there's nothing you or i could say that removes a gray area
however, all of the random shit that someone does is meaningless unless a rational human being could rightly constitute one of his actions as a genuine threat
i haven't seen the video, it's taken down. but the description talks about a massacre at a school on a future date
that it is best to be somewhat overweight when you are elderly, that this weight class had the lowest levels of mortality. that when you are old, being thin is a greater danger than being somewhat overweight, for all of the risk factors mentioned above in the story summary
however, at all other times in your life, being any kind of overweight begins the inevitable accumulation of damage due to extra fats in the system, extra sugars, extra inflammatory agents, etc.
so i think the best idea would be to remain thin throughout your life until old age. then, rack on the pounds (but not TOO many pounds: being grossly overweight is bad at any age)
so you wish to take that observation as a justification for brutality?
nothing that victimizes another person is ever 100% tolerated. we're still struggling with that concept, but we're making progress. i don't know how the fact things were once more brutal means that we should accept them, or say that in history there was no search for justice as well
you wish to paint a pciture of a time when all manner of horrible things took place, and no one cared
oh, they cared all right, they were just more outnumbered then
it doesn't take a saint to criticize someone else's sins
everyone sins to some extent, but those who sin the worst, are not allowed to deflect criticism because someone else jaywalks
what the yahoo execs did was wrong, period, and should be criticized
natural morality is a real concept
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 1
for example, it is not ok to eat your fellow humans, because eating the dead flesh of your own species encourages diseases. in fact, there is a prion disease called kuru, similar to mad cow disease, amongst papua new guineans who dug up and ate their dead ritualistically
likewise, fucking children incurs the wrath of parents, for good reason: it is their biological role to shepherd their children to adulthood. their interest in that is making sure the child reaches adulthood before mating. because when you are mature, you can do a better job of picking a genetically healthy mate. the genetically inferior, shoved aside, will seek to prey on those with immature abilities to choose a good mate. such that if you as a parent tolerate sexual trangression against your children, you are imperiling your own genetic lineage to an inferior set of genes: kid fuckers. preying on children is a potent sign of genetic unfitness
in other words, the strongest argument against pedophilia is not only that children are hurt, but that the completely natural and organic rage of parents against pedophiles is something that will not be dispelled and must be respected, simply because there is no placating it
and as for eating meat: go view half an hour of national geographic about what goes on on the plains of the serengeti on any given night, for the last dozen million years. meat gets eaten. sorry about how you feel about that, but that's just the way it is
throughout the entire animal kingdom there are animals eating animals, for millions of years
and throughout the animal kingdom, sex with the sexually immature isn't normal, for millions of years
it's moral, and natural, to not have sex with children, and to eat meat
pedophilia was never natural
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
that is, sex with a real child, who is biologically sexually immature. you can bet your archeologist's tenured chair that our ancestors thousands of years ago were bashing the heads of men (and women) who preyed on the prepubescent
meanwhile, teenagers are biologically mature enough for sex. now in modern times, certainly, the issue of TEENAGERS being verboten for sex with adults is a new thing. but that's because we respect the notion of mental immaturity nowadays. so let them experiment amongst themselves, and keep the predatorial adults away from them
seems like progress to me
Re:Foie Gras is some nasty shit...
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
just a side thought: i think animal rights activists should be the most pro-genetically modified special interest group in the world. reason being, if you could genetically engineer foie gras in vats, or animal flesh, you would:
1. feed all of the carnivores, more cheaply, and with less environmental impact 2. not harm a single feeling conscious (cue the sad violins) beautiful harmless loving animal. it would be just tissue in vats you were harvesting
of course things like mouthfeel, taste, etc. would need to be technologically refined over time. at first you would be making nothing better than spam. real gastromes would talk about the consistency of the flesh and the subtle flavors based on diet. but you could gradually, over time, approach a meat source that defies the experts to tell the difference from real meat
however, you get the usual luddite reaction from animal rights activists: stop eating meat in the name of cruelty, stop GM food because it's an abomination
yeah, right
animal rights activists are an abomination: eating meat is perfectly natural
animal rights activists should meld their artificial morality (it's certainly impossible in the natural world, outside of civilization) with artifical genetic engineering, and create the nirvana of an animal never harmed
you really think it's harder to do that than convince carnivores to stop eating meat?
