I think is also important to point out that the books are most influential on people who really have had no exposure to philosophical thought. I liken them to "pulp" philosophy. Its benefit is that it gets through to the reader, and forces them to consider a different way of thinking.
I never understood why people bought All-In-Wonder Cards if they were serious game players always wanting the latest technology and I've no idea why anybody would buy this
I am one of those people with an AIW 9700Pro. Why did I get it over the regular 9700pro? It was only $80 more at newegg.com! For the features you get, it is a bargain...
You do know the metric system is many hundred of years old don't you? In fact it's older than your country.
Are you really this ignorant? I know its hard to remember dates and everything, but you should at least know the metric system as we know it today was a direct result of enlightenment thinking which led to the American and French Revolutions.
The first true metric system was in fact America's currency based on 100 cents. France adopted the first universal metric system of measurement in 1795, after the revolution settled down.
Napolean suspended it in 1812 however. It was not adopted again until 1840.
Honestly, I bet this was a troll... not a bad one either, but I just had to respond as I used to be a big enlightenment fan.
You can burn down my house, that will be good for the economy, but it certainly won't be good for me.
We are talking about civilized societies here. Personally, the misfit in me partially desires burning people like you alive, rather than your house. It doesn't mean such an action would be civilized.
We can have anarchy, or we can have civilization. The desire of the few which are contrary to civilization are deservingly suppressed.
Any publicly listed company has a DUTY to their shareholders to increase the shareholders investments as rapidly as possible.
This is a common, modern misconception. When you buy stock it is a like a loan. The companies are supposed to pay you a percentage of their profits. These are called dividends.
If you invest with the express purpose of buying low and selling high you will fail.
This is of course the problem today. People used to pay higher prices for stocks because it was perceived they would pay big dividends. Now, comapnies (like Microsoft) don't even pay dividends (which is illegal).
Use the multiple rooms of your home at different times of day.
One minor point here, the topic is cooling apartments... For most apartment dwellers, this is simply not at option. In most metro areas, people only rent a multi-bedroom apartment if they have roommates...
The first world is not an isolated set of Jeffersonian economies.
No one is advocating isolated economies. Do I believe decentralized ownership and production are preferable to centralized ownership and production? Absolutely. Centralized control was a relic from a rather brief industrial age, it is irrelevent today.
Dependent on subsistance farming, the vagaries of an unhelpful/nonexistant government, and "personal ingenuity" which must be re-learned every single generation.
I think you need to revise that sentence.
Obviously you have ideals about independence but the lessons of today's economy are simple: cooperation within only a homestead or even a village or tribal community is excellent and morally impressive but genuinely unproductive and incredibly unstable in ways. It promotes a horrid level of intolerance and isolation. Consider Yugoslavia to realize what isolation and self-dependence (ethnically) produces.
Parts of this are true, and parts or not. Homogenization of the world is definitely pursued in order to produce stability. What you are apparently ignorant of is how this is exactly the debat that has existed since the fall of Rome. What is better? The extreme of the Empire? The median way of the Republic? Or the extreme of the Hellenic world of independent city states?
I prefer the latter, but for you to make the outrageous assertion that the choice is clear is extremely ignorant. Perhaps you have read your economics textbooks, but there is more to the story than that. For the record, Jefferson obviously favored the median way... He was hardly some anarcho-democratic fellow.
Some people would also argue that frequent instability and revolution keeps a culture fresh. Excessive stability leads to stagnation.
The technique of self-specialization, economic interdependence and innovative "niche-carving" for an economy is the rule in the first world and it combines technology with incredible resources from utterly diverse cultures and diverse economies. It promotes understanding of truly remote and different cultures as they must cooperate. Think of them when you sip a mocha (the national milk/feed economy, coffee-from-Columbia, caocao-from-Brazil etc..).
Your example is proof enough that the modern economy is founded on decadence and frivolity. I don't waste my money on coffee or milk. Coffee is the prime example of this, not only is it a ridiculous luxury its only benefit is to further drive its consumer to work harder to purchase more useless crap. You may call that an economy, but I call it a vast lie. In the beginning trading natural resources seems like a good idea (and it is), but the drive for more and more unique items causes a social breakdown. The modern obsession with variety and fads is creating a corrupt society, only those who profit from it defend it.
To remain in a cave is to fully depend on all that you alone know and nothing more..
And who, pray tell, is advocating living in a cave?
because "college" itself requires vast cooperation
Perhaps you aren't aware of the history of colleges, but before the great Social Engineering experiment of your idols, colleges were places to teacher leaders of the old tool of social control: religion. It was only natural they be altered to churn out new leaders... Colleges were created for the management class, the enlightened leaders to rule over the masses. That is a very bad example. Do you think any of the founding fathers were college educated? No.
