Not to sound too much like flame-bait: but I sometimes wonder if our British friends are trying to compete with us here in the states for the title of Most Orwellian. On some counts the British have a far worse track-record, with seemingly less protest, than us in the States.
But then again I am sometimes frightened that the whole of the West is on the verge of entering the Dark Ages again, so what do I know?
This might be true, the Wikipedia crowd are rarely as mature as they like to sound. But... So?
It's a private website, they can keep the picture up for whatever reason they wish. They're not Muslim, so there is no reason they should live by Muslim rules, if someone wants to get offended, that is their purgative. Hell I could wear a t-shirt about claiming "Muhammad was an Asshat" (replace Muhammad with Jesus for you Xtians), and it would be in bad taste, but perfectly acceptable. I'm not of their faith, so I don't really care about their rules, since I lack the fundamental beliefs that make the foundation of them.
Should we really stop teaching evolution because some lunatic fringe finds it offensive to their archaic belief system?
Sorry for the dual post, the preview button is your friend.
The form of government does not alter the objectively proper role of government; rather, if the form of government allows government to get away with acting outside its proper domain, then the form of government is WRONG and must be altered and in the meantime must not be heeded.
Would you care to actually define the "objectively proper" role of government, and then tell from what objective principles it is derived. As a student of history, I can see that there is an almost infinite variation in governmental forms, making it hard for me to see any legacy which could lead one to accept any idea of "objectivity" in government. The conclusion I am (subjectively) lead to is that forms of government fit the character of the people they rule over, and even this to a loose extent.
Again, in my subjective view, you have the freedom to rebellion and nonconformity, but also you must accept the consequences of your choice in actions.
All of which are intellectually bankrupt and thus invalid.
This is a statement that demands proof. It may be true that they are unsound, but it is undeniable that the founders of our government used one or more of these theories as keystones in the drafting of government.
Yup, and the will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the individual.
To this statement I am ambiguous. I generally take the Lockean view, where the rights of the individual are supreme until they impede on the rights of others. Thus your statement is right in a sense, and wrong in a sense, as well. I say this because the majority, and its will, is largely derived from each individual's view of their own rights. It also begs us to define what exactly the rights of the individual are, which also veers deeply into the realm of the subjective. Granted by the purely Lockean view, the current Government fails on some levels.
I was going to question your idea of "taxes = theft", but I will presume to guess your argument (correct me if I'm wrong, or perpetrate a strawman): In your view, I guess, taxes are a form of coercion, or protection racket. This seems a common view for those presenting arguments such as yours, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. To this I disagree somewhat. I'm not going into this argument though since I am unsure of your views, and to be honest, somewhat unsure of my own views on this situation. I will accept critical infrastructure, the running of government (which isn't going away, and national security as sound areas for tax support. I will even accept some form of welfare, as well, and this also international aide to a lesser extent. And of course college loans, and such, since these directly lead to the benefit of the country as a whole. But I will accept the fact that it often goes WAY to far, and the actual managment and deployment of these funds are faulty (no-bid contracts, dubious pork, etc...)
The form of government does not alter the objectively proper role of government; rather, if the form of government allows government to get away with acting outside its proper domain, then the form of government is WRONG and must be altered and in the meantime must not be heeded.All of which are intellectually bankrupt and thus invalid.
This is a statement that demands proof. It may be true that they are unsound, but it is undeniable that the founders of our government used one or more of these theories as keystones in the drafting of government.
Yup, and the will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the individual.
To this statement I am ambiguous. I generally take the Lockean view, where the rights of the individual are supreme until they impede on the rights of others. Thus your statement is right in a sense, and wrong in a sense, as well. I say this because the majority, and its will, is largely derived from each individual's view of their own rights. It also begs us to define what exactly the rights of the individual are, which also veers deeply into the realm of the subjective. Granted by the purely Lockean view, the current Government fails on some levels.
I was going to question your idea of "taxes = theft", but I will presume to guess your argument (correct me if I'm wrong, or perpetrate a strawman): In your view, I guess, taxes are a form of coercion, or protection racket. This seems a common view for those presenting arguments such as yours, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. To this I disagree somewhat. I'm not going into this argument though since I am unsure of your views, and to be honest, somewhat unsure of my own views on this situation. I will accept critical infrastructure, the running of government (which isn't going away, and national security as sound areas for tax support. I will even accept some form of welfare, as well, and this also international aide to a lesser extent. And of course college loans, and such, since these directly lead to the benefit of the country as a whole. But I will accept the fact that it often goes WAY to far, and the actual managment and deployment of these funds are faulty (no-bid contracts, dubious pork, etc...)
Erm.. we live in a democracy. Meaning the government is DEFINED by popular will, its even in the definition of the term. Demos = people, or in practice the majority of the people.
Also it is NOT theft, your use of that term is fallacious. Ignoring the various social contract theories in which our government is based, you receive benefit from taxes. So you don't like where it goes, fine, but that's what happens in this form of government, the majority decides. You are welcome to found a new government, vote for one of your choice, or form a coup. You are also free to be bitter that not more than a handful of people agree with you.
Also "metaphysics" might mean something other than you think it does.
First off, I heavily disagree with you, but still don't think you warrant the troll mod. You have an opinion, and aren't trolling (perhaps).
What about science for the sake of knowledge? Finding life, say, on Europa will probably have no economic benefits whatsoever, but would benefit humanity as a whole. The same goes for other just-because lines of research, like SETI, which will probably never have a practical application, but still is just neat. The same goes for most of experimental physics, most of which isn't not geared towards any marketable solution. I rather doubt that the Higgs boson will be making anyone rich (discounting the Nobel winnings) in my, or my grand kids lifetime.
Then you have the discoveries that have no short-term benefits, like heliocentrism which only came in handy 600 years after its discovery, capitalism is far to shortsighted to support things that only MAY become useful in a couple generations.