path of least resistance friends. animal rights activists: pool your money, and get going with the GM startup
but the idea is, the younger generation will not discover new bands in the traditional way you or i did (radio)
they will discover new bands on something deomcratic, like myspace or youtube. the idealistic hope is hot new bands will be discovered by fans without any promotion at all: the ultimate nirvana would be fans, and musicians WITHOUT ANY MIDDLE MEN AT ALL
that would be a truly glorious future. the internet makes it possible. no middle men
but the cynic in me says most fans are inert, they aren't so adventurous. indeed, i think there will always be a niche for reptilian promoters to capture and squeeze young eager and naive talent and hype them through media channels into the britney spears listening pop music landscape of fans
however, you're still talking about a new model: internet portals, not radio or mtv, as a growing new means for dsicvoering new talent. whether by fans OR promoters. an artist at any time could self-promote: at the beginning, middle, or end of their career. that was never possible before
it really is a whole new world the traditional old labels can lose out on in dozens of ways, no matter how you slice and dice it
(breitbart is a right-leaning media outlet as well)
ps: right now being 4:15 pm, 11/06/2007
what's funny is how a pro-file sharing website, like slashdot, can spin a positive out of the numbers, and an anti-file sharing website can spin a negative
spin, spin, spin
just my two cents: radiohead probably made more money off their album with this internet tip jar concept than if they signed with a label, considering how the companies nickel and dime artists to death. actually, radiohead has some clout, so maybe that's not 100% true. but rather, an unknown band would DEFINITELY make more money with free albums and an internet tip jar than signing with a label
hopefully more and more bands will realize this, and a critical mass of hot young bands will coalesce such that one will consider doing business with the defunct music labels ever again
then the RIAA attack dogs will sue up and coming artists to sign with the music labels? (half-joking, i wouldn't put it past them)
people WANT this information out there. end of fucking story. the rest is predicated on a failed assumption
and EVEN IF there is someone out there who is so stupid as to think posting this information is private: who amongst us ever thought it is our duty in this world to protect morons from themselves?
let me illustrate for you how hysteria and panic and fear get turned into slippery slope arguments:
if you let homosexual men marry, next you will have to make pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality and necrophilia legal
do you believe that? i will take a guess and say no
such a thought, is, of course, complete bullshit: people can tell the difference between a gay man and a corpse fucker
but in the mind of some social conservatives, THEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS
why? because their slippery slope argument really is nothing but a proxy for fear, panic, hysteria. not rational thought
in the exact same way do you talk above
the average well adjusted person can easily tell the difference between the government shifting for terrorists and netflix shifting for forrest gump. just as easily as a well adjusted person can tell the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia
but social conservatives can't tell that difference, IN THE EXACT SAME WAY you can't tell the difference between neglible trangressions of types of privacy no one cares about and all out tyranny
and they, like, you, rationalize their fear and hysteria with the exact same bullshit slippery slope argument
no, you spastic wierdo, THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE
you may now conclude that i am a secret advance agent of the coming fascism;-P
i mean just look at them picketing and writing to their congresspeople and agitating and marching and speaking out, etc., etc.
