Simply put, because you do not have the brain of a bat, nor do you have the inherent mental ability to use sonar like a bat. Bats brains are WIRED for it, meaning that their sonar experience is completely different than someone with artificial sonar.
To put it this way, close your eyes, and imagine what it would be like to have sonar. No, don't picture sight. You can't. And if you are a very special person and and can, now try to figure out how close you are the AUTHENTIC experience of a bat.
Direct neural input would not duplicate the subjective experience of a bat having intrinsic sonar, in which its mind is wired for said experience.
It would just let you experience the experience of a human mind, wired to a sonar device.
Positivism is dead, long live postivism!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 0
I'm getting so sick of science worship, and people who cannot grasp the fact that there are (not can be) some things that science cannot describe. And no, I'm not going to talk about pseudoscience, but elements in nature itself.
As for the pop-"scientific" finding religion in the brain stuff, I call BUNK. Being that religious experience differs from one religion to the next, and further, from one individual to the next, it would be impossible to point to one area of the brain and say it causes religious experience. But then again you might be claiming a hit of LSD is a spiritual experience, which it may be to some individuals, but it completely fails to encompass the latin mass, a deep state of meditation, the joy of ritual dance, or sacrfice to your divine reality of choice.
I'm sick of people of the church of science actively going against religion and spirituosity, while bitching about the christian right attacking them. I am an atheist, and science enthusiast btw, I just get sick of people who hype science up beyond what it is, an inductive logical method for building simple understandable general models of complex and unique events, based mostly on mere probability.
Looking at that definition, we can see that if you do your "paranoid delusional murder" experiment, it might work on some portion of society, but there is no guarentee of universality. Also that statment shows a lack of psychological understanding, since all three conditions are mutally exclusive.
Next you confuse application, with knowledge, just like the guy who misunderstood (or didn't read) Nagel's bat essay. People have been doing neurosurgery for millenia, but only recently have we understood how it worked. Same thing with the brainwashing you describe, it has been happening as long as their has been humans, but only recently have we understood. Same with drugs. Same with most medicines. Application and knowlege are completely different.
Then understanding and knowlege is completely different as well. You might UNDERSTAND my neural connections, and firings, but you can never KNOW them, or what they mean. Unless of course I do have a specific center of my brain devoted to the coffee shop from where I type this, and from which the memory of my typeing this will be formed and based. And to make a universal understanding, then everyone must have an identical symbol of this place, whether or not they have visited it. And yes, they must be identical, for the more variation between this ONE symbol the LESS we will ever be able to understand a person in their totality (as a thing-in-itself to use philosophy jargon). And now that you cannot understand that one symbol, what about all cognative structure built upon it?
I posit that it might be one day possible to tell the complete state of the individual AT THE MOMENT, but impossible to ever tell the reason behind that state with any degree of accuracy, nor to be able to predict future states occuring from that state.
To paraphrase Kant, you can never KNOW the thing-in-itself, but you are capable of understanding properties of the thing-in-itself (representations).
Read the damn essay. Yes, I can explain HOW sonar works, and even make neat little gizmos to use it, and TRANSLATE it into something that I can see, but I am not seeing sonar in the way that a bat does, I am seeing it translated to the visual frequencies that the human eye can perceive. In fact humans can NEVER perceive sonar like a bat, nor heat like a pit viper, nor the extra frequencies that some sea slugs perceive like they do. Hell, you don't even know if your perceiving things the same way as OTHER PEOPLE, your cone/brain responce ranges or frequencies might be different than mine, and thus you can never perceive the same thing as me (and there is a very small, but emergant portion, of females with four cone types/ranges, to be constrasted to our three).
For a good proof of this, try to imagine a composite color formed of red and green, or blue and yellow, you cannot (additive color mix, not pigment (subtractive). But other species CAN, and we can't even imagine it.
There is a difference between understanding, and knowing. I UNDERSTAND how a bat "sees", but I do not, and can never, KNOW what a bat sees.
I can understand how your thinking, given sufficient technology, but I can never know what your thinking. This is even more striking with thought, since our brains are wired differently, and half of our subjective experience is not directly dictated by neurology, but by external, and past, context.