My problem with rabid capitalists is that they seem to think that everything worthwhile must involve profit. Life is more than money, sometimes the satisfaction of having your worldview expand is worth far more than any amount of money shoved at it, or made from it (Darwin, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc... all of whom were involved with publicly funded institutions). Even if no profit was made from the discovery of extraterrestrial life, it still would change the shape of human knowledge FOREVER, a much more important achievement than simple cash.
Also, to dispell another popular, and obnoxious, myth: science != technology. They are related, by not equivalent.
Also, on a more subjective level, I disagree with national defense. We have too much of it already. It is far too big a money sink for its worth. Put it towards education and acting civil to our neighbors (in this day and age that means the world in general), and we won't need to spend trillions on finding a better way to kill people (what an odd proposition to begin with).
Not going to debate you on subjective opinions, but...
McCain: Gun-grabbing wimp, whose thinking doesn't line up with most Republicans.
Somehow I doubt he's a wimp, even if he goes against your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The wimp bit is a immature ad hominem, and thus irrelevant. He's been through things we can't imagine, not that it effects his viability positively or negatively. Second just because he doesn't toe the party line doesn't mean he's wrong. NO party is 100% correct, that's just accepting dogma. Perhaps he's right, and the party line is wrong in places?
I'm not endorsing McCain, just pointing out that your being unfair.
It is absolutely essential that my candidate by unquestionably Christian and Conservative.
I understand the latter in a discussion of Republican politics, but the former utterly perplexes me. What the hell does religion have to do with secular politics? Of all the attributes of all the politicians running, their church of choice matters the least, though I do think that EVERY person running this cycle is Christian.
For some reason do you think Christians have a monopoly on virtue? There are plenty of non-virtuous Christians out there.
Also, as an atheist, I'm offended by Romney saying I don't have the right to have an opinion in politics (not being "of faith"), and I'm guessing Huckabee feels the same. Anytime you exclude someone based on arbitrary features you show yourself as not fit to rule a free country. Also, with religion being one of your key issues, how would you feel about an American theocracy? Would the Taliban be right if it were only Christian instead?
I agree that Gravel is probably doomed, but not for the same reasons as Kucinich and Paul. Gravel is doomed because he was irrelevant in the debates we was allowed into, he couldn't stay on-topic because his candidacy is obviously just an anti-war protest. Kucinich and Paul though consistently win the debates they are in on ideological grounds, you can see this by audience response, and (at least with Kucinich) the reactions of the other candidates. Both of them represent the purified historical core of their parties. Sadly both parties have become so corrupted as to be vaguely indistinguishable, and completely washed out for the sake of populism.
After watching all the debates for both sides, I still would have a hard time telling you what the front runners ACTUALLY believe, and not just what they are being fed by their "handlers". This is the same issue I had with John Kerry last cycle, I'm sure he was a nice guy, and well meaning, but he really didn't stand for much outside ~Bush. On the Republican side, the only principled leader is probably McCain. On the Democrat side it was Edwards (IMHO), who I do think suffered from the media disliking him.
The media in the last couple elections have been too powerful. The media grows in importance as America grows in apathy, we don't have the gumption to research our own politics, so we need it to be spoon fed, and pre-interpreted for us. The media presents the candidates that make good stories (Hillary and Obama are definitely firsts, and make a good fight), and by blowing things FAR out of proportion for ratings (what happened to Dean last time). Thus some qualified candidates don't get a shake based on purely arbitrary reasons.
Now that Edwards is gone, I'd vote for Obama, with a slightly tainted feeling.(if I didn't throw my vote away by not being in one of the early primary states) Sure he lacks experience, and his senate voting record SUCKS, but perhaps naive idealism will be best for us. A weak president might not be a bad thing, either, megalomania hasn't done us very well, since it is divisive, and leads to Napoleonic behaviors. Perhaps we DO need another Jimmy Carter. Hillary seems in the game for power for powers sake, she has had her eyes on the prize for a long long time. This scares me. I think she is an idealist, like Bush, but she keeps these ideals from us "rabble" because they might be unpopular, but these ideas are hinted at by her un-democratic voting history, and alliances with Lieberman.
In speeches we can hear the difference between them. Obama sticks to "we" and "us" as his prefered pronouns, while Hillary sticks with "I" and "me". Obama thinks as America as a team, or union, while Hillary seems to think of herself as above us, us needing to be LEAD.
Mind, I'm not telling anyone how to vote, nor trolling. Hillary might be great, I'm just stating my impressions of the matter. The point is that neither of them are ideal.
If it came down to Hillary vs. McCain, I might go with McCain. I've been an Arizona resident for the last 24 years, and he has pissed me off more than once with his unnatural hatred of pork (most of our highways are self-funded as a result), this might actually come in handy at the federal level though. He might be smart enough that lowering income (taxes) while raising spending is a REALLY STUPID IDEA. He seems less blindly dogmatic and religious than most in his party, which is nice too. I think he is as far on the left (ahem!) as Hillary, and they have roughly the same stance on the war, I think. Sure Hillary says different, but voting (actions) speaks louder than stump speeches. McCain is also against torture, which I'm not sure where Hillary stands on, though it still pains me that that is actually a damn issue.
Obama's idea of compromise always is somewhat disturbing. We don't need it on some issues. Yes it leads to political currency, but compromising on unethical/wrong/or moronic issues is somewhat... unethical. Compromise for its own sake is a rather sil
Why don't you write a song or book or create a painting, and I'll copy it. Lets see how quick you change your tune.
I've been pirated before, and the only real effect was bragging rights, and feeling kind of flattered. Granted I wasn't trying to make money from it in the first place.
For awhile I was recoloring/retouching vintage photos (mostly to teach myself how, and throwing the results on Flickr, with a Creative Commons pro-attribution, and non-commercial license. A couple of them appeared in all sorts of amusing places, sometimes even on for-pay print-services, and for-pay image services. Instead of calling lawyers, I decided to be flattered.