they care with the same gusto you do when some guy at a party goes "i'm telling you, you want to see my brother's band play tomorrow night"
"oh yeah, sounds great, i'll be there, it's important to me, i care"
no they don't. they "care" because they're taking a survey where the issue they don't know about, are not involved in, and never heard about before is being shoved in their face
that a massive wave of realization crosses the minds of the average slashdot reader/ editor: the average guy on the street doesn't care. some slashdot readers are shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out that a lot of people don't treat their private life with the security protocols of a swiss bank. because they simply don't care
and honestly? i side with the average guy on the street with (non)this issue. the average guy on the street looks at the data generated from his random meanderings on the web as useless, unimportant, and not a matter of privacy. and you know what?: he's right. frankly, that some database might know what i visited on eBay, then amazon.com, then netflix is not some horrible raping of my psyche. it really isn't
someone could track the wanderings of people around the supermarket too. is that information deeply personal to you? it is? so then that means you define your deeply personal identity based on what aisle you walk down in in the supermarket? pffft
then they use that information to pitch DVD titles at you, or pasta, or a hallmark card
oh my god. some database knows i bought pepto bismol. now it wants to sell me toilet paper. MY PERSONAL IDENTITY HAS BEEN HORRIBLY RAPED. I HAVE BEEN DEHUMANIZED AND DEMEANED. MY SENSE OF SELF-WORTH IS LOWERED. IT'S ORWELL'S 1984
there are thousands of assholes, right now, driving around in their hummers, thinking the oil is going to last forever, and that it doesn't hurt the environment, and doesn't hurt their children/ neighbors/ parents they send to the middle east
we require 10' foot high SUVs modeled on military vehicles that can run over a compact car and not even feel it. the inside must be 500 square feet, of which there will be only one occupant. oh, and the vehicle must get 2 miles to the gallon
i don't understand what the point of this green environmental stuff is, just send more soldiers to iraq. problem solved
there's a saying medicine when looking to diagnose medical symptoms: when you hear hoofbeats, don't think of zebras (it's more likely to be horses causing the noise)
it's a variation on occam's razor: the more exotic explanation is the less likely one
Slashdot Mirror
there's nothing you or i could say that removes a gray area
however, all of the random shit that someone does is meaningless unless a rational human being could rightly constitute one of his actions as a genuine threat
i haven't seen the video, it's taken down. but the description talks about a massacre at a school on a future date
sounds like a specific actionable threat to me
you can play with rocket launchers in your back yard, pledge eternal devotion to hitler, and ramble on and on about the craziest shit
none of theat matters
but when you threaten a school, no matter how obliquely, you should be arrested
this guy did that. the rest doesn't matter
that it is best to be somewhat overweight when you are elderly, that this weight class had the lowest levels of mortality. that when you are old, being thin is a greater danger than being somewhat overweight, for all of the risk factors mentioned above in the story summary
however, at all other times in your life, being any kind of overweight begins the inevitable accumulation of damage due to extra fats in the system, extra sugars, extra inflammatory agents, etc.
so i think the best idea would be to remain thin throughout your life until old age. then, rack on the pounds (but not TOO many pounds: being grossly overweight is bad at any age)
i submitted this article
and i also wrote the comment above that said animal rights activists should grow beef in vats to fight cruelty to animals
so you wish to take that observation as a justification for brutality?
nothing that victimizes another person is ever 100% tolerated. we're still struggling with that concept, but we're making progress. i don't know how the fact things were once more brutal means that we should accept them, or say that in history there was no search for justice as well
you wish to paint a pciture of a time when all manner of horrible things took place, and no one cared
oh, they cared all right, they were just more outnumbered then
it doesn't take a saint to criticize someone else's sins
everyone sins to some extent, but those who sin the worst, are not allowed to deflect criticism because someone else jaywalks
what the yahoo execs did was wrong, period, and should be criticized
for example, it is not ok to eat your fellow humans, because eating the dead flesh of your own species encourages diseases. in fact, there is a prion disease called kuru, similar to mad cow disease, amongst papua new guineans who dug up and ate their dead ritualistically
likewise, fucking children incurs the wrath of parents, for good reason: it is their biological role to shepherd their children to adulthood. their interest in that is making sure the child reaches adulthood before mating. because when you are mature, you can do a better job of picking a genetically healthy mate. the genetically inferior, shoved aside, will seek to prey on those with immature abilities to choose a good mate. such that if you as a parent tolerate sexual trangression against your children, you are imperiling your own genetic lineage to an inferior set of genes: kid fuckers. preying on children is a potent sign of genetic unfitness