The Shining is something I wanted to stay away from. The Kubrik version was great, but not dependant on the book (actually it is best to ignore the book completely). But then the made for TV one is far superiour story-wise than the Kubrik one, and I actually like the casting MORE than the Kubrik version, with the exception of the kid and the old black-dude. The wife in the Kubrik version DESERVED to die for being such a helpless, obnoxious moron. Jack, in the Kubrik version, was fucked to begin with, there was very little character development involved.
In the book and the miniseries, Jack slowely grows insane as the solitude and presence of the Overlook gets to him. I love Nicolson as much as the next guy, but he should not have been cast as Jack.
Granted, the new movie had some REALLY bad aspects from the book. The ghost bar people, which should have been marginalized, and made clear that they only existed in Jacks head. And the stupid hedges of course.
But they did have the Overlook boiler as a character, as it should have been in ANY version of the shining. And included the most ominous peice of foreshadowing, and the creepiest line Mr. King hasd ever included in a novel, "sometimes she creeps".
This movie may or may not be good, but if you're looking to find out 'did they fuck up', I guarantee you will not enjoy that movie or any other that is made from a favorite book of yours.
Not true. It depends on the amount of deviation, thr actual quality of the movie, and how far it differs in some unknown quality called spirit.
I managed to enjoy MOST of LoTR, excluding The Two Towers, which completely failed to encompass the scope and character of the book.
The Sci-Fi channel Dune movies were actually quite a good adaptation of the books. While the David Lynch/Laurentis version was HIDEOUS. Though it could stand on it's own two feet as an unrelated movie.
Ditto with Ridely Scott's Bladerunner, which failed to cover the book at all, but still somehow managed to capture the essence of the book. Though I still hate the directors cut, and despise that fact that the original version is completely lost. Shame that verges on censorship, since PKD liked the ORIGINAL cut, and never had anything to do with the cut. Sadly every other Dick translation was an abomination that never should have been tried. Hopefully aSD isn't.
You see, I can be CRITICAL of movies based on books I love, but can still enjoy them on their own merits, as long as they capture something good from the book.
I'd recommend that you read previous posts. H2G2 isn't about the story (as nice as it was), as much as it is about the wit and humor, the banter. It seems that they took out much of the funny bits, leaving it a hollow shell of what it could have been. I'm not being pedantic here either, I respected the LoTR movies, even if they removed much of the backstory and charater development that was present in the (masterful) books. The LoTR movie at least captured the epic scope and atmosphere of the books, whereas H2G2 does not seem, from this review, to even come close.
Also when you adapt a movie from a book with a semi-fanatical and cult-like fanbase, you must expect SEVERE critisism if you move to far away from the original source (or sources in this case).
For a moment I though that your constant typos and mispellings were done for some opaque (yet deep) reason. But now that I realize that they aren't, I'm very frightened. Please don't criticize things if you cannot do it in proper English, it's hard to take someone seriously who cannot type/spell/parse the language. No flame meant, just a helpful suggestion to up your credibility. The fact that you mangled the abortion that is "13375p34k" is even scarier, though.
I agree. But in the static community of the internet it isn't as functional. When I get my woodworking magazine, the publisher knows that the person there wasn't expecting Maxim, where on the internet, this is impossible. Also, targeted marketing is often just wrong, when I read/., and get a server company's ad on top, I have to laugh, it might be good for 50% of/., but for the rest it is laugable.
Also, I figure it is within my rights to block EVERY ad I come across, except the unobtrusive Google type ones. Revenge for those bastards trying to steal mindshare in the real world (yes, because of advertising, I no longer even watch TV), and for slowly morphing out culture into a bunch of easily manipulated sheeple. If some poor developer is stapped for cash, let him ask for donations, or actually provide a service that we can voluntarily support. Don't FORCE us to support you.
Often I pass through webpages, think their crap, and move on. Now why should I be forced to let them get money for their crap?
In the end I am completely against all forms of adversiment. Let the product speak for itself, and not let some idiotic form of brainwashing make our society ugly, flashy, inefficient, and stupid. If your product can't sell on it's own, then it shouldn't sell, and you should go out of buisness, or design something that someone actually WANTS.
I don't know, I think that there are definate disadvantages to a discriminatory work place, but your argument seems rather weak. In any hiring practice you must limit (sometimes arbitrary) the pool of available workers, especially in todays market where the amount of available workers outweigh the amount of available jobs. In doing this, all companies would be getting less effecient/competative/whatever, and this would continue as long as some form discrimination is in place.