Name it "government" or don't but a more mindless bias will show if you don't mind trade but do mind governmental structures that promote trade and stability.
Thats right. Because that social structure has become a prison which affords us few benefits and offers us nothing but useless shit to buy. You crave stability, but only because you are a coward.
Very few of us can manufacture all of diapers,
Re:Back in 1989-1991 it was as it is now
on
Computing's Lost Allure
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
unfortunately I can't figure out my nephew... A Philosiphy major with an Ethics minor... Yay, he'll learn new ways to contemplate.... "You want fries with that?"
I'm more worried about lots of students taking the worthless career tracks like that
Because you fullfill a role in the machine of society does not mean you are truly alive. Computer Science is interesting stuff, but in the grand scheme of existence computers are essentially irrelevent. The average human is probably LESS happy today than before the computer was invented.
For some, philosophy is pure contemplation as you mention. For others however, it is the ultimate weapon to enslave more members of society such as yourself. I can assure you those people who created our regimented system of compulsory education and the modern work week were avid students of philosophy.
You are exemplifying a stunningly ignorant view, and I highly suggest you revise it. This world is fucked up as it is, we don't need more people who think the purpose of their lives is to work in pointless jobs.
You must not forget that the ultimate purpose of our modern society (school + employee life) was to make the vast majority of citizens dependent on the system and thereby enslave them. 150 years ago, the only people who took orders from anyone were in the military, young people learning a trade, or slaves. 90% of citizens had an independent livelihood as farmers or tradesmen.
The attitude you portray is the result of a lifetime of training, you cannot imagine what life would be like if you didn't spend it becoming an employee. You are a successful product of the social engineering machine.
I am not trying to insult you here, just trying to open your eyes to the truth. Philosophy is necessary now more than ever, as nothing else focuses on the concept of value to human life. You say philosophy is worthless, but by whose standards? Your master, thats who. By his phiosophical standards, you studying philosophy is a threat to society. You may cause trouble, perhaps even start a revolution. He made a wise decision (according to his standards) to train you over two decades to accept your place, and he has succeeded.
Someone really needs to save this post for future generations... This post is the finest troll I have ever read. I will no longer strive to be the best as I have witnessed the genius of Mr. Wagner.
Like you said, purity is part of the problem. And now you're using the FDA to justify your "drug habit", which is effectively what it is. Perscription drugs are a commodotiy now, and makers will push the limit.
It is hardly a habit. It is this ignorance that I sadly encounter frequently and it is offensive. I am no addict, I feel no compulsion to take my prescription medication and go for extend periods of time (even a year) without taking it. Suffice it to say, my prescription is quite legal for a condition well known and documented.
Amphetamine has over 75 years of history documenting its safety and efficacy in treating ADD, depression, narcolepsy, and asthma. Millions upon millions of people in the US take the drug every day without any ill effects. Most are in fact children.
Because you cannot fathom any benefits of these drugs does not mean that they do not exist. Also be a little careful out there. Many people out there feel as you do and it gets tiresome explaining to gung ho prohibitionists that amphetamine is in fact a legitimate medication.
It's sad sad sad, and I find it impossible to dismiss drug addiction as the primary contributor to their declines, regardless of their 'lifestyle choices'.
Then you are apparently unfamiliar with the mode of action by which drugs work. The argument you are making is the identical one used to further the prohibition of alcohol. Today, it would be the mark of a madman to suggest alcohol use is an inescapable catalyst of decline. Yet, when Congress banned it only 80 years ago it was argued that alcohol is the ONLY catalyst of social decline. It was honestly believed that if you banned alcohol, the slums would disappear.
We live in a fucked up world, and for many people they choose not to participate in the vast system of control forced upon them (school, consumerism, work). That is their choice, and the drugs simply are one more way to alleviate the emptiness of their lives.
but they could have stopped any time they wanted, right?
One would presume. None of them exhibited the cycle of addiction which is destructive to life. Especially since many were advocates of Temperence, perhaps they were more aware of addictions dangers. It was merely intended to emphasize the point that cocaine is not necessarily addictive and destructive, like the parent poster is claiming video games are. Certainly, Winston Churchill would have had a hard time organizing the defense of England if he was a real crackhead.
Speaking from years of personal experience, I painfully disagree with your "coke ain't so bad" dismisall. It is a bad, bad, dirty drug.
Ahh, the old anecdotal evidence. The reason I mentioned so many famous users of the drugs was to counter such an assertion. Perhaps you feel that way, but many of the most influential people in the recent history of mankind were regular users. Who am I going to believe? Winston Churchill or some junkie on slashdot? Cocaine is no different than alcohol, use in moderation.