I'm really getting sick of this debate. Both sides are wrong, and just hop on some dogmatic, or purely self-serving script whenever this issue hits the frontpage (40 times a day, it seems). The pro-piracy crowd comes of as a bunch of greedy idjits trying to rationalize their own greed. While the anti crowd comes off as either a bunch of conservatives fighting for some status quo (which is dumb, since we're dealing with emergent technologies), or a bunch of delusional liberals screaming "think of the artists" when the system is actually failing them as well.
The real problem is living in an age of middle men, when more and more technology could allow us to destroy them for the good of all.
The solution... no clue. But it would consist of weakening copyright law, forcing the litigious middle man the limit his damages to something actually representative of what they are in-fact. Lowering the prices to a sane level, thus removing the incentive for piracy (except for the entitled greed crowd, which will always be a problem), this can be done by... removing the middle man. How much of an albums cost are directly related to paying artists, and production costs, and how much goes to various suits?
You state this "hotness" as if it was some objective, and measurable fact. Oddly though, this seems to vary from culture to culture, and from decade to decade, and EVEN from subculture to subculture. So, in YOUR opinion the above are hot, and from the only two names I actually recognize (television is for PBS/History/Discovery/MSNBC only here), Jessica Alba looks like a 12 year old, and the pedo is weak in this one, and the chick from Lost is ugly, IMHO.
The chick from Mythbusters isn't bad, I personally like the short red hair. Well and the fact that she's a nerd, or at least has the tendency (her body language makes her look like a hired face, so I sometimes wonder). River from Firefly is hot. My ubergeek friend has a crush on Morgan Webb (from G4), that I don't share physically, but I can understand, since brains are hot.
And then we have Clair Danes. While not HOT, per se, she is damn cute.
As for average, you haven't been paying attention to statistics, over 50% of Americans are obese, meaning the average is... obese. For verification head to your nearest shopping mall.
The same is true for art. Once you master a technique (which takes time, and experience) you basically just make whats in your head appear on canvas, with none of the plodding steps that were required before learning. Basically it goes from "idea>thought>expression" to "idea>expression".
I wonder how much of the non-linguistic arts are a form (neurologically) of language, or at least connected to common process.
I wonder how generalizable this is to humans. Generally I would agree that we can use cross-species data for humans, but when it comes to more specialized features that actually define humanity I have my doubts. Training monkeys to use pliers is much different in scope than the ubiquitous, innate, human tool use. This might be anthropologically interesting since it could explain the ease of tool acquisition in primates, thus leading to the specialization of the talent in man. I wonder, then, what the differences are between "natural" tool use (i.e. human-like), and learned tool use, like in the article.
Something like this was covered by the German Existentialist Martin Heidegger as well in Being and Time (1927). His premise was that many of our actions are not conscious and reasoned (ala Descartes), but instead nothing but an extension of being. Thus to a carpenter hammering a nail, as the example goes, he is not aware of hammering it is an extension of his being. He IS hammering, the act itself. It is only when something is out of the ordinary that you actually become aware of the act that is performed.
This is also noticable in Csíkszentmihályi's idea of "flow". Where we becomes completely immersed into a process.
I like the old FPSs better, the ones that don't require all the stealth and such. I like wading to my knees in gibs, while scoring a running head shot with the railgun. Sure it isn't "realistic", but if I wanted realism I wouldn't be playing a game. I don't want to live out a boring Clancy fantasy, I wan't to be Rambo.
I don't think there has been a good successor to Doom since Serious Sam, and even that was rather meh. As far as multi-player goes UT2kx still reigns supreme. I don't want to hide behind a box for 30 minutes, waiting to garrote someone, I want to see their head explode 3 inches from my Flak Cannon.
Go look at the MP3 Player aisle at your local electronics store, notice how almost every Mp3 player there has the same radial button scheme, that looks uncannily like the click wheel interface of the ipod. Granted half of that is just trying to fool stupid people into thinking that your bottom-line product is the more trendy successful one, but still...
Actually I don't completely think that click wheel is the UI that the parent was talking about. The simplicity is what really did it, and the syncing with iTunes, which was leagues above all music software to begin with, that did it. Actually, we can just say the whole package was miles beyond what was out there at the time.
So if I am the only smart person on a planet full of mentally retarded monkeys I should try to emulate them just to look normal?
Sorry I misstated my point. What I meant was that the poster applied himself (part of the abnormal set) to an article about the average person. The article wasn't about the so-called exceptional, but about humanity as a whole.
I understand that pretty well. I personally think that IQ is a weak metric for intelligence, since intelligence is such a subtle beast. My father is a working class guy, with no education beyond 7th grade, but he is one of the smartest people I know. Sure, he hasn't read many books, but he can do his job better than anyone else, and has the practical intelligence that I notice many academically intelligent people lack. More importantly he is constantly curious, which, in my view, is a higher indicator of intellect than some numbers derived from a test.
Then again I have a friend with a sub-normal IQ (in the mid 90's), who knows FAR more than me, on several topics. He just isn't as quick, but if you give things time to ferment, he's smarter than most people with high IQs.
Awhile back I was working on a paper about this, which I think there ARE multiple intelligences, but not in the current pop-psych way. I've always been a quick learner, and good at using multiple fields on the task at hand, but prolonged attention has always been a bugbear. There are some that think slow, but think well. There are the savant types, that are REALLY good at one thing, but can't generalize. etc...
Getting back to the anecdote about my father, I think the big thing is curiosity. We're all intelligent (humanity), but some of us don't have the gumption to care. Curiosity is the best indicator of a roving intellect, while apathy is the greatest indicator of a dead mind.