in other words, the strongest argument against pedophilia is not only that children are hurt, but that the completely natural and organic rage of parents against pedophiles is something that will not be dispelled and must be respected, simply because there is no placating it
and as for eating meat: go view half an hour of national geographic about what goes on on the plains of the serengeti on any given night, for the last dozen million years. meat gets eaten. sorry about how you feel about that, but that's just the way it is
throughout the entire animal kingdom there are animals eating animals, for millions of years
and throughout the animal kingdom, sex with the sexually immature isn't normal, for millions of years
it's moral, and natural, to not have sex with children, and to eat meat
that is, sex with a real child, who is biologically sexually immature. you can bet your archeologist's tenured chair that our ancestors thousands of years ago were bashing the heads of men (and women) who preyed on the prepubescent
meanwhile, teenagers are biologically mature enough for sex. now in modern times, certainly, the issue of TEENAGERS being verboten for sex with adults is a new thing. but that's because we respect the notion of mental immaturity nowadays. so let them experiment amongst themselves, and keep the predatorial adults away from them
seems like progress to me
just a side thought: i think animal rights activists should be the most pro-genetically modified special interest group in the world. reason being, if you could genetically engineer foie gras in vats, or animal flesh, you would:
1. feed all of the carnivores, more cheaply, and with less environmental impact
2. not harm a single feeling conscious (cue the sad violins) beautiful harmless loving animal. it would be just tissue in vats you were harvesting
of course things like mouthfeel, taste, etc. would need to be technologically refined over time. at first you would be making nothing better than spam. real gastromes would talk about the consistency of the flesh and the subtle flavors based on diet. but you could gradually, over time, approach a meat source that defies the experts to tell the difference from real meat
however, you get the usual luddite reaction from animal rights activists: stop eating meat in the name of cruelty, stop GM food because it's an abomination
yeah, right
animal rights activists are an abomination: eating meat is perfectly natural
animal rights activists should meld their artificial morality (it's certainly impossible in the natural world, outside of civilization) with artifical genetic engineering, and create the nirvana of an animal never harmed
you really think it's harder to do that than convince carnivores to stop eating meat?
path of least resistance friends. animal rights activists: pool your money, and get going with the GM startup
were morally and ethically upstanding
but the idea is, the younger generation will not discover new bands in the traditional way you or i did (radio)
they will discover new bands on something deomcratic, like myspace or youtube. the idealistic hope is hot new bands will be discovered by fans without any promotion at all: the ultimate nirvana would be fans, and musicians WITHOUT ANY MIDDLE MEN AT ALL
that would be a truly glorious future. the internet makes it possible. no middle men
but the cynic in me says most fans are inert, they aren't so adventurous. indeed, i think there will always be a niche for reptilian promoters to capture and squeeze young eager and naive talent and hype them through media channels into the britney spears listening pop music landscape of fans
however, you're still talking about a new model: internet portals, not radio or mtv, as a growing new means for dsicvoering new talent. whether by fans OR promoters. an artist at any time could self-promote: at the beginning, middle, or end of their career. that was never possible before
it really is a whole new world the traditional old labels can lose out on in dozens of ways, no matter how you slice and dice it
drudgereport.com is a right-leaning website frequented by media execs
you see the very first story linked as:
"Most Fans Paid $0 for Radiohead Album..."
(breitbart is a right-leaning media outlet as well)
ps: right now being 4:15 pm, 11/06/2007
what's funny is how a pro-file sharing website, like slashdot, can spin a positive out of the numbers, and an anti-file sharing website can spin a negative
spin, spin, spin
just my two cents: radiohead probably made more money off their album with this internet tip jar concept than if they signed with a label, considering how the companies nickel and dime artists to death. actually, radiohead has some clout, so maybe that's not 100% true. but rather, an unknown band would DEFINITELY make more money with free albums and an internet tip jar than signing with a label
hopefully more and more bands will realize this, and a critical mass of hot young bands will coalesce such that one will consider doing business with the defunct music labels ever again
then the RIAA attack dogs will sue up and coming artists to sign with the music labels? (half-joking, i wouldn't put it past them)
is the usa still in iraq?
do people still deny climate change?
you're right, it's not a good joke
it's a sobering reality
people WANT this information out there. end of fucking story. the rest is predicated on a failed assumption
and EVEN IF there is someone out there who is so stupid as to think posting this information is private: who amongst us ever thought it is our duty in this world to protect morons from themselves?
