A closer analogy would be a book of poetry: typically each poem is a discrete unit of art that can totally support itself, but the arrangement of the poems lends additional context to each of the individual poems, such that the poetry book is also a discrete unit of art.
For me, cordless will become useful as soon as they invent cordless power supplies. Why would I want a wireless desktop if I had to keep changing the batteries in everything?
Ignorance isn't an attitude, it's a lack of knowledge. Have you ever been to jail? I have.
Of course you're a Windows Server Administrator. We all have a little policeman inside. Ever done any work with hypnotic language patterns and their application in the modern American education system? I have.
Yes, I would prefer a lawless nation where everyone could do what they want.
Sorry, saying my logic is flawed isn't a demonstration that it is so. I am about 24 and understand all too well about reponsibilities.
The bottom line is this: making a crime out of that which is not a crime, is itself a crime against humanity.
If I take a camcorder into a movie theatre and use it to break your head, that is a crime. If I take it into a movie theatre and use it to record the movie, that is not a crime. Hell, if I hollow the thing out and use it to transport dope, that is not a crime.
Taping a movie does not constitute "putting your best interests above the majority's." Putting someone in jail because they taped a movie does constitute "putting your best interests above the majority's."
And yes, I still think you're an idiot, you classy dog, you.
Sure, I'm ignorant because I don't understand that it's perfectly okay to lock people up in boxes for crazy periods of time and then deny them jobs and housing.
And no, Officer, I never said people should be slapped on the wrist for 'blatently defying the law.' I think that's too strict a penalty.
You're tired of this 'give-me-everything-free' attitude? Well I'm tired of this 'shut-the-fuck-up-and-obey-the-nice-officer-becaus e-dontchooknoww-its-the-laaaawww' attitude. Fuck the law. Okay? Fuck the law. What have you got to say about that?
Pop Quiz: If you know a law is on the books and you break it, then who's responsible for you being in jail?
The Answer: (drum roll please) Whoever The Fuck Put You There! Yay! The triumph of logic!
Who the hell gets to say who deserves to spend more than 1% of their life in a box?
You're saying a guy needs to spend fully 1-2% of his life in a box for *potentially* upsetting the economic interests of a non-entity. Is that what you're saying?
> Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we just let kids do what they want.
Here's an unreasonable question for you: Why the hell not?
Technology and information have been accelerating exponentially for the last thousand years... government by the old and out-of-touch has been tried and is continuing to fail right now. As far as I know, self-governance of the young and foolish hasn't been tried since the dawn of civilization.
It's like the famous NLP analagy: some behaviorists decideded to see how people would react to a standard lab-rat maze, so they built one to full-scale and put $5 bills at the end. Naturally, the humans ran the course a little faster than the rats and were a bit more adaptive and had a bit better memory, but there was a crucial difference. When the cheese was removed from the end of the rats' maze, the rats stopped running it. The people would continue running the same course over and over even when it wasn't getting them anywhere anymore. In fact, they're still running it. They break into the labs at night...
that occurs with prisoners after a decade or two: Institutionalization. That is, dependance on the system that restricted and confined you.
So, dig this: suppose the time-frame of compulsory education has been hiked up for the purpose of keeping children off the job market longer, so as to not devalue labor and thereby devalue the labor system.
Suppose the compulsory educational system, which is economically (and therefore ideologically) linked to every other industry, is regearing to keep the middle class from further expanding and gaining power.
Suppose that, with allthepsychologicalresearch that's been done, someone actually thought ahead and said, "Okay, if we can institutionalize middle-class children within the first 2 decades of their life, we'll be able to not only increase the size of the prison-industrial-military complex, but also to grab more power for ourselves and our friends overall" Just the same way some retailer once said, "Let's hire some of these behavioral psychologists to figure out how to organize the store in the most influential possible way[s]."
You see, the problem is, as Adam Yauch is quoted in the last link, that "Being on either end of a violent situation, whether you seem to have come out with the upper hand or whether you don't seem to, it doesn't resolve anything. It escalates the problem. Hatred leads to more hatred. Violence leads to more violence." Violence is not by any means limited to its overt outbreaks; it is a sadist/masochistic cycle which perpetuates itself. Our "educational" system suffers the Disney syndrome: the violence of management over the tenderness of interaction.
"Nature once had a chance to run riot in South Florida, producing jungles and swamps; now nature must submit to control. " And nature (which, yes children, is very much alive in each and every one of us) is pissed.
Well, I haven't got a cat, but since we're exploring animals' feelings, I'll tell you a true story:
A friend of mine, a family man, had a dog that had been a loved part of his family for many years... a fairly large, but extremely gentle dog.
He also had a baby daughter, at the time still in diapers.