Actually I wonder if terming this "multitasking" is appropriate, as evident as some posters discussing autonomic functions as evident of inherent multitasking, which is rather absurd, as evident in the etymology of the term "autonomic". I think multitasking is more subtle, in other ways too, though. While I prefer single-tasking, that does not preclude me thinking of other things as well, but on a more deeper "subconscious" level, but the focus itself is on a singular, immediate, task. Would this constitute multitasking? Perhaps, but on a lesser level than the common conception.
When I mention "multitasking" we generally picture actual external tasks, and not multiple internal processes. I think the ability to be constantly mentally engaged on several ideas to be a better symptom of intelligence, than just the ability to do laundry, talk on the phone, and chew gum.
Er... As someone with an IQ of 159 you should realize that you are abnormal, and that writing articles addressed only to such a minority of people would be rather... absurd. Actually I don't think your subjective experience can really be generalized to other people with high IQs. For example, I've got a pretty decent IQ myself (153), and generally try NOT to multitask, I'd rather handle one situation at a time. I think its called hyperfocus, which pretty much turn tasks into "flow" like experiences. Intelligence does not lead to one style of expression, there still is tons of neural baggage, and experiences, that will shape your strategy of using it.
Granted multitasking comes in handy, since I've noticed that most intelligent people get bored easily, and thus have a need to create their own stimulus.
Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic
You had me until that point. You can make as many copies as you feel like, DISTRIBUTING those copies fall under copyright law. Last time I check, fair use still existed.
It would be nice if owners of copies were allowed to freely download more copies, but that's not how things currently work. As for ethics, copyright and copyright infringement both have nothing to do with ethics in any respect; it's a utilitarian, amoral field.
Depending on how we frame the debate, this could be true. But first we must decide if copying is indeed "theft" or not. Since theft is indeed an ethical issue. Then we must decide if following laws are an ethical proposition, or if the principle behind the law takes precedence in our ethical system. If we define copyright violation as theft (as we are wont to do here) then indeed violation is ethically wrong. If not, we still need to decide whether following a (perceived) unjust law is ethical or not
To be the pedantic philosophical type that I am; all actions fall under ethics, since ethics are the principles that guide our behaviors (or "ought" to).
I've made that in 2 hours before. Get a mule, load up Auctioneer, scan the AH every day for a month. Then start buying low, and selling high. Especially low level twink items, and PVP pots. I've seen people selling 1000g purples and blues for 5g, snatch them up and sell them back. Also you can exploit the market, buy all of x, sell all of x at an increased price, poof, instant virtual monopoly. And if other people are using Auctioneer, get a rare-ish item, and plug it for 100-200% its actual value, then drop it down to a reasonable (but still high) price, and people will snatch it up, thinking its a deal.
First off, I'm generally a fan of unions. They can go bad, but for the whole they serve a useful function.
But this is absolutely moronic. Does every blogger really have such an overinflated sense of importance? Any monkey can be a blogger, hell *I* have a blog, thus proving that it doesn't really take a huge amount of skill. Every emo kid on Facebook/MySpace/LiveJournal is a damn blogger, by definition. Journalists/writers are generally vetted by an employer to show that their worthy of pay, thus worthy of potential exploitation, thus worthy of joining a union. This would be like a pick-up union?
Most businesses, if unionized, can't hire non-union employees (unless your in an ironically named "right to work" state, like Arizona). How the hell would something like this work for this? Really, there are probably well over 10 million bloggers, of which less than one percent actually get payed, or reputation.
If they went on strike, would anyone notice?
Also... if they went on strike, and I finally updated my MySpace page, would I be a scab?
Not getting into the actual validity of it, thats a fight for another day, but I do still smell a fallacy. The DSM isn't really as scholarly as people think, a bunch of doctors get together and VOTE on what gets included, and lately, since the DSM IV, they've been getting more and more inclusive. Hence rumors of SHYNESS being a mental illness in DSM V.
How many diagnostic manuals are created by democracy? These are not somatic diseases, these are opinions derived from an observed deviation from some current "norm". The DSM is a reflection of society, lacking the rigor of other texts, such as Taber's. Mental illness used to be defined mainly along three axis "harm to self", "harm to others", and "impairs ability to function". But a reading of the current DSM will net you a SLEW of illnesses, which pretty much are universally applicable. ADD/ADHD, and asperger's come to mind, most intelligent people will meet the 4/5 or 3/6 conditions needed to be diagnosed, and thus medicated, for these, even without meeting the above three criteria.
Part of this is the fact that these are affective and not somatic. Schizophrenia is somatic, caused by brain abnormalities, whereas ADD is... what?
Another issues is the increased presence of pharmaceutical corporations trying to advance their drugs (for self-proclaimed altruistic reasons). Doctors are elevating minor things to larger problems, so they have something to cure (with drugs, if possible). Another problem is that our society, and jobs, are becoming more and more psychologically unhealthy. Sitting in an office 8 hours a day is not a natural human condition, thus expect personal psychology to react, and to an extent rebel, against this. In this case it isn't a psychological problem, but a SOCIETAL problem which we have encountered. Part of this, as well, sad to say, is that we all want to be special, we all need a label. Asperger's and ADD have some positive connotations (being thinkers diseases), and no real downfall. Its just like people running around being proud for being left-handed.
Now, to escape being called a Scientologist, there are some real problems that psychiatry should be treating. Schizophrenia, major depression (not sadness, or anomie, or general malaise, or the like), autism, and the like. Things that actually impair our ability to function and presents harm to one or another. And yes, there do exist some cases of REAL ADD/ADHD, but not nearly as many as are diagnosed. And yes, Autism does exist, but as a label for a spectrum of symptoms and not as a unitary whole. And yes, every single person on this planet can read the DSM and find something that applies to them.
More than half the people in my Philosophy department were Catholics getting the Phi degree because it looks good when doing Seminary. There was a nice little war between us "free thinkers", and them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to sound too much like flame-bait: but I sometimes wonder if our British friends are trying to compete with us here in the states for the title of Most Orwellian. On some counts the British have a far worse track-record, with seemingly less protest, than us in the States.