Is "I don't like the look of that guy" count as an arbitrary discrimination? It seems to. But I think that that logic is pretty common in hiring practices, probably more common than "she's a chick, don't hire her".
Ugh, I just saw my mistake, and I generally despise the blanket equality crowd. But I guess my mistake advances argument, so all is not lost.
While (ignoring my previous mistake) I agree that there are definate physiological (and hence psychological) differences between genders, I don't think that these differences matter much practically. I have not heard of any psychological, or cognitive feat that a female could do better than a male, or visa versa (ignoring, of course nursing and childbirth). Sure, each gender has differing potentiality (if that is a word) if different areas. (Males; upper body strength, logic, single task concentration: females; lower body strength, empathy, multitasking, etc...). When hireing people for a skilled and trained position, though, both genders will probably perform the task in the same general way,as they were taught to.
This is one reason why I think there should be a single skill set in which EVERYONE is judged for a job, and judged only by this skill set. I'm all for taking race and gender off of applications, and letting the persons abilities speak for themselves. And if more women have a general propensity for the job, sobeit.
On the other hands, the CULTURE of men and women are radically different (which is only a side effect of physiology), and I think it would be beneficial to product design to represent both cultures and the resultant differences in taste. I, as a guy, am more apt to like no-frills interfaces, which have a minimal of superfluous features, and most women I know would prefer only the features they need, placed in an aesthetic manner.
You do realize that your post was actually more sexist (in the literal sense, not the namby-pamby PC sense) than the parents. I really don't see women as bringing any benefits unique, or intrinsic to them as a gender. I am quite sick of the view that women offer something special that men don't, it is just as sexist as saying that they don't offer as much. I have yet to meet a female who can offer (outside the sexual arena) something that a male could not.
A mixed workplace, though, is a more healthy place. So hiring more women does have a extrinsic benefit, being that diversity allows more stimulation due to richness of enviroment.
But, simple cost analysis does support the grandparent. Women cost more money. Though I have read various solutions to this, such as hiring couples, so the male(or female) can take on added hours in the case of spawning and childrearing. Your analysis supports the parent in this (and agrees with them once the PC mythology is removed), being that they do not bring as much productivity to the mix on average as a male does.
I support Google though in wishing to have a 50/50 m/f makeup. Because as I said, diverstiy is a good thing. I also hope that they do not change, or lower standards for women, as compared to men (as most fire/police departments do), which I find despicable. If you do the same job, you should have the exact same requirements and obligations, reguardless of race or gender.
Bah! I'm a lefty as well, and I do use my mouse (at home at least) in my left hand, albeit with standard (right handed) button mapping (Left click with middle, right with index), and most public mice are not hand specific, so I generally use them with my left hand, with the standard mappeing. Idiotic hand-specific mice I generally use right handed.
I am pretty much ambidextrious though, but I'm more comfortable with my left hand when it comes to mousing and computer use.
Actually most of the lefties I know do pretty much the same thing, at home. Use the mouse left handed.
What gets me though are games that use wsad as the default movement scheme. Whats wrong with the arrow keys, or num pad? It seems that designers forget that lefties are not all that rare, we are a sizable minority (roughly 14%).
And then there are bootlegs, public domain indie, publically released recordings, and the like. I don't understand what you mean by Government Produced, there are hundreds of gig of publically available (and legal) music out there.
I think that in Europe it is harder to actually use AIM. All (not most) of my European friends communicate only with MSN when over the puddle, and then use both when they're back here.
there is a certain point where you can't learn from reading. In HS I took a psych class, and without the teacher I highly doubt that I could have grasped most of the text at the level that I was at. Now this is different, but there are also years of education intervening.
And one of the most influencial people of my life was a HS teacher. She forced us to read 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World, and then forced us to design a utopia. I had my first brush with philosophy because of this woman, I picked up Thom. More's Utopia, and tried to slough through it, this teacher took me under wing, and helped.
I'd say that this teacher is the opposite of what your postulating, she, while not breaking any rules, taught us to try and question authority, even her.
I can say I'm honestly a better person, just for this one teacher I met in HS. Sure, other things happened, but this one class guided me on, and granted me all the intellectual curiosity I have today. Same thing with my CS class, in HS.