Check back on your superstar buddies in a few years. I've seen both crank and blow destroy MANY people, included ace programmers.
For the record, I have never used cocaine. I have however taken dextroamphetamine regularly for several years. I purchase this product from Walgreens under the brand name of Dexedrine, but junkies call it crank. See, I am actually prescribed this drug by a doctor.
I take it for months at a time, and notice little more than some fatigue when it wears off.
You're pro-drug bias needs to be reality checked, it sounds like you're probably too young to have witnessed your friends going down hard from drugs... hopefully you won't see that.
I never said I was pro drug, but to assert that video game playing is on part with cocaine and thus an impediment to workplace productivity is absurd.
I am not going to get into a debate about drugs per say, but the fact remains that cocaine use can and is used responsibly in the same fashion as alcohol use. Millions of people use alcohol regularly and perform their jobs well, just as millions play video games and use cocaine.
And, just to let you know, and I am sure you know this, caffeine is also a stimulant. When I said many people perform effectively using stimulants I was not simply referring to those which are prescription only.
In many ways, it reminds of the American government basically refusing to enforce English copyrights in the 19th century. That was certainly commercial rivalry, but that whole revolution thing may play a part.
This is akin to saying that if workers take cocaine to pep them up during the day, it's just like a cup of coffee.
The fact you would make this rather ridiculous assertion means that you have never tried cocaine and you are ignorant of the history of the drug. The reality is it *is* just like drinking a cup of coffee and was accepted as such for 60 years before it was made prescription only (and indeed can still be legally prescribed). Caffeine was nearly banned at the same time. Read the congressional transcripts for the debate on the Harrison Narcotics Act.
The problems with the drug today are due to impurities and unknown dosage, nothing more. There is also little need for the drug today as Amphetamine is far longer lasting and more effective (but not as mood altering).
From Jules Verne, to Mark Twain, Queen Victoria, Winston Churchill, Pope Gregory XIV (IIRC), to Thomas Edison... and millions more in the 19th they all used cocaine, frequently and with no ill effects. The addictive potential of the drug is highly overrated.
The drug, like other drugs, was banned during the temperance craze which led to prohibition. Alcohol then, as now, was more popular so it was legalized again... but nothing else was.
Anyway, BAD analogy. I know MANY people who get far more work done using stimulants than not...
I know it. Imagine if we farmed out our development projects to the Chinese prison system. There, they only eat, sleep and write software. Every bug discovered by your manager results in a 100 volt zap to your left nut.
The problem with western people is they don't understand they are alive to serve their manager, nothing more. Eastern people however... they have a long and elustrious tradition of efficiency. India still has their wonderful caste system, the perfect social system for labor. China just prefers to use "prisoners" for the real dirty work.
The Americans better realize that you cannot be both free and be productive. If you have to work, you better shut the fuck up and do your job at all times you are conscious and not eating, sleeping, defecating, fucking...
Ok, but I think that your problems are an artifact of your place of education, not the actual works you studied.
Pray tell, what exactly are these problems of which you speak? Further, how would my education pertain to these problems?
Personally, philosophy study has taught me quite a bit about historical philosophical thought in a variety of realms and also modern controversies and the recovery from the now-widely-criticized Cartesian split.
Did you type that for a resume or something? That seems like a rather narrow benefit to gained your love of wisdom. It is also, to use a more vulgar expression, utter bullshit.
You can write all you want about how worthless your education was, but that is just it: it was your education.
Ahh I can see where this is going, apparently you haven't learned one of the first lessons of philosophy, and that is moderation. Your response is already far out of proportion to what was a rather innocent and obviously light hearted post. Perhaps you didn't notice the parent post regarding how university philosophy professor are out of touch with reality. As pretty much any serious student of philosophy would easily admit, college is only the beginning of what is a life long journey.
Philosophy is great, and I have learned more from philosophy (that I can apply to my actual life) than I have in any of my other studies, though I am a triple major (philosophy, German, psychology), as well as a professional technical writer, and contracting network administrator/web designer.
Like I said, I don't believe you have mastered some of the more basic concepts of self control and moderation but I am glad your studies suited your needs. I must say however that unless you attended a school with less than demanding standards a triple major is hard to believe. I attended a top jesuit university and I could barely finish math and philosophy in four years, with fairly substantial AP credit. What relevence this has to our discussion, I don't know... but I feel like ripping on you.
I can't reasonably hope to disprove your non-coginitivist claims about your personal experience, but if you want to talk about _facts_, you mentioned a few that seemed ludicrous to me:
Why am I not surprised you have decided to use some 20th century buzz word. Please, by all means, let me know what non-cognitivist claims I am making... You read the opinion of a former philosophy student, I would love to see what claims you derived from a flippant post.
