freudian psychology is of course bulls***, exactly as you say
it's like other pseudoscientific, yet highly influential lines of thought that have been thoroughly debunked like lamarckism, phlogiston, phrenology, etc.
however, in the historical context, these topics are vitally important. modern psychology resembles freudian psychology like a modern ICBM resembles fireworks
however, if it weren't for fireworks, you can be sure everything that came after would have never happened
like alchemy: these guys were trying to make gold from lead. i think its kind of funny and ironic that centuries later, after refinements to chemistry, physics, etc., as a joke, some guys with some extra time at a heavy ion collider, did exactly that, convert lead into gold, as an afterthought. but they thereby reaffirmed the original goal of alchemists centuries before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics#History
so my bet is that centuries from now, deep in the cognitive research and brain engineering advances still centuries from us, someone will come across a rather nifty bit of freudian psychology as a major truth about how our brains work. and it will be funny, and everyone will have a bit of a laugh about it
so don't belittle where you came from son. your great grandchildren will certainly laugh at your petty pursuits, but their pursuits are built on your shoulders. show some respect to freud and his silliness, it trailblazed
some of this stuff is (relatively) cheap, if you stray away from the really big names. i'm talking names like angstrom, fahrenheit, ampere, babbage, von neumann, can be had for a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand bucks
some of you may wonder what the fuss is all about, but to me, this stuff is awesome. its the fruits of the enlightment, the intellectual explosion of mankind, solid proof of the greatness of mankind, that you can buy and hold in your hands
a lot of us here work in computer science. well, for $2500 you can own the first edition book of something that pretty much started the entire computer field, boolean logic:
BOOLE, George (1815-1864). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. London: Macmillan and Co., 1854.
please people, please, do not go into the CVS unless the change is major enough to warrant the attention. every little class tweak is not Changelog-worthy. There are a lot of eyes reading this CVS, and we don't want to be too verbose. And as for pregnancy...
its possible that OJ killed his wife and her dude AND the LAPD was a racist organization. but just because the LAPD was racist, doesn't mean OJ is innocent. the parent poster is right, you really have to turn off your brain to somehow conclude OJ is innocent
is the process of taking observations, forming principles from those observations, and thereby predicting future results
i have observed that mankind tends to think anthropocentrically, the principle i derive from that is beliefs that are anthropocentric will fall in the face of future scientific evidence. the big bang is anthropocentirc about mankind's frame of reference in time and space being the only valid frame of reference to theorize from
therefore, the big bang will come to pass, like lamarckism, phlogiston, or phrenology. all complete scientific theories in thir times, but doomed to the historical dustbin by being incomplete malformed ideas
anonymity doesn't protect you from being an evil prick. if you are evil enough, your anonymity SHOULD be stripped. the question of course, is how evil do you have to be? what this woman did to this child is pretty far in to the territory of deserves to have her anonymity stripped, and to be punished
but there are a thousand other examples you or i could generate that are clearly NOT ripe for anonymity stripping, even if someone is offended. then there are plenty of situations that sit on the borderline
so, like i said: the real world. its not set in stone. and idealistic, fundamentalist, absolutist positions such as:
1. there should be no anonymity anywhere 2. anonymity should be preserved under any condition
are both wrong and unworkable
the best solution is somewhere in between, the grey area
there are grey areas in life. it is difficult to say in some cases what the right thing to do is. so, in other words: welcome to the real world. you have no absolute protections
and if you are big enough of a dick online, someone somewhere may strip you of your anonymity. don't like it? sorry, that's reality, deal with it. you are not protected from the consequences of what you say
maybe you should excommunicate me like galileo for doubting established dogma. you need more fury in your defense of science as a static, unchanging, decided thing. how dare i! sacriledge!