You don't have to go to school. To be more precise, you don't have to go to uni, there are plenty of trade schools out there. Go there if your goal is to make money, and be inflexible.
And, happily, one of the things I learned in school, is the the world is actually NOT about money, our culture is about money. The world couldn't give a damn about money. Education is all about learning about the world, and being that money is only a very minor aspect of it, eduction should not be about money, and money alone.
There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.
Then there are people like me, who could compete, and then realized that they could go to school for knowledge, and got sidetracked because it is more interesting than a trade. Competition is overrated, I will never sacrafice my integredy for the ability to compete. Sure, I might make slightly less money than you, but I figure I'll be a slightly more whole person than someone who just wants to go to trade school.
Sadly, as I think the gp pointed out, our uni's are aspiring to be mere trade schools, which sucks for all of those who really want to learn.
I hate that outlook, if you want to go to vocational school, become a mechanic or go to ITT tech or one of it's clones. If you want to do anything else, I would much rather have you be well rounded, thoughtful, and capable of though outside of your "specialization". But then again I'm one of those shrinking minorities that view education as an ends, and not a means. Sure, it might someday help you get a job, but that should never be it's sole purpose.
I still view some of the people who went/go to school for a trade with some minor contempt, the education people, and the forestry people up here (NAU). They lack a balance that I think would make them excellent, and not mere trained drones.
But then again I go to school for philosophy. I decided along time ago I'd much rather learn, than be taught. I'd much rather develop my brain, than learn some s-r arch needed to complete a task for money.
I have read some Rand, and will never claim to be an expert. Her work just doesn't seem to be worth the time investment for me. That an in real life she was a nasty person, with her exclusive cult of personality.
The problem is that all of this is really well in fine in some idealized, and utterly fictitious world, but is abortive and nonsensical in the real world, in which we sadly live.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
This is just another version of idealism. I could see this is a less than ideal world, if it was applicable. What of very real innate characteristics of humanity, a sense of belonging, for example, community. What of J.S. Mill, we need someone to tell us what to do, or more specifically what not to do.
Sure, in the real world the law will be misused by individuals, and more frighteningly by vast soul-less corporations. Thats why law is an evolutionary process, it (law) tries to strenghten itself against its foes (greed, power), to keep it's foes from winning, and ironically enough to keep its foes happy and healthy within the bounds of mutual possibility.
If opening my mind requires me to accept the dogma of any group, I refuse. I try to live in the middle of all extremes, I feel that is where truth lies. Also, when it comes to politics/economics/real-life I think that idealism is a bad thing, you cannot translate purely rational structures to a real world, especially when your (rhetorical) to blind to see past your own ideals.
What is wrong with a little socialism? It seems that most sane governments have been able to handle a little bit of socialization with no ill effects (Canada), and have come out on top of the US as for standard of living.
But then again the ghost of McCarthy would roll over in his red white and blue grave.
Right... And our corporate masters are looking out for our best interests... sure. I always just thought that they were looking for the best ways to sodomize us without us leaving? All you free market people rant about choice, and that is exactly the whole point behind DEMOCRACY, these are our elected officials. The government is evil because you voted them in. Rhetorical you, mind.
And the whole jist of this, is COMMUNITY, not government. Yes, I like my community. I'd pick it over free market, or a 5% price difference. Wanna know why? Because the money goes to community, and hence enriches MY enviroment, and my neighborhood. Seems like a better thing than making Ayn Rand or Adam Smith happy.
Remember, it is YOUR government if you voted. And if you didn't you have no right to open your mouth.
I find it hilarious that these great saviours, the "private businesses", need good old government interference to forbid any effort of providing a community and/or municipal WiFi network access.
Good point. And one that I would like the average Randian Libertarian/.er to explain. If they are so against the government regulating industry, why would they be for industry regulating government? And if corporations could do it cheaper, what is wrong with letting government do it, and then if they are correct the gov't won't be able to compete?
Though if we had community cable/broadband, and it cost a couple bucks more, I'd choose it over the telco or cable company, just to support my community. I doubt that most people would do this, though, caring more about their pocket books than the state of where they live. If my neighbor takes my money for service, I view that as a better situation than some rich ass living in New York or California taking it.
But then again I live is a rather small violently liberal community, one that passed a law to keep superwallmart out, and from undercutting the locally owned buisness.