1. use robot surgeon to excise iraq from earth
2. float iraq to mars in zero G
3. use robot surgeon to graft iraq onto mars
4. iraq problem solved!
that's what the article was about, right?
what is this RTFM acronym i keep seeing mean?
do you know how to parse sentences? how the hell did you get that meaning?
let me illustrate for you how hysteria and panic and fear get turned into slippery slope arguments:
;-P
if you let homosexual men marry, next you will have to make pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality and necrophilia legal
do you believe that? i will take a guess and say no
such a thought, is, of course, complete bullshit: people can tell the difference between a gay man and a corpse fucker
but in the mind of some social conservatives, THEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS
why? because their slippery slope argument really is nothing but a proxy for fear, panic, hysteria. not rational thought
in the exact same way do you talk above
the average well adjusted person can easily tell the difference between the government shifting for terrorists and netflix shifting for forrest gump. just as easily as a well adjusted person can tell the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia
but social conservatives can't tell that difference, IN THE EXACT SAME WAY you can't tell the difference between neglible trangressions of types of privacy no one cares about and all out tyranny
and they, like, you, rationalize their fear and hysteria with the exact same bullshit slippery slope argument
no, you spastic wierdo, THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE
you may now conclude that i am a secret advance agent of the coming fascism
i mean just look at them picketing and writing to their congresspeople and agitating and marching and speaking out, etc., etc.
they care with the same gusto you do when some guy at a party goes "i'm telling you, you want to see my brother's band play tomorrow night"
"oh yeah, sounds great, i'll be there, it's important to me, i care"
no they don't. they "care" because they're taking a survey where the issue they don't know about, are not involved in, and never heard about before is being shoved in their face
an attempt to excuse shortsighted stupidity?
yes, the usa is not as densely populated as asia or europe
and it was allowed to do that on cheap oil and the internal combustion engine
those days are ending
please try to locate your local railroad station on a map, or buy a good bike
that a massive wave of realization crosses the minds of the average slashdot reader/ editor: the average guy on the street doesn't care. some slashdot readers are shocked, shocked i tell you, to find out that a lot of people don't treat their private life with the security protocols of a swiss bank. because they simply don't care
and honestly? i side with the average guy on the street with (non)this issue. the average guy on the street looks at the data generated from his random meanderings on the web as useless, unimportant, and not a matter of privacy. and you know what?: he's right. frankly, that some database might know what i visited on eBay, then amazon.com, then netflix is not some horrible raping of my psyche. it really isn't
someone could track the wanderings of people around the supermarket too. is that information deeply personal to you? it is? so then that means you define your deeply personal identity based on what aisle you walk down in in the supermarket? pffft
then they use that information to pitch DVD titles at you, or pasta, or a hallmark card
oh my god. some database knows i bought pepto bismol. now it wants to sell me toilet paper. MY PERSONAL IDENTITY HAS BEEN HORRIBLY RAPED. I HAVE BEEN DEHUMANIZED AND DEMEANED. MY SENSE OF SELF-WORTH IS LOWERED. IT'S ORWELL'S 1984
pfffffffffft
next nonissue please
there are thousands of assholes, right now, driving around in their hummers, thinking the oil is going to last forever, and that it doesn't hurt the environment, and doesn't hurt their children/ neighbors/ parents they send to the middle east
we require 10' foot high SUVs modeled on military vehicles that can run over a compact car and not even feel it. the inside must be 500 square feet, of which there will be only one occupant. oh, and the vehicle must get 2 miles to the gallon
i don't understand what the point of this green environmental stuff is, just send more soldiers to iraq. problem solved
that's like saying that if you don't know how to disassemble an internel combustion engine, you'll never be able to drive anywhere
the computer is just a tool. knowing how the tool works means you'll make a good salary, not run the world. you're an engineer, not a leader
it is in fact a mark of your naivete that you think mastery of a computer means mastery of the real world
there's a saying medicine when looking to diagnose medical symptoms: when you hear hoofbeats, don't think of zebras (it's more likely to be horses causing the noise)
it's a variation on occam's razor: the more exotic explanation is the less likely one
volcanic activity is more likely than asteroids