and i can see in the grammar nazi like way your brittle mind sputters over the definition of the word "centrism" that you can't think very well abstractly, evwrything must be literal and cut and dry
there are unknowns and specious interpretations. the "truth" of the big bang is full of them. i await the dismantling of the big bang, it is too anthropocentric, too old testament in its creation mystique
but i don't support the logic in the summary either
it presumes something: the perfectly rational terrorist. well, if terrorists acted rationally, they wouldn't commit terrorism
at some point, in the "logic" of someone who arrives at the conclusion that they should take over/ blow up an airplane, there is a failure in reason. you catch this failure in reason a number of different ways, most of which ways happen long before a terrorist gets anywhere near an airplane
however, there still exists a subclass (parent class?) of terrorists that are just insane. and that, in fact, would go to the airport without id. "no they wouldn't", you say "that doesn't make sense". and blowing up/ taking over an airplane does make sense to you? failure in reason is failure in reason. the idea is to catch the failure in reason in the most reliably way possible: profiling their irrational behavior. of course, asking for id, and having the request politely refused, is total bullshit
but so is the argument put forth in the story summary of the perfectly rational terrorist
i don't see why the universe can't be endless in time and space, and the expansion and contraction we see is local, while somewhere else they are having a pinch. kind of like the choppy surface of the ocean on a windy day: troughs and peaks
once we thought the earth was the center of the universe. we threw that centrism out the window. can't people see that the big bang theory is the same kind of centrism?: "this is all we know, therefore, that's all there is"
if there is anything science teaches us, it is that we are not the center of everything
you honestly believe, with or without any new laws on the web, that you could say whatever the hell you want and not offend someone, somewhere, possibly resulting in repercussions?
the concept of free speech does not include freedom from the consequences of what you say
someone could say they were a minor on the internet, you can still harass them. because anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. maybe i'm a 66 year old pensioner in bangalore. how do you know who i really am?
so to be a crime, in my book, the person has to know for sure they are dealing with a child
in the meier case, this adult women KNEW, 100%, that she was dealing with
1. a girl 2. an emotionally unstable girl
that's what makes the case especially evil, and especially different from random anonymous trolling
eutrophication is when the soil is fertilized for agriculture, and the run off causes a massive boom in algae in rivers and streams and bays, which suck out all of the oxygen, reducing a previously complex ecosystem into a slime pit
so what we have here is eutrophication of our entire planet, its atmosphere
the idea of being good stewards of our planet is not a monopolar concept. it is about keeping things in balance
oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race. that is, more black people tended to think of oj as innocent, and more white people thought of him as guilty
the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson. had this guy not authored a file system,
1. no one would care about this case 2. most would assume his guilt
a lot pof people here think of themselves as intelligent and unbiased. if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins
1. you apologize for shouting "straw man" when you didn't even try to read the comments
2. you wish to amuse me by repeating my own concerns about possessing the moon, but as if they occured to you originally, and in contradiction to something i said
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be a MINOR
as was the case with meier
or
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be emotionally or mentally compromised
as was ALSO the case with meier
with those caveats, all trolling on the internet would not count in the legislation, mostly because it is anonmyous, and between (nominally) mentally fit adults
will serve the same purpose in the near future that it has in the past: a nationalist chest thumping exercise
1. it demonstrates to other nations technological prowess. don't mess with us, we have the tech to go to the moon
2. it demonstrates to citizens how wonderful the usa/ china/ india is. they forget their earthly concerns
there is absolutely no other valid purpose besides that, for the short term
as for the long term, i won't pretend to know there might not be a more long term purpose, if you don't pretend to know of a specious long term purpose
Slashdot Mirror
Then you're really going to hate me now: you can buy your very own ENIGMA machine for $20K!!!
:-)
I won't link to the listing so as to damper the hype
money in the bank appreciating value better than a CD... if not recording as much data as the other kind of CD ;-)
freudian psychology is of course bulls***, exactly as you say
it's like other pseudoscientific, yet highly influential lines of thought that have been thoroughly debunked like lamarckism, phlogiston, phrenology, etc.
