you to discover a media source that does not also suffer from the same criticism leveled at wikipedia. so continue using wikipedia, with a healthy functioning bullshit meter, teh same bullshit meter you should have on when reading any other media soruce. the criticism is useless
learn to accept the fundamental limitations of media in your world, and stop expecting the impossible out of media. it is biased, and always will be
the sword is mightier than the pen
that was a lame joke, but in actuality, my brother in law sells swords on the internet, heh
little old ladies are always calling me
no seriously. the best i can make out from the odd chats i've had with various little old ladies over the years is that my number was previously owned by a high end and antique pen dealership. that explains the demographics of the calls i get. an occasional little old man, sure, but mostly little old ladies make up the customer base for fine crafted pens
so you believed that nasty old scammer's story, huh?
on whether gambling will be successfully outlawed worldwide?
and what website can i go to to place a wager on that occurence?
that attempting to control the internet also destroys much that is good about the internet. you can't turn the internet into a controlled medium like television without also making it essentially useless for the things that made it useful in the first place
the point is, you really can't warp the internet, you can only kill it. and the absence of the internet is not something people will accept once they get a taste of it
propane is now being touted as a more environmentally friendly refrigerant than freon. major manufacturers ae looking into it. the downside is safety of course, but on the plus side, existing machines that replace freon with propane report a 10-15% efficiency increase
i'm just saying the psychological motivations aren't necessarily pure
exhibitionists are those who flaunt in public happily that which conventional wisdom has decided should be kept private. usually not for a better intellectual or moral reason, mainly just because of ego. mostly harmless
the west went through world war i and world war ii and saw what blind egotism and bigotry creates. its nothing about islam. the insanity of fundamentalist islam is pretty much the same xenophobia and ethnocentric fascism as nazism in 1930s germany. fundamentalst islam rather than nationalistic racism simply serves as the template that these maggots to congeal around this time. its really the same, the same xenophobia and feeling of superiority, based on arbitrary things like tribe, or race, or nation, or religious creed
unfortunately, i think the islamic world needs to shed some blood before it is humbled by the rotten fruits of its own fury. unfortunate but true. the passions hard at work in the middle east right now will not fade away of their own accord. what will happen is some sort of hitler will rise in the middle east, consolidate all that has inspired him, and wage holy war against all neighbors. after much death, and defeat, what rises from the ashes will have learned what bigotry reaps. too many in the islamic world right now do not realize what religious bigotry really reaps: your own downfall. the same downfall arrogance, egotism, racism, ultranationalism, tribalism reaps
if you have a human conscience
people make it there concern, because they care about the state of their world. this is the noble path, and the only one with any moral or intellectual integrity
sure, there's plenty of tribal people in the world, such as yourself, only concerned with your little fiefdom. well then, be honest with your pov and simply stop commenting on that which you have chosen not to concern yourself with. but you will not convince other people to stop caring
your money goes to support vladimir putin, hugo chavez and saudi wahabbism
do the patriotic thing and buy a domestic american wind immersion pc
and if you aren't in an area where a wind immersion pc is practical, follow t boone pickens' lead and get yourself a natural gas immersed pc
eh... on second thought, maybe not such a good idea, a natural gas immersed pc, heh
read these comments. we find:
1. those taking the subject matter so very seriously
2. those who take so very seriously the crusade to make sure no one takes the subject matter seriously
hey, wankers of all stripes:
it's fun to speculate
nothing wrong with that. nothing more than that. end of story
if you ever have the need to say or write "Bear with me", you are far better off not writing nor saying anything at that moment in time
"Bear with me" is code words for "pure unadulterated horseshit"
the #1 victim of murderous islamic fundamentalists is, always was, and always will be, other muslims
other muslims who don't tow the ultrastrict line. a moderate muslim is worse than an infidel, as they should know better. and so they are job number one for murder. this is why the middle east can't modernize, can't moderate its thought. anyone who tries to do so, its instant open season for assassination
the west only seems to notice or care when these fundamentalist muslim assholes victimize the west. so the truth is, there really has been no drop in their avarice as you suggest. their avarice has simply been confined to their usual nurdering grounds: their own neighborhood
however, there is something the west should take note of: the usa is about to elect a president who is the son of an apostate. obama's father had once been a muslim. amongst the zealots, there is no greater evil than to renounce your muslim faith. worse than an infidel: an apostate. you, or your father, doesn't matter. your entire family must be murdered
certain dimwitted americans believe obama is a sort of muslim mole, like a really bad movie script. however, the truth is more twisted: muslim fundamentalists would much rather have a "crusader" as a president of the usa than an apostate. a "crusader" is an old familiar enemy, they are ready and familiar with that. but an apostate stokes their rage like no other can. they can never understand why anyone would want to abandon their creed... even though, of course, al qaeda doesn't actually represent its creed, islam. just like people who bomb abortion clinics do not represent christianity, no matter what these fundamentalist muslim and christian asshole wackjobs believe, in truth, they are pretty much the definition of evil on this planet
that islam is not represented by al qaeda is the greatest tragedy of all: to lots of people in the west, the insane ramblings and actions of al qaeda is the face of islam. its not. but its not actually the fault of the west that this is all they see of islam. the whole point of terrorism is to buy front page headlines. its very effective in this way. so moderate muslims really do need to be more vocal, to do more to defeat the fungal growth in their midst. and until moderate muslims fight al qaeda more effectively, they will only see more death and destruction... not at the hands of the west, but at the hands of those responsible for the most muslim deaths in this world: al qaeda
even with 10 more neocon american administrations invading 10 more muslim countries, al qaeda would still claim the lions share of dead muslims in this world. this doesn't jive with their recruting propaganda, but its true. a deranged young muslim, angry at the actions of the west and recruited by al qaeda, will most likely have his or her first (and last) suicide bombing job to be: murder fellow muslims. sad and true. all in the name of keeping the moderate muslim cowed and fearful and weak and in line
people really need to understand the nature of this cancer and how difficult it is to extinguish. and if not al qaeda, we will be hearing about death and destruction from religious zealots for a long time to come
everyone is familiar with their "do no evil"
http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html
sounds pretty straightforward right?
but consider that no one really knows anything anymore without double checking it on the web
and how do people reconfirm their preconceptions? they go to the internet, our vast backup memory dump
and how do they check out the meanings of words on the internet?
they go to google
so all google has to do is repoint the word "evil" to pictures of unicorns and rainbows and little girls with flowers and leprechauns (ok, that last one really is evil)
that way, google doesn't once break its word
it merely breaks words themselves
google warps reality as we understand it by subtly redefining the meaning of the words we use!
(shudder)
google can do wrong
microsoft can do no right
apple is ok, but please don't make believe it is as good as our darling google
all evidence to the contrary be rationalized to fit into pre-established prejudices in the manner of the story summary