But then again I am sometimes frightened that the whole of the West is on the verge of entering the Dark Ages again, so what do I know?
This might be true, the Wikipedia crowd are rarely as mature as they like to sound. But... So?
It's a private website, they can keep the picture up for whatever reason they wish. They're not Muslim, so there is no reason they should live by Muslim rules, if someone wants to get offended, that is their purgative. Hell I could wear a t-shirt about claiming "Muhammad was an Asshat" (replace Muhammad with Jesus for you Xtians), and it would be in bad taste, but perfectly acceptable. I'm not of their faith, so I don't really care about their rules, since I lack the fundamental beliefs that make the foundation of them.
Should we really stop teaching evolution because some lunatic fringe finds it offensive to their archaic belief system?
Sorry for the dual post, the preview button is your friend.
The form of government does not alter the objectively proper role of government; rather, if the form of government allows government to get away with acting outside its proper domain, then the form of government is WRONG and must be altered and in the meantime must not be heeded.
Would you care to actually define the "objectively proper" role of government, and then tell from what objective principles it is derived. As a student of history, I can see that there is an almost infinite variation in governmental forms, making it hard for me to see any legacy which could lead one to accept any idea of "objectivity" in government. The conclusion I am (subjectively) lead to is that forms of government fit the character of the people they rule over, and even this to a loose extent.
Again, in my subjective view, you have the freedom to rebellion and nonconformity, but also you must accept the consequences of your choice in actions.
All of which are intellectually bankrupt and thus invalid.
This is a statement that demands proof. It may be true that they are unsound, but it is undeniable that the founders of our government used one or more of these theories as keystones in the drafting of government.
Yup, and the will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the individual.
To this statement I am ambiguous. I generally take the Lockean view, where the rights of the individual are supreme until they impede on the rights of others. Thus your statement is right in a sense, and wrong in a sense, as well. I say this because the majority, and its will, is largely derived from each individual's view of their own rights. It also begs us to define what exactly the rights of the individual are, which also veers deeply into the realm of the subjective. Granted by the purely Lockean view, the current Government fails on some levels.
I was going to question your idea of "taxes = theft", but I will presume to guess your argument (correct me if I'm wrong, or perpetrate a strawman): In your view, I guess, taxes are a form of coercion, or protection racket. This seems a common view for those presenting arguments such as yours, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. To this I disagree somewhat. I'm not going into this argument though since I am unsure of your views, and to be honest, somewhat unsure of my own views on this situation. I will accept critical infrastructure, the running of government (which isn't going away, and national security as sound areas for tax support. I will even accept some form of welfare, as well, and this also international aide to a lesser extent. And of course college loans, and such, since these directly lead to the benefit of the country as a whole. But I will accept the fact that it often goes WAY to far, and the actual managment and deployment of these funds are faulty (no-bid contracts, dubious pork, etc...)
The form of government does not alter the objectively proper role of government; rather, if the form of government allows government to get away with acting outside its proper domain, then the form of government is WRONG and must be altered and in the meantime must not be heeded.All of which are intellectually bankrupt and thus invalid.
This is a statement that demands proof. It may be true that they are unsound, but it is undeniable that the founders of our government used one or more of these theories as keystones in the drafting of government.
Yup, and the will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the individual.
To this statement I am ambiguous. I generally take the Lockean view, where the rights of the individual are supreme until they impede on the rights of others. Thus your statement is right in a sense, and wrong in a sense, as well. I say this because the majority, and its will, is largely derived from each individual's view of their own rights. It also begs us to define what exactly the rights of the individual are, which also veers deeply into the realm of the subjective. Granted by the purely Lockean view, the current Government fails on some levels.
I was going to question your idea of "taxes = theft", but I will presume to guess your argument (correct me if I'm wrong, or perpetrate a strawman): In your view, I guess, taxes are a form of coercion, or protection racket. This seems a common view for those presenting arguments such as yours, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. To this I disagree somewhat. I'm not going into this argument though since I am unsure of your views, and to be honest, somewhat unsure of my own views on this situation. I will accept critical infrastructure, the running of government (which isn't going away, and national security as sound areas for tax support. I will even accept some form of welfare, as well, and this also international aide to a lesser extent. And of course college loans, and such, since these directly lead to the benefit of the country as a whole. But I will accept the fact that it often goes WAY to far, and the actual managment and deployment of these funds are faulty (no-bid contracts, dubious pork, etc...)
Erm.. we live in a democracy. Meaning the government is DEFINED by popular will, its even in the definition of the term. Demos = people, or in practice the majority of the people.
Also it is NOT theft, your use of that term is fallacious. Ignoring the various social contract theories in which our government is based, you receive benefit from taxes. So you don't like where it goes, fine, but that's what happens in this form of government, the majority decides. You are welcome to found a new government, vote for one of your choice, or form a coup. You are also free to be bitter that not more than a handful of people agree with you.
Also "metaphysics" might mean something other than you think it does.
First off, I heavily disagree with you, but still don't think you warrant the troll mod. You have an opinion, and aren't trolling (perhaps).
What about science for the sake of knowledge? Finding life, say, on Europa will probably have no economic benefits whatsoever, but would benefit humanity as a whole. The same goes for other just-because lines of research, like SETI, which will probably never have a practical application, but still is just neat. The same goes for most of experimental physics, most of which isn't not geared towards any marketable solution. I rather doubt that the Higgs boson will be making anyone rich (discounting the Nobel winnings) in my, or my grand kids lifetime.
Then you have the discoveries that have no short-term benefits, like heliocentrism which only came in handy 600 years after its discovery, capitalism is far to shortsighted to support things that only MAY become useful in a couple generations.
My problem with rabid capitalists is that they seem to think that everything worthwhile must involve profit. Life is more than money, sometimes the satisfaction of having your worldview expand is worth far more than any amount of money shoved at it, or made from it (Darwin, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc... all of whom were involved with publicly funded institutions). Even if no profit was made from the discovery of extraterrestrial life, it still would change the shape of human knowledge FOREVER, a much more important achievement than simple cash.