However, the reason you did not learn about the Critique in you undergraduate program is because you would need to spend an extremely intense period of time studying it -- usually in a course during graduate school.
Actually, I had to take a whole class in it. Having attended a Jesuit university meant that most classes revolved around theistic philosophers, and as that single book is the best weapon a theist has for defending his faith it was required.
Second, to say that Das Kapital has never been completely read by any man alive today is ridiculous, unless you mean only that it has never been fully understood by any man alive today, which is a question that is impossible to resolve.
Apparently, in your vast studies of philosophy and literature, you have never encountered the rhetorical device of exaggeration. Since such poetic devices are used frequently by Nietzsche, it seems you are unfamiliar with one major philosopher otherwise you would not have taken my words so literally.
This seems strange in one of the most thorough philosophy programs in the country, but as one of my professors said: we leave Marx for the less intelligent political science theorists.
I think that claim is another example of how you embody the very problem with academia today. I will not comment on Marx here, but it is unreasonable for a learned individual to dismiss any profoundly effective work as someth
But am I the only one that sees it as incredibly stupid that Mach 64 pro, Mach Pro 64 and 64 Mach Pro are three seperate cards with three seperate drivers?
This is because there was no such product. Mach64 was the processor, not the brand name. There was no "pro" version of the Mach64, one processor. In fact, that pro BS didn't begin until this current 9000 series. You better be drunk, crazy, or both... Otherwise, that was the worst troll I have ever read. Seriously dude, if you were trying to troll... it was just a bad attempt.
Installing a driver isn't so tough, try debugging SQL network errors, then we'll talk.
SQL network errors. do you have any idea what SQL even stands for? Of course not, because it has nothing to do with a network. But then again, you are talking out of your ass anyway so what do you care?
I just wanted to add as well, that the constitution doesn't even require direct election of the president. In the 19th century, there were quite a few states where the state legislature chose the delegates sent to the electoral college to elect the president. This was also true for senators as well. (before the 17th amendment was passed in 1919).
It really is a recent change where pretty much all government officials are elected by the people in a direct fashion.
I majored in philosophy and I can honestly say I didn't learn a damn thing in college. The university structure is in general stiffling to learning, but much moreso for philosophy. Many of the most important philosophers clearly articulated how teachers are a threat to knowledge. You can imagine how difficult it is to discuss such a subject in philosophy class.
Most philosophy professors are also way out there, completely detached from reality. Since philosophy is primarily about life, most of these people just didn't seem to get it. They either were obsessed with the academic favorites (Descartes, Marx, Kant) or with the new ethical philosophers (peter singer, animal rights). I always leaned much more towards Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche but I had to read most of their works on my own time.
University study of philosophy CAN make people elitist however, because certain works by certain philosophers are simply too complex to study without devoting months of your time. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a behemoth, Marx's Das Capital has still never been completely read by any man alive today. Both books are bigger than all of Plato's writings combined. Das Capital is easily longer than all of Nietzsche's writings combined.
In most cases, I don't believe a man's self esteem will allow him to read a book for a year and say afterwards "That was a load of crap". They inherently begin to believe what they are reading not only has value, but only someone who spends their life reading it can understand it.
Ati, There are drivers where the Ati Mach 64 pro is a DIFFERENT driver then the Ati Mach Pro 64.
Ahh, young fanboys. I bet you were like 7 or 8 when the Mach 64 came out nearly 10 years ago. I was in high school at the time and spent liek $300 on that card to get it with 4 megs of VRAM.
Needless to say, it wasn't a problem because back then the only difference between the Mach64 based cards was the type/quantity of memory. DRAM based cards were sold under the Graphics Xpression name, VRAM based cards under Graphics Pro Turbo. It wasn't hard to distinguish between them. Also, video card drivers back then were much more simple and came with the operating system. Even OS/2 Warp 3 had drivers for the mach64. I am just amazed with the fanboys, because I have been using ATI cards since the original SVGA Mach8 came out... Never had a problem, always solid.
Went from Mach8 in 1991, to Mach64 in 1994, to Xpert@Play Rage pro in 1998, Radeon DDR in 2000, and AIW 9700Pro just a few months ago. Since 1994, I have been runnin on non-intel boards as well, still no problems what so ever. Are fanboys just incompetent? Why is installing a video card so difficult for these kids?
Slashdot Mirror
I think is also important to point out that the books are most influential on people who really have had no exposure to philosophical thought. I liken them to "pulp" philosophy. Its benefit is that it gets through to the reader, and forces them to consider a different way of thinking.
After being a hardcore IBM fan for so many years, I still think about microchannel and OS/2 as soon as I hear PS2. I have tried to stop, but I can't.