One day, the baby was playing on the floor in her bedroom, and the dog had apparently smelled something that interested him and nosed off her diaper. By the time this poor fellow found them, the dog was humping her full-on. She seemed to have no problem with this, and was actually giggling uncontrollably. (the child was apparently unharmed)
This put him in a very awkward situation, as you might imagine. What do you do at that point? Obviously the baby has no idea that she's engaging in anything outside the norm, and to intercept the act in a forceful, angry, or fearful manner will be a damaging experience that you've inflicted on her. What do you do?
Again, I reiterate that the fears you are experiencing at the thought are neither the animal's nor the child's, they are your own. Do you take this opportunity to pass your weakness on to your child?
Which is precisely my point:
Your child is flexible enough to consider sex with dogs and cats rationally, whatever conclusion they might arrive at.
You lack that rationality, and are "naturally" repulsed (naturally, that is, for someone initiated into your perceptual-social cult-heritage). Your vision is clouded by your emotions. Your emotions are a direct result of your social conditioning.
Any social conditioning which leads you to irrefutable revulsion or to irresistable attraction can only be considered a weakness.
Every human has the power to overcome their conditioned weaknesses if they are willing. Children learn from their parents. In order to teach your children to be strong, you must make a concerted effort to do the same yourself.
To hell with drawing lines, with building walls, with establishing nonsensical boundaries.
I say, Out With It.
I want children to see the raunchiest porn available. I want them to ask "Daddy, what is that dog doing to her?" If a parent can't answer a question like that comfortably, it means that they are truly uncomfortable with it.
No one can ever be free until they are ideologically free, and that means that our children can be freer than we are if and only if we actively restrain ourselves from handing down our supercilious taboos. It is haughty, outrageous, and truly damaging to pass the irrational fears we harbor onto our children, labelling the objects of our fear "wrong".
If I am uncomfortable with something, it is a weakness.
It is your child's birthright to appropriate your weaknesses as his or her own strengths.
The execs push legislation through, and they can try to make the laws fit their business model, but they can't get the laws tailor made for them
Right, and the oil and chemical industries don't get to dictate environmental laws.
The US uses a system of corporate sponsorship to encourage its lawmakers... we call it lobbying; every other part of the world calls it either bribery, conspiracy, or oligarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
A closer analogy would be a book of poetry: typically each poem is a discrete unit of art that can totally support itself, but the arrangement of the poems lends additional context to each of the individual poems, such that the poetry book is also a discrete unit of art.
wow, cool. anybody know of a similar program for windows?
How long you figure before this guy gets knocked off?
For me, cordless will become useful as soon as they invent cordless power supplies. Why would I want a wireless desktop if I had to keep changing the batteries in everything?
Ignorance isn't an attitude, it's a lack of knowledge. Have you ever been to jail? I have.
Of course you're a Windows Server Administrator. We all have a little policeman inside. Ever done any work with hypnotic language patterns and their application in the modern American education system? I have.
Yes, I would prefer a lawless nation where everyone could do what they want.
Sorry, saying my logic is flawed isn't a demonstration that it is so. I am about 24 and understand all too well about reponsibilities.
The bottom line is this: making a crime out of that which is not a crime, is itself a crime against humanity.
If I take a camcorder into a movie theatre and use it to break your head, that is a crime. If I take it into a movie theatre and use it to record the movie, that is not a crime. Hell, if I hollow the thing out and use it to transport dope, that is not a crime.
Taping a movie does not constitute "putting your best interests above the majority's." Putting someone in jail because they taped a movie does constitute "putting your best interests above the majority's."
And yes, I still think you're an idiot, you classy dog, you.
Sure, I'm ignorant because I don't understand that it's perfectly okay to lock people up in boxes for crazy periods of time and then deny them jobs and housing.
s e-dontchooknoww-its-the-laaaawww' attitude. Fuck the law. Okay? Fuck the law. What have you got to say about that?
And no, Officer, I never said people should be slapped on the wrist for 'blatently defying the law.' I think that's too strict a penalty.
You're tired of this 'give-me-everything-free' attitude? Well I'm tired of this 'shut-the-fuck-up-and-obey-the-nice-officer-becau
Pop Quiz: If you know a law is on the books and you break it, then who's responsible for you being in jail?
The Answer: (drum roll please) Whoever The Fuck Put You There! Yay! The triumph of logic!
What are you, a cop?
Who the hell gets to say who deserves to spend more than 1% of their life in a box?
You're saying a guy needs to spend fully 1-2% of his life in a box for *potentially* upsetting the economic interests of a non-entity. Is that what you're saying?
Do you understand how long a year is?
Are you aware that 1/3 of all Americans are either in jail or on some form of parole or probation?
There's too much goddamn jail time in this country. It's actually our fastest growing industry.
Stop trying to put everybody in jail already!
Nobody likes spam, right? Everybody's against it, right? Wastes billions of dollars in bandwidth and nobody buys that shit anyway, right?
So, how about instead of
labelling it, how about they just
make it illegal?