Also, to dispell another popular, and obnoxious, myth: science != technology. They are related, by not equivalent.
Also, on a more subjective level, I disagree with national defense. We have too much of it already. It is far too big a money sink for its worth. Put it towards education and acting civil to our neighbors (in this day and age that means the world in general), and we won't need to spend trillions on finding a better way to kill people (what an odd proposition to begin with).
Not going to debate you on subjective opinions, but...
McCain: Gun-grabbing wimp, whose thinking doesn't line up with most Republicans.
Somehow I doubt he's a wimp, even if he goes against your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The wimp bit is a immature ad hominem, and thus irrelevant. He's been through things we can't imagine, not that it effects his viability positively or negatively. Second just because he doesn't toe the party line doesn't mean he's wrong. NO party is 100% correct, that's just accepting dogma. Perhaps he's right, and the party line is wrong in places?
I'm not endorsing McCain, just pointing out that your being unfair.
It is absolutely essential that my candidate by unquestionably Christian and Conservative.
I understand the latter in a discussion of Republican politics, but the former utterly perplexes me. What the hell does religion have to do with secular politics? Of all the attributes of all the politicians running, their church of choice matters the least, though I do think that EVERY person running this cycle is Christian.
For some reason do you think Christians have a monopoly on virtue? There are plenty of non-virtuous Christians out there.
Also, as an atheist, I'm offended by Romney saying I don't have the right to have an opinion in politics (not being "of faith"), and I'm guessing Huckabee feels the same. Anytime you exclude someone based on arbitrary features you show yourself as not fit to rule a free country. Also, with religion being one of your key issues, how would you feel about an American theocracy? Would the Taliban be right if it were only Christian instead?
I agree that Gravel is probably doomed, but not for the same reasons as Kucinich and Paul. Gravel is doomed because he was irrelevant in the debates we was allowed into, he couldn't stay on-topic because his candidacy is obviously just an anti-war protest. Kucinich and Paul though consistently win the debates they are in on ideological grounds, you can see this by audience response, and (at least with Kucinich) the reactions of the other candidates. Both of them represent the purified historical core of their parties. Sadly both parties have become so corrupted as to be vaguely indistinguishable, and completely washed out for the sake of populism.
After watching all the debates for both sides, I still would have a hard time telling you what the front runners ACTUALLY believe, and not just what they are being fed by their "handlers". This is the same issue I had with John Kerry last cycle, I'm sure he was a nice guy, and well meaning, but he really didn't stand for much outside ~Bush. On the Republican side, the only principled leader is probably McCain. On the Democrat side it was Edwards (IMHO), who I do think suffered from the media disliking him.
The media in the last couple elections have been too powerful. The media grows in importance as America grows in apathy, we don't have the gumption to research our own politics, so we need it to be spoon fed, and pre-interpreted for us. The media presents the candidates that make good stories (Hillary and Obama are definitely firsts, and make a good fight), and by blowing things FAR out of proportion for ratings (what happened to Dean last time). Thus some qualified candidates don't get a shake based on purely arbitrary reasons.
Now that Edwards is gone, I'd vote for Obama, with a slightly tainted feeling.(if I didn't throw my vote away by not being in one of the early primary states) Sure he lacks experience, and his senate voting record SUCKS, but perhaps naive idealism will be best for us. A weak president might not be a bad thing, either, megalomania hasn't done us very well, since it is divisive, and leads to Napoleonic behaviors. Perhaps we DO need another Jimmy Carter. Hillary seems in the game for power for powers sake, she has had her eyes on the prize for a long long time. This scares me. I think she is an idealist, like Bush, but she keeps these ideals from us "rabble" because they might be unpopular, but these ideas are hinted at by her un-democratic voting history, and alliances with Lieberman.
In speeches we can hear the difference between them. Obama sticks to "we" and "us" as his prefered pronouns, while Hillary sticks with "I" and "me". Obama thinks as America as a team, or union, while Hillary seems to think of herself as above us, us needing to be LEAD.
Mind, I'm not telling anyone how to vote, nor trolling. Hillary might be great, I'm just stating my impressions of the matter. The point is that neither of them are ideal.
If it came down to Hillary vs. McCain, I might go with McCain. I've been an Arizona resident for the last 24 years, and he has pissed me off more than once with his unnatural hatred of pork (most of our highways are self-funded as a result), this might actually come in handy at the federal level though. He might be smart enough that lowering income (taxes) while raising spending is a REALLY STUPID IDEA. He seems less blindly dogmatic and religious than most in his party, which is nice too. I think he is as far on the left (ahem!) as Hillary, and they have roughly the same stance on the war, I think. Sure Hillary says different, but voting (actions) speaks louder than stump speeches. McCain is also against torture, which I'm not sure where Hillary stands on, though it still pains me that that is actually a damn issue.
Obama's idea of compromise always is somewhat disturbing. We don't need it on some issues. Yes it leads to political currency, but compromising on unethical/wrong/or moronic issues is somewhat... unethical. Compromise for its own sake is a rather sil
Slangwise; pot = dope.
He was selling seeds, which still is part of the pot plant.
Therefore he was selling dope. So when my friends go off and smoke "dope", and they demonizing themselves?
Why don't you write a song or book or create a painting, and I'll copy it. Lets see how quick you change your tune.
I've been pirated before, and the only real effect was bragging rights, and feeling kind of flattered. Granted I wasn't trying to make money from it in the first place.
For awhile I was recoloring/retouching vintage photos (mostly to teach myself how, and throwing the results on Flickr, with a Creative Commons pro-attribution, and non-commercial license. A couple of them appeared in all sorts of amusing places, sometimes even on for-pay print-services, and for-pay image services. Instead of calling lawyers, I decided to be flattered.