I never understood why people bought All-In-Wonder Cards if they were serious game players always wanting the latest technology and I've no idea why anybody would buy this
I am one of those people with an AIW 9700Pro. Why did I get it over the regular 9700pro? It was only $80 more at newegg.com! For the features you get, it is a bargain...
Jeeps Creepers 2
My God.
Jeepers Creepers was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I can't believe they would make a sequel.
You do know the metric system is many hundred of years old don't you? In fact it's older than your country.
Are you really this ignorant? I know its hard to remember dates and everything, but you should at least know the metric system as we know it today was a direct result of enlightenment thinking which led to the American and French Revolutions.
The first true metric system was in fact America's currency based on 100 cents. France adopted the first universal metric system of measurement in 1795, after the revolution settled down.
Napolean suspended it in 1812 however. It was not adopted again until 1840.
Honestly, I bet this was a troll... not a bad one either, but I just had to respond as I used to be a big enlightenment fan.
False dichotomy.
You're so smart. What was I thinking?
You can burn down my house, that will be good for the economy, but it certainly won't be good for me.
We are talking about civilized societies here. Personally, the misfit in me partially desires burning people like you alive, rather than your house. It doesn't mean such an action would be civilized.
We can have anarchy, or we can have civilization. The desire of the few which are contrary to civilization are deservingly suppressed.
Any publicly listed company has a DUTY to their shareholders to increase the shareholders investments as rapidly as possible.
This is a common, modern misconception. When you buy stock it is a like a loan. The companies are supposed to pay you a percentage of their profits. These are called dividends.
If you invest with the express purpose of buying low and selling high you will fail.
This is of course the problem today. People used to pay higher prices for stocks because it was perceived they would pay big dividends. Now, comapnies (like Microsoft) don't even pay dividends (which is illegal).
People bid up worthless pieces of paper.
Use the multiple rooms of your home at different times of day.
One minor point here, the topic is cooling apartments... For most apartment dwellers, this is simply not at option. In most metro areas, people only rent a multi-bedroom apartment if they have roommates...
I have to say, that I spent $400 on my ATI All-in-Wonder 9700 Pro because of Battlefield 1942.
My trusty Radeon DDR was perfectly fine for most games at 640x480 resolution. BF1942 was unplayable however.
The point, there ARE other games out there. I never played Half-life and haven't played Doom II since I was in high school in 1995.
The first world is not an isolated set of Jeffersonian economies.
No one is advocating isolated economies. Do I believe decentralized ownership and production are preferable to centralized ownership and production? Absolutely. Centralized control was a relic from a rather brief industrial age, it is irrelevent today.
Dependent on subsistance farming, the vagaries of an unhelpful/nonexistant government, and "personal ingenuity" which must be re-learned every single generation.
I think you need to revise that sentence.
Obviously you have ideals about independence but the lessons of today's economy are simple: cooperation within only a homestead or even a village or tribal community is excellent and morally impressive but genuinely unproductive and incredibly unstable in ways. It promotes a horrid level of intolerance and isolation. Consider Yugoslavia to realize what isolation and self-dependence (ethnically) produces.
Parts of this are true, and parts or not. Homogenization of the world is definitely pursued in order to produce stability. What you are apparently ignorant of is how this is exactly the debat that has existed since the fall of Rome. What is better? The extreme of the Empire? The median way of the Republic? Or the extreme of the Hellenic world of independent city states?
I prefer the latter, but for you to make the outrageous assertion that the choice is clear is extremely ignorant. Perhaps you have read your economics textbooks, but there is more to the story than that. For the record, Jefferson obviously favored the median way... He was hardly some anarcho-democratic fellow.
Some people would also argue that frequent instability and revolution keeps a culture fresh. Excessive stability leads to stagnation.
The technique of self-specialization, economic interdependence and innovative "niche-carving" for an economy is the rule in the first world and it combines technology with incredible resources from utterly diverse cultures and diverse economies. It promotes understanding of truly remote and different cultures as they must cooperate. Think of them when you sip a mocha (the national milk/feed economy, coffee-from-Columbia, caocao-from-Brazil etc..).
Your example is proof enough that the modern economy is founded on decadence and frivolity. I don't waste my money on coffee or milk. Coffee is the prime example of this, not only is it a ridiculous luxury its only benefit is to further drive its consumer to work harder to purchase more useless crap. You may call that an economy, but I call it a vast lie. In the beginning trading natural resources seems like a good idea (and it is), but the drive for more and more unique items causes a social breakdown. The modern obsession with variety and fads is creating a corrupt society, only those who profit from it defend it.
To remain in a cave is to fully depend on all that you alone know and nothing more..