however, in the historical context, these topics are vitally important. modern psychology resembles freudian psychology like a modern ICBM resembles fireworks
however, if it weren't for fireworks, you can be sure everything that came after would have never happened
like alchemy: these guys were trying to make gold from lead. i think its kind of funny and ironic that centuries later, after refinements to chemistry, physics, etc., as a joke, some guys with some extra time at a heavy ion collider, did exactly that, convert lead into gold, as an afterthought. but they thereby reaffirmed the original goal of alchemists centuries before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics#History
so my bet is that centuries from now, deep in the cognitive research and brain engineering advances still centuries from us, someone will come across a rather nifty bit of freudian psychology as a major truth about how our brains work. and it will be funny, and everyone will have a bit of a laugh about it
so don't belittle where you came from son. your great grandchildren will certainly laugh at your petty pursuits, but their pursuits are built on your shoulders. show some respect to freud and his silliness, it trailblazed
i knew i should have included a link to christie's site for the auction:
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/searchresults.aspx?intSaleID=21644#intSaleID=21644
some of this stuff is (relatively) cheap, if you stray away from the really big names. i'm talking names like angstrom, fahrenheit, ampere, babbage, von neumann, can be had for a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand bucks
some of you may wonder what the fuss is all about, but to me, this stuff is awesome. its the fruits of the enlightment, the intellectual explosion of mankind, solid proof of the greatness of mankind, that you can buy and hold in your hands
a lot of us here work in computer science. well, for $2500 you can own the first edition book of something that pretty much started the entire computer field, boolean logic:
BOOLE, George (1815-1864). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. London: Macmillan and Co., 1854.
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5084071
well, maybe not $2500 after i just hyped the dang thing
christie's should be paying me a dang commission!
please people, please, do not go into the CVS unless the change is major enough to warrant the attention. every little class tweak is not Changelog-worthy. There are a lot of eyes reading this CVS, and we don't want to be too verbose. And as for pregnancy...
wait, what?
isn't that when the mayan calendar is supposed to end?
http://skepdic.com/maya.html
so the sun is just preparing to shut down, for the coming end of the world, of course
its possible that OJ killed his wife and her dude AND the LAPD was a racist organization. but just because the LAPD was racist, doesn't mean OJ is innocent. the parent poster is right, you really have to turn off your brain to somehow conclude OJ is innocent
is the process of taking observations, forming principles from those observations, and thereby predicting future results
i have observed that mankind tends to think anthropocentrically, the principle i derive from that is beliefs that are anthropocentric will fall in the face of future scientific evidence. the big bang is anthropocentirc about mankind's frame of reference in time and space being the only valid frame of reference to theorize from
therefore, the big bang will come to pass, like lamarckism, phlogiston, or phrenology. all complete scientific theories in thir times, but doomed to the historical dustbin by being incomplete malformed ideas
such is the fate of the big bang theory
anonymity doesn't protect you from being an evil prick. if you are evil enough, your anonymity SHOULD be stripped. the question of course, is how evil do you have to be? what this woman did to this child is pretty far in to the territory of deserves to have her anonymity stripped, and to be punished
but there are a thousand other examples you or i could generate that are clearly NOT ripe for anonymity stripping, even if someone is offended. then there are plenty of situations that sit on the borderline
so, like i said: the real world. its not set in stone. and idealistic, fundamentalist, absolutist positions such as:
1. there should be no anonymity anywhere
2. anonymity should be preserved under any condition
are both wrong and unworkable
the best solution is somewhere in between, the grey area
there are grey areas in life. it is difficult to say in some cases what the right thing to do is. so, in other words: welcome to the real world. you have no absolute protections
and if you are big enough of a dick online, someone somewhere may strip you of your anonymity. don't like it? sorry, that's reality, deal with it. you are not protected from the consequences of what you say
mankind is not the center of the universe
extrapolation would be: our frame of reference in time and space is not the totality of the universe
it is egotisitical and anthropocentric to imagine the slight bit of what we have seen should be a good definition of all there is
understand where i am coming from now?
i don't know of a scientific method that says "ok, we have seen everything, there is nothing more to see that would change how we understand things"
if you arrive at that thought, then the big bang is easily understood as a stop gap measure, and a poor, old testemant derived one at that
(reference story above that we are arguing under)
maybe you should excommunicate me like galileo for doubting established dogma. you need more fury in your defense of science as a static, unchanging, decided thing. how dare i! sacriledge!