I'm really getting sick of this debate. Both sides are wrong, and just hop on some dogmatic, or purely self-serving script whenever this issue hits the frontpage (40 times a day, it seems). The pro-piracy crowd comes of as a bunch of greedy idjits trying to rationalize their own greed. While the anti crowd comes off as either a bunch of conservatives fighting for some status quo (which is dumb, since we're dealing with emergent technologies), or a bunch of delusional liberals screaming "think of the artists" when the system is actually failing them as well.
The real problem is living in an age of middle men, when more and more technology could allow us to destroy them for the good of all.
The solution... no clue. But it would consist of weakening copyright law, forcing the litigious middle man the limit his damages to something actually representative of what they are in-fact. Lowering the prices to a sane level, thus removing the incentive for piracy (except for the entitled greed crowd, which will always be a problem), this can be done by... removing the middle man. How much of an albums cost are directly related to paying artists, and production costs, and how much goes to various suits?
You state this "hotness" as if it was some objective, and measurable fact. Oddly though, this seems to vary from culture to culture, and from decade to decade, and EVEN from subculture to subculture. So, in YOUR opinion the above are hot, and from the only two names I actually recognize (television is for PBS/History/Discovery/MSNBC only here), Jessica Alba looks like a 12 year old, and the pedo is weak in this one, and the chick from Lost is ugly, IMHO.
The chick from Mythbusters isn't bad, I personally like the short red hair. Well and the fact that she's a nerd, or at least has the tendency (her body language makes her look like a hired face, so I sometimes wonder). River from Firefly is hot. My ubergeek friend has a crush on Morgan Webb (from G4), that I don't share physically, but I can understand, since brains are hot.
And then we have Clair Danes. While not HOT, per se, she is damn cute.
As for average, you haven't been paying attention to statistics, over 50% of Americans are obese, meaning the average is... obese. For verification head to your nearest shopping mall.
I nominate this the most humorous comment on /. in the last 5 years.
But now its stuck in my head.
The same is true for art. Once you master a technique (which takes time, and experience) you basically just make whats in your head appear on canvas, with none of the plodding steps that were required before learning. Basically it goes from "idea>thought>expression" to "idea>expression".
I wonder how much of the non-linguistic arts are a form (neurologically) of language, or at least connected to common process.
I wonder how generalizable this is to humans. Generally I would agree that we can use cross-species data for humans, but when it comes to more specialized features that actually define humanity I have my doubts. Training monkeys to use pliers is much different in scope than the ubiquitous, innate, human tool use. This might be anthropologically interesting since it could explain the ease of tool acquisition in primates, thus leading to the specialization of the talent in man. I wonder, then, what the differences are between "natural" tool use (i.e. human-like), and learned tool use, like in the article.
Something like this was covered by the German Existentialist Martin Heidegger as well in Being and Time (1927). His premise was that many of our actions are not conscious and reasoned (ala Descartes), but instead nothing but an extension of being. Thus to a carpenter hammering a nail, as the example goes, he is not aware of hammering it is an extension of his being. He IS hammering, the act itself. It is only when something is out of the ordinary that you actually become aware of the act that is performed.
This is also noticable in Csíkszentmihályi's idea of "flow". Where we becomes completely immersed into a process.
Sorry, just musing out loud.
I like the old FPSs better, the ones that don't require all the stealth and such. I like wading to my knees in gibs, while scoring a running head shot with the railgun. Sure it isn't "realistic", but if I wanted realism I wouldn't be playing a game. I don't want to live out a boring Clancy fantasy, I wan't to be Rambo.
I don't think there has been a good successor to Doom since Serious Sam, and even that was rather meh. As far as multi-player goes UT2kx still reigns supreme. I don't want to hide behind a box for 30 minutes, waiting to garrote someone, I want to see their head explode 3 inches from my Flak Cannon.
One reason. Patents.
Go look at the MP3 Player aisle at your local electronics store, notice how almost every Mp3 player there has the same radial button scheme, that looks uncannily like the click wheel interface of the ipod. Granted half of that is just trying to fool stupid people into thinking that your bottom-line product is the more trendy successful one, but still...
Actually I don't completely think that click wheel is the UI that the parent was talking about. The simplicity is what really did it, and the syncing with iTunes, which was leagues above all music software to begin with, that did it. Actually, we can just say the whole package was miles beyond what was out there at the time.
So if I am the only smart person on a planet full of mentally retarded monkeys I should try to emulate them just to look normal?
Sorry I misstated my point. What I meant was that the poster applied himself (part of the abnormal set) to an article about the average person. The article wasn't about the so-called exceptional, but about humanity as a whole.
I understand that pretty well. I personally think that IQ is a weak metric for intelligence, since intelligence is such a subtle beast. My father is a working class guy, with no education beyond 7th grade, but he is one of the smartest people I know. Sure, he hasn't read many books, but he can do his job better than anyone else, and has the practical intelligence that I notice many academically intelligent people lack. More importantly he is constantly curious, which, in my view, is a higher indicator of intellect than some numbers derived from a test.
Then again I have a friend with a sub-normal IQ (in the mid 90's), who knows FAR more than me, on several topics. He just isn't as quick, but if you give things time to ferment, he's smarter than most people with high IQs.
Awhile back I was working on a paper about this, which I think there ARE multiple intelligences, but not in the current pop-psych way. I've always been a quick learner, and good at using multiple fields on the task at hand, but prolonged attention has always been a bugbear. There are some that think slow, but think well. There are the savant types, that are REALLY good at one thing, but can't generalize. etc...
Getting back to the anecdote about my father, I think the big thing is curiosity. We're all intelligent (humanity), but some of us don't have the gumption to care. Curiosity is the best indicator of a roving intellect, while apathy is the greatest indicator of a dead mind.