And who, pray tell, is advocating living in a cave?
because "college" itself requires vast cooperation
Perhaps you aren't aware of the history of colleges, but before the great Social Engineering experiment of your idols, colleges were places to teacher leaders of the old tool of social control: religion. It was only natural they be altered to churn out new leaders... Colleges were created for the management class, the enlightened leaders to rule over the masses. That is a very bad example. Do you think any of the founding fathers were college educated? No.
Name it "government" or don't but a more mindless bias will show if you don't mind trade but do mind governmental structures that promote trade and stability.
Thats right. Because that social structure has become a prison which affords us few benefits and offers us nothing but useless shit to buy. You crave stability, but only because you are a coward.
Very few of us can manufacture all of diapers,
unfortunately I can't figure out my nephew... A Philosiphy major with an Ethics minor... Yay, he'll learn new ways to contemplate.... "You want fries with that?"
I'm more worried about lots of students taking the worthless career tracks like that
Because you fullfill a role in the machine of society does not mean you are truly alive. Computer Science is interesting stuff, but in the grand scheme of existence computers are essentially irrelevent. The average human is probably LESS happy today than before the computer was invented.
For some, philosophy is pure contemplation as you mention. For others however, it is the ultimate weapon to enslave more members of society such as yourself. I can assure you those people who created our regimented system of compulsory education and the modern work week were avid students of philosophy.
You are exemplifying a stunningly ignorant view, and I highly suggest you revise it. This world is fucked up as it is, we don't need more people who think the purpose of their lives is to work in pointless jobs.
You must not forget that the ultimate purpose of our modern society (school + employee life) was to make the vast majority of citizens dependent on the system and thereby enslave them. 150 years ago, the only people who took orders from anyone were in the military, young people learning a trade, or slaves. 90% of citizens had an independent livelihood as farmers or tradesmen.
The attitude you portray is the result of a lifetime of training, you cannot imagine what life would be like if you didn't spend it becoming an employee. You are a successful product of the social engineering machine.
I am not trying to insult you here, just trying to open your eyes to the truth. Philosophy is necessary now more than ever, as nothing else focuses on the concept of value to human life. You say philosophy is worthless, but by whose standards? Your master, thats who. By his phiosophical standards, you studying philosophy is a threat to society. You may cause trouble, perhaps even start a revolution. He made a wise decision (according to his standards) to train you over two decades to accept your place, and he has succeeded.
Read up on it, you have not yet begun to live.
Someone really needs to save this post for future generations... This post is the finest troll I have ever read. I will no longer strive to be the best as I have witnessed the genius of Mr. Wagner.
Like you said, purity is part of the problem. And now you're using the FDA to justify your "drug habit", which is effectively what it is. Perscription drugs are a commodotiy now, and makers will push the limit.
It is hardly a habit. It is this ignorance that I sadly encounter frequently and it is offensive. I am no addict, I feel no compulsion to take my prescription medication and go for extend periods of time (even a year) without taking it. Suffice it to say, my prescription is quite legal for a condition well known and documented.
Amphetamine has over 75 years of history documenting its safety and efficacy in treating ADD, depression, narcolepsy, and asthma. Millions upon millions of people in the US take the drug every day without any ill effects. Most are in fact children.
Because you cannot fathom any benefits of these drugs does not mean that they do not exist. Also be a little careful out there. Many people out there feel as you do and it gets tiresome explaining to gung ho prohibitionists that amphetamine is in fact a legitimate medication.
It's sad sad sad, and I find it impossible to dismiss drug addiction as the primary contributor to their declines, regardless of their 'lifestyle choices'.
Then you are apparently unfamiliar with the mode of action by which drugs work. The argument you are making is the identical one used to further the prohibition of alcohol. Today, it would be the mark of a madman to suggest alcohol use is an inescapable catalyst of decline. Yet, when Congress banned it only 80 years ago it was argued that alcohol is the ONLY catalyst of social decline. It was honestly believed that if you banned alcohol, the slums would disappear.
We live in a fucked up world, and for many people they choose not to participate in the vast system of control forced upon them (school, consumerism, work). That is their choice, and the drugs simply are one more way to alleviate the emptiness of their lives.
but they could have stopped any time they wanted, right?
One would presume. None of them exhibited the cycle of addiction which is destructive to life. Especially since many were advocates of Temperence, perhaps they were more aware of addictions dangers. It was merely intended to emphasize the point that cocaine is not necessarily addictive and destructive, like the parent poster is claiming video games are. Certainly, Winston Churchill would have had a hard time organizing the defense of England if he was a real crackhead.
Speaking from years of personal experience, I painfully disagree with your "coke ain't so bad" dismisall. It is a bad, bad, dirty drug.