Nothing would make me happier than getting all farty and bloated on a frothy latte while blowing my secretary/programmer salary 1:1.
Hell, I could check out all the latest innovations in penis enlargement technology, maybe peruse a little man-on-goat-on-sister incest reading, settle in on a favorite literary magazine... is it worth $10 an hour?
You bet your sweet ass it is, just as long as I can afford another 10-spot to pay my gimp to read it to me.
Here's an unreasonable question for you:
Why the hell not?
Technology and information have been accelerating exponentially for the last thousand years... government by the old and out-of-touch has been tried and is continuing to fail right now. As far as I know, self-governance of the young and foolish hasn't been tried since the dawn of civilization.
It's like the famous NLP analagy: some behaviorists decideded to see how people would react to a standard lab-rat maze, so they built one to full-scale and put $5 bills at the end. Naturally, the humans ran the course a little faster than the rats and were a bit more adaptive and had a bit better memory, but there was a crucial difference. When the cheese was removed from the end of the rats' maze, the rats stopped running it. The people would continue running the same course over and over even when it wasn't getting them anywhere anymore. In fact, they're still running it. They break into the labs at night...
________________________________________________ __
There is no Really Bad stuff, only really shitty ideas. Excess is the path to wisdom, and chaos led clear through to the birth of man.
Swallow it.
________________________________________________ __
So, dig this: suppose the time-frame of compulsory education has been hiked up for the purpose of keeping children off the job market longer, so as to not devalue labor and thereby devalue the labor system.
Suppose the compulsory educational system, which is economically (and therefore ideologically) linked to every other industry, is regearing to keep the middle class from further expanding and gaining power.
Suppose that, with all the psychological research that's been done, someone actually thought ahead and said, "Okay, if we can institutionalize middle-class children within the first 2 decades of their life, we'll be able to not only increase the size of the prison-industrial-military complex, but also to grab more power for ourselves and our friends overall" Just the same way some retailer once said, "Let's hire some of these behavioral psychologists to figure out how to organize the store in the most influential possible way[s]."
The net effect of our compulsory school system is obvious: 23% illiteracy in America, 13% prevalence of social phobia, Major depression (18.9%), generalized anxiety (14.8%), and the 'Suicide Rate Among U.S. Teens Keeps Increasing'.
And I nearly left out the continuous rise in teenage violence...
You see, the problem is, as Adam Yauch is quoted in the last link, that "Being on either end of a violent situation, whether you seem to have come out with the upper hand or whether you don't seem to, it doesn't resolve anything. It escalates the problem. Hatred leads to more hatred. Violence leads to more violence." Violence is not by any means limited to its overt outbreaks; it is a sadist/masochistic cycle which perpetuates itself. Our "educational" system suffers the Disney syndrome: the violence of management over the tenderness of interaction.
"Nature once had a chance to run riot in South Florida, producing jungles and swamps; now nature must submit to control. " And nature (which, yes children, is very much alive in each and every one of us) is pissed.
________________________________________________ __
A friend of mine, a family man, had a dog that had been a loved part of his family for many years... a fairly large, but extremely gentle dog.
He also had a baby daughter, at the time still in diapers.
One day, the baby was playing on the floor in her bedroom, and the dog had apparently smelled something that interested him and nosed off her diaper. By the time this poor fellow found them, the dog was humping her full-on. She seemed to have no problem with this, and was actually giggling uncontrollably. (the child was apparently unharmed)
This put him in a very awkward situation, as you might imagine. What do you do at that point? Obviously the baby has no idea that she's engaging in anything outside the norm, and to intercept the act in a forceful, angry, or fearful manner will be a damaging experience that you've inflicted on her. What do you do?
Again, I reiterate that the fears you are experiencing at the thought are neither the animal's nor the child's, they are your own. Do you take this opportunity to pass your weakness on to your child?
________________________________________________ __
________________________________________________ __
Hell, I can hold out on buying my next used car for another year...
________________________________________________ __
paris graffiti, may 1968
________________________________________________ __
I say, Out With It.
I want children to see the raunchiest porn available. I want them to ask "Daddy, what is that dog doing to her?" If a parent can't answer a question like that comfortably, it means that they are truly uncomfortable with it.
No one can ever be free until they are ideologically free, and that means that our children can be freer than we are if and only if we actively restrain ourselves from handing down our supercilious taboos. It is haughty, outrageous, and truly damaging to pass the irrational fears we harbor onto our children, labelling the objects of our fear "wrong".
If I am uncomfortable with something, it is a weakness.
It is your child's birthright to appropriate your weaknesses as his or her own strengths.
________________________________________________ __
Right, and the oil and chemical industries don't get to dictate environmental laws. The US uses a system of corporate sponsorship to encourage its lawmakers... we call it lobbying; every other part of the world calls it either bribery, conspiracy, or oligarchy.
________________________________________________ __