Actually I wonder if terming this "multitasking" is appropriate, as evident as some posters discussing autonomic functions as evident of inherent multitasking, which is rather absurd, as evident in the etymology of the term "autonomic". I think multitasking is more subtle, in other ways too, though. While I prefer single-tasking, that does not preclude me thinking of other things as well, but on a more deeper "subconscious" level, but the focus itself is on a singular, immediate, task. Would this constitute multitasking? Perhaps, but on a lesser level than the common conception.
When I mention "multitasking" we generally picture actual external tasks, and not multiple internal processes. I think the ability to be constantly mentally engaged on several ideas to be a better symptom of intelligence, than just the ability to do laundry, talk on the phone, and chew gum.
Er... As someone with an IQ of 159 you should realize that you are abnormal, and that writing articles addressed only to such a minority of people would be rather... absurd. Actually I don't think your subjective experience can really be generalized to other people with high IQs. For example, I've got a pretty decent IQ myself (153), and generally try NOT to multitask, I'd rather handle one situation at a time. I think its called hyperfocus, which pretty much turn tasks into "flow" like experiences. Intelligence does not lead to one style of expression, there still is tons of neural baggage, and experiences, that will shape your strategy of using it.
Granted multitasking comes in handy, since I've noticed that most intelligent people get bored easily, and thus have a need to create their own stimulus.
Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic
You had me until that point. You can make as many copies as you feel like, DISTRIBUTING those copies fall under copyright law. Last time I check, fair use still existed.
It would be nice if owners of copies were allowed to freely download more copies, but that's not how things currently work. As for ethics, copyright and copyright infringement both have nothing to do with ethics in any respect; it's a utilitarian, amoral field.
Depending on how we frame the debate, this could be true. But first we must decide if copying is indeed "theft" or not. Since theft is indeed an ethical issue. Then we must decide if following laws are an ethical proposition, or if the principle behind the law takes precedence in our ethical system. If we define copyright violation as theft (as we are wont to do here) then indeed violation is ethically wrong. If not, we still need to decide whether following a (perceived) unjust law is ethical or not
To be the pedantic philosophical type that I am; all actions fall under ethics, since ethics are the principles that guide our behaviors (or "ought" to).
I've made that in 2 hours before. Get a mule, load up Auctioneer, scan the AH every day for a month. Then start buying low, and selling high. Especially low level twink items, and PVP pots. I've seen people selling 1000g purples and blues for 5g, snatch them up and sell them back. Also you can exploit the market, buy all of x, sell all of x at an increased price, poof, instant virtual monopoly. And if other people are using Auctioneer, get a rare-ish item, and plug it for 100-200% its actual value, then drop it down to a reasonable (but still high) price, and people will snatch it up, thinking its a deal.
You can even do this with vendor trash.
First off, I'm generally a fan of unions. They can go bad, but for the whole they serve a useful function.
But this is absolutely moronic. Does every blogger really have such an overinflated sense of importance? Any monkey can be a blogger, hell *I* have a blog, thus proving that it doesn't really take a huge amount of skill. Every emo kid on Facebook/MySpace/LiveJournal is a damn blogger, by definition. Journalists/writers are generally vetted by an employer to show that their worthy of pay, thus worthy of potential exploitation, thus worthy of joining a union. This would be like a pick-up union?
Most businesses, if unionized, can't hire non-union employees (unless your in an ironically named "right to work" state, like Arizona). How the hell would something like this work for this? Really, there are probably well over 10 million bloggers, of which less than one percent actually get payed, or reputation.
If they went on strike, would anyone notice?
Also... if they went on strike, and I finally updated my MySpace page, would I be a scab?
Not getting into the actual validity of it, thats a fight for another day, but I do still smell a fallacy. The DSM isn't really as scholarly as people think, a bunch of doctors get together and VOTE on what gets included, and lately, since the DSM IV, they've been getting more and more inclusive. Hence rumors of SHYNESS being a mental illness in DSM V.
How many diagnostic manuals are created by democracy? These are not somatic diseases, these are opinions derived from an observed deviation from some current "norm". The DSM is a reflection of society, lacking the rigor of other texts, such as Taber's. Mental illness used to be defined mainly along three axis "harm to self", "harm to others", and "impairs ability to function". But a reading of the current DSM will net you a SLEW of illnesses, which pretty much are universally applicable. ADD/ADHD, and asperger's come to mind, most intelligent people will meet the 4/5 or 3/6 conditions needed to be diagnosed, and thus medicated, for these, even without meeting the above three criteria.
Part of this is the fact that these are affective and not somatic. Schizophrenia is somatic, caused by brain abnormalities, whereas ADD is... what?
Another issues is the increased presence of pharmaceutical corporations trying to advance their drugs (for self-proclaimed altruistic reasons). Doctors are elevating minor things to larger problems, so they have something to cure (with drugs, if possible). Another problem is that our society, and jobs, are becoming more and more psychologically unhealthy. Sitting in an office 8 hours a day is not a natural human condition, thus expect personal psychology to react, and to an extent rebel, against this. In this case it isn't a psychological problem, but a SOCIETAL problem which we have encountered. Part of this, as well, sad to say, is that we all want to be special, we all need a label. Asperger's and ADD have some positive connotations (being thinkers diseases), and no real downfall. Its just like people running around being proud for being left-handed.
Now, to escape being called a Scientologist, there are some real problems that psychiatry should be treating. Schizophrenia, major depression (not sadness, or anomie, or general malaise, or the like), autism, and the like. Things that actually impair our ability to function and presents harm to one or another. And yes, there do exist some cases of REAL ADD/ADHD, but not nearly as many as are diagnosed. And yes, Autism does exist, but as a label for a spectrum of symptoms and not as a unitary whole. And yes, every single person on this planet can read the DSM and find something that applies to them.
More than half the people in my Philosophy department were Catholics getting the Phi degree because it looks good when doing Seminary. There was a nice little war between us "free thinkers", and them.
The point is Philosophy != Atheism.