Ahh, the old anecdotal evidence. The reason I mentioned so many famous users of the drugs was to counter such an assertion. Perhaps you feel that way, but many of the most influential people in the recent history of mankind were regular users. Who am I going to believe? Winston Churchill or some junkie on slashdot? Cocaine is no different than alcohol, use in moderation.
Check back on your superstar buddies in a few years. I've seen both crank and blow destroy MANY people, included ace programmers.
For the record, I have never used cocaine. I have however taken dextroamphetamine regularly for several years. I purchase this product from Walgreens under the brand name of Dexedrine, but junkies call it crank. See, I am actually prescribed this drug by a doctor.
I take it for months at a time, and notice little more than some fatigue when it wears off.
You're pro-drug bias needs to be reality checked, it sounds like you're probably too young to have witnessed your friends going down hard from drugs... hopefully you won't see that.
I never said I was pro drug, but to assert that video game playing is on part with cocaine and thus an impediment to workplace productivity is absurd.
I am not going to get into a debate about drugs per say, but the fact remains that cocaine use can and is used responsibly in the same fashion as alcohol use. Millions of people use alcohol regularly and perform their jobs well, just as millions play video games and use cocaine.
And, just to let you know, and I am sure you know this, caffeine is also a stimulant. When I said many people perform effectively using stimulants I was not simply referring to those which are prescription only.
In many ways, it reminds of the American government basically refusing to enforce English copyrights in the 19th century. That was certainly commercial rivalry, but that whole revolution thing may play a part.
This is akin to saying that if workers take cocaine to pep them up during the day, it's just like a cup of coffee.
The fact you would make this rather ridiculous assertion means that you have never tried cocaine and you are ignorant of the history of the drug. The reality is it *is* just like drinking a cup of coffee and was accepted as such for 60 years before it was made prescription only (and indeed can still be legally prescribed). Caffeine was nearly banned at the same time. Read the congressional transcripts for the debate on the Harrison Narcotics Act.
The problems with the drug today are due to impurities and unknown dosage, nothing more. There is also little need for the drug today as Amphetamine is far longer lasting and more effective (but not as mood altering).
From Jules Verne, to Mark Twain, Queen Victoria, Winston Churchill, Pope Gregory XIV (IIRC), to Thomas Edison... and millions more in the 19th they all used cocaine, frequently and with no ill effects. The addictive potential of the drug is highly overrated.
The drug, like other drugs, was banned during the temperance craze which led to prohibition. Alcohol then, as now, was more popular so it was legalized again... but nothing else was.
Anyway, BAD analogy. I know MANY people who get far more work done using stimulants than not...
I know it. Imagine if we farmed out our development projects to the Chinese prison system. There, they only eat, sleep and write software. Every bug discovered by your manager results in a 100 volt zap to your left nut.
The problem with western people is they don't understand they are alive to serve their manager, nothing more. Eastern people however... they have a long and elustrious tradition of efficiency. India still has their wonderful caste system, the perfect social system for labor. China just prefers to use "prisoners" for the real dirty work.
The Americans better realize that you cannot be both free and be productive. If you have to work, you better shut the fuck up and do your job at all times you are conscious and not eating, sleeping, defecating, fucking...
Ok, but I think that your problems are an artifact of your place of education, not the actual works you studied.
Pray tell, what exactly are these problems of which you speak? Further, how would my education pertain to these problems?
Personally, philosophy study has taught me quite a bit about historical philosophical thought in a variety of realms and also modern controversies and the recovery from the now-widely-criticized Cartesian split.
Did you type that for a resume or something? That seems like a rather narrow benefit to gained your love of wisdom. It is also, to use a more vulgar expression, utter bullshit.
You can write all you want about how worthless your education was, but that is just it: it was your education.
Ahh I can see where this is going, apparently you haven't learned one of the first lessons of philosophy, and that is moderation. Your response is already far out of proportion to what was a rather innocent and obviously light hearted post. Perhaps you didn't notice the parent post regarding how university philosophy professor are out of touch with reality. As pretty much any serious student of philosophy would easily admit, college is only the beginning of what is a life long journey.
Philosophy is great, and I have learned more from philosophy (that I can apply to my actual life) than I have in any of my other studies, though I am a triple major (philosophy, German, psychology), as well as a professional technical writer, and contracting network administrator/web designer.
Like I said, I don't believe you have mastered some of the more basic concepts of self control and moderation but I am glad your studies suited your needs. I must say however that unless you attended a school with less than demanding standards a triple major is hard to believe. I attended a top jesuit university and I could barely finish math and philosophy in four years, with fairly substantial AP credit. What relevence this has to our discussion, I don't know... but I feel like ripping on you.