spoken like a religious devotee, not a scientist
this is science's way of dealing with those who take something as literal truth that is not totally proven:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/science/10auct.html?ex=1370750400&en=c9d19e51a82df186&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
and i can see in the grammar nazi like way your brittle mind sputters over the definition of the word "centrism" that you can't think very well abstractly, evwrything must be literal and cut and dry
there are unknowns and specious interpretations. the "truth" of the big bang is full of them. i await the dismantling of the big bang, it is too anthropocentric, too old testament in its creation mystique
but i don't support the logic in the summary either
it presumes something: the perfectly rational terrorist. well, if terrorists acted rationally, they wouldn't commit terrorism
at some point, in the "logic" of someone who arrives at the conclusion that they should take over/ blow up an airplane, there is a failure in reason. you catch this failure in reason a number of different ways, most of which ways happen long before a terrorist gets anywhere near an airplane
however, there still exists a subclass (parent class?) of terrorists that are just insane. and that, in fact, would go to the airport without id. "no they wouldn't", you say "that doesn't make sense". and blowing up/ taking over an airplane does make sense to you? failure in reason is failure in reason. the idea is to catch the failure in reason in the most reliably way possible: profiling their irrational behavior. of course, asking for id, and having the request politely refused, is total bullshit
but so is the argument put forth in the story summary of the perfectly rational terrorist
i don't see why the universe can't be endless in time and space, and the expansion and contraction we see is local, while somewhere else they are having a pinch. kind of like the choppy surface of the ocean on a windy day: troughs and peaks
once we thought the earth was the center of the universe. we threw that centrism out the window. can't people see that the big bang theory is the same kind of centrism?: "this is all we know, therefore, that's all there is"
if there is anything science teaches us, it is that we are not the center of everything
you aren't protected from everything
you honestly believe, with or without any new laws on the web, that you could say whatever the hell you want and not offend someone, somewhere, possibly resulting in repercussions?
the concept of free speech does not include freedom from the consequences of what you say
but the word "blog" is bad for you
the word "blogosphere" is fatal in a 10 foot radius
if i wrote the law:
someone could say they were a minor on the internet, you can still harass them. because anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. maybe i'm a 66 year old pensioner in bangalore. how do you know who i really am?
so to be a crime, in my book, the person has to know for sure they are dealing with a child
in the meier case, this adult women KNEW, 100%, that she was dealing with
1. a girl
2. an emotionally unstable girl
that's what makes the case especially evil, and especially different from random anonymous trolling
correct question:
"are google making us stupids? is our childrens learning?"
pollution is not defined as killing life, it is defined as wacking the natural balance out of balance
eutrophication for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
eutrophication is when the soil is fertilized for agriculture, and the run off causes a massive boom in algae in rivers and streams and bays, which suck out all of the oxygen, reducing a previously complex ecosystem into a slime pit
so what we have here is eutrophication of our entire planet, its atmosphere
the idea of being good stewards of our planet is not a monopolar concept. it is about keeping things in balance
oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race. that is, more black people tended to think of oj as innocent, and more white people thought of him as guilty
the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson. had this guy not authored a file system,
1. no one would care about this case
2. most would assume his guilt
a lot pof people here think of themselves as intelligent and unbiased. if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins
1. you apologize for shouting "straw man" when you didn't even try to read the comments
2. you wish to amuse me by repeating my own concerns about possessing the moon, but as if they occured to you originally, and in contradiction to something i said
you're a strange little wormy kid
try reading comprehension next time
pro tip: it has something to do with claiming alaska, as an allegory to the moon
thanks!
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be a MINOR
as was the case with meier
or
if it was harassment by an ADULT on a person known to them to be emotionally or mentally compromised
as was ALSO the case with meier
with those caveats, all trolling on the internet would not count in the legislation, mostly because it is anonmyous, and between (nominally) mentally fit adults
you don't think anyone else would have a problem with that?
or say china claims the moon. no one else has a problem with that?
it's one thing to turf war on earth, it is another thing entirely to turf war on a heavenly object all humanity has gazed at since eternity
will serve the same purpose in the near future that it has in the past: a nationalist chest thumping exercise
1. it demonstrates to other nations technological prowess. don't mess with us, we have the tech to go to the moon
2. it demonstrates to citizens how wonderful the usa/ china/ india is. they forget their earthly concerns
there is absolutely no other valid purpose besides that, for the short term
as for the long term, i won't pretend to know there might not be a more long term purpose, if you don't pretend to know of a specious long term purpose