I can't reasonably hope to disprove your non-coginitivist claims about your personal experience, but if you want to talk about _facts_, you mentioned a few that seemed ludicrous to me:
Why am I not surprised you have decided to use some 20th century buzz word. Please, by all means, let me know what non-cognitivist claims I am making... You read the opinion of a former philosophy student, I would love to see what claims you derived from a flippant post.
However, the reason you did not learn about the Critique in you undergraduate program is because you would need to spend an extremely intense period of time studying it -- usually in a course during graduate school.
Actually, I had to take a whole class in it. Having attended a Jesuit university meant that most classes revolved around theistic philosophers, and as that single book is the best weapon a theist has for defending his faith it was required.
Second, to say that Das Kapital has never been completely read by any man alive today is ridiculous, unless you mean only that it has never been fully understood by any man alive today, which is a question that is impossible to resolve.
Apparently, in your vast studies of philosophy and literature, you have never encountered the rhetorical device of exaggeration. Since such poetic devices are used frequently by Nietzsche, it seems you are unfamiliar with one major philosopher otherwise you would not have taken my words so literally.
This seems strange in one of the most thorough philosophy programs in the country, but as one of my professors said: we leave Marx for the less intelligent political science theorists.
I think that claim is another example of how you embody the very problem with academia today. I will not comment on Marx here, but it is unreasonable for a learned individual to dismiss any profoundly effective work as someth
But am I the only one that sees it as incredibly stupid that Mach 64 pro, Mach Pro 64 and 64 Mach Pro are three seperate cards with three seperate drivers?
This is because there was no such product. Mach64 was the processor, not the brand name. There was no "pro" version of the Mach64, one processor. In fact, that pro BS didn't begin until this current 9000 series. You better be drunk, crazy, or both... Otherwise, that was the worst troll I have ever read. Seriously dude, if you were trying to troll... it was just a bad attempt.
Installing a driver isn't so tough, try debugging SQL network errors, then we'll talk.
SQL network errors. do you have any idea what SQL even stands for? Of course not, because it has nothing to do with a network. But then again, you are talking out of your ass anyway so what do you care?
I just wanted to add as well, that the constitution doesn't even require direct election of the president. In the 19th century, there were quite a few states where the state legislature chose the delegates sent to the electoral college to elect the president. This was also true for senators as well. (before the 17th amendment was passed in 1919).
It really is a recent change where pretty much all government officials are elected by the people in a direct fashion.
I majored in philosophy and I can honestly say I didn't learn a damn thing in college. The university structure is in general stiffling to learning, but much moreso for philosophy. Many of the most important philosophers clearly articulated how teachers are a threat to knowledge. You can imagine how difficult it is to discuss such a subject in philosophy class.
Most philosophy professors are also way out there, completely detached from reality. Since philosophy is primarily about life, most of these people just didn't seem to get it. They either were obsessed with the academic favorites (Descartes, Marx, Kant) or with the new ethical philosophers (peter singer, animal rights). I always leaned much more towards Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche but I had to read most of their works on my own time.
University study of philosophy CAN make people elitist however, because certain works by certain philosophers are simply too complex to study without devoting months of your time. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a behemoth, Marx's Das Capital has still never been completely read by any man alive today. Both books are bigger than all of Plato's writings combined. Das Capital is easily longer than all of Nietzsche's writings combined.
In most cases, I don't believe a man's self esteem will allow him to read a book for a year and say afterwards "That was a load of crap". They inherently begin to believe what they are reading not only has value, but only someone who spends their life reading it can understand it.
Anyway, that is a rambling theory...
Ati, There are drivers where the Ati Mach 64 pro is a DIFFERENT driver then the Ati Mach Pro 64.
Ahh, young fanboys. I bet you were like 7 or 8 when the Mach 64 came out nearly 10 years ago. I was in high school at the time and spent liek $300 on that card to get it with 4 megs of VRAM.
Needless to say, it wasn't a problem because back then the only difference between the Mach64 based cards was the type/quantity of memory. DRAM based cards were sold under the Graphics Xpression name, VRAM based cards under Graphics Pro Turbo. It wasn't hard to distinguish between them. Also, video card drivers back then were much more simple and came with the operating system. Even OS/2 Warp 3 had drivers for the mach64. I am just amazed with the fanboys, because I have been using ATI cards since the original SVGA Mach8 came out... Never had a problem, always solid.
Went from Mach8 in 1991, to Mach64 in 1994, to Xpert@Play Rage pro in 1998, Radeon DDR in 2000, and AIW 9700Pro just a few months ago. Since 1994, I have been runnin on non-intel boards as well, still no problems what so ever. Are fanboys just incompetent? Why is installing a video card so difficult for these kids?