Actually one evening I noticed the same thing with pool. After 2 or so beers I play like a champ, after that I'm lucky to hit the cue ball, and before that I'll take ten minutes picturing geometry, and completely miss the shot.
Same thing for dealing with the opossite sex. After 2 beers I'm charming, after that I'm a drooling fool, and before I'm just a reserved, toungue tied geek.
This might be a question of inhibition though, and not actual mental power. In pool I fear losing. With chicks I fear making an ass of myself. With the right amount of booze, before it muddles my brains, I don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply put, because you do not have the brain of a bat, nor do you have the inherent mental ability to use sonar like a bat. Bats brains are WIRED for it, meaning that their sonar experience is completely different than someone with artificial sonar.
To put it this way, close your eyes, and imagine what it would be like to have sonar. No, don't picture sight. You can't. And if you are a very special person and and can, now try to figure out how close you are the AUTHENTIC experience of a bat.
Direct neural input would not duplicate the subjective experience of a bat having intrinsic sonar, in which its mind is wired for said experience.
It would just let you experience the experience of a human mind, wired to a sonar device.
I'm getting so sick of science worship, and people who cannot grasp the fact that there are (not can be) some things that science cannot describe. And no, I'm not going to talk about pseudoscience, but elements in nature itself.
As for the pop-"scientific" finding religion in the brain stuff, I call BUNK. Being that religious experience differs from one religion to the next, and further, from one individual to the next, it would be impossible to point to one area of the brain and say it causes religious experience. But then again you might be claiming a hit of LSD is a spiritual experience, which it may be to some individuals, but it completely fails to encompass the latin mass, a deep state of meditation, the joy of ritual dance, or sacrfice to your divine reality of choice.
I'm sick of people of the church of science actively going against religion and spirituosity, while bitching about the christian right attacking them. I am an atheist, and science enthusiast btw, I just get sick of people who hype science up beyond what it is, an inductive logical method for building simple understandable general models of complex and unique events, based mostly on mere probability.
Looking at that definition, we can see that if you do your "paranoid delusional murder" experiment, it might work on some portion of society, but there is no guarentee of universality. Also that statment shows a lack of psychological understanding, since all three conditions are mutally exclusive.
Next you confuse application, with knowledge, just like the guy who misunderstood (or didn't read) Nagel's bat essay. People have been doing neurosurgery for millenia, but only recently have we understood how it worked. Same thing with the brainwashing you describe, it has been happening as long as their has been humans, but only recently have we understood. Same with drugs. Same with most medicines. Application and knowlege are completely different.
Then understanding and knowlege is completely different as well. You might UNDERSTAND my neural connections, and firings, but you can never KNOW them, or what they mean. Unless of course I do have a specific center of my brain devoted to the coffee shop from where I type this, and from which the memory of my typeing this will be formed and based. And to make a universal understanding, then everyone must have an identical symbol of this place, whether or not they have visited it. And yes, they must be identical, for the more variation between this ONE symbol the LESS we will ever be able to understand a person in their totality (as a thing-in-itself to use philosophy jargon). And now that you cannot understand that one symbol, what about all cognative structure built upon it?
I posit that it might be one day possible to tell the complete state of the individual AT THE MOMENT, but impossible to ever tell the reason behind that state with any degree of accuracy, nor to be able to predict future states occuring from that state.
To paraphrase Kant, you can never KNOW the thing-in-itself, but you are capable of understanding properties of the thing-in-itself (representations).
Read the damn essay. Yes, I can explain HOW sonar works, and even make neat little gizmos to use it, and TRANSLATE it into something that I can see, but I am not seeing sonar in the way that a bat does, I am seeing it translated to the visual frequencies that the human eye can perceive. In fact humans can NEVER perceive sonar like a bat, nor heat like a pit viper, nor the extra frequencies that some sea slugs perceive like they do. Hell, you don't even know if your perceiving things the same way as OTHER PEOPLE, your cone/brain responce ranges or frequencies might be different than mine, and thus you can never perceive the same thing as me (and there is a very small, but emergant portion, of females with four cone types/ranges, to be constrasted to our three).
For a good proof of this, try to imagine a composite color formed of red and green, or blue and yellow, you cannot (additive color mix, not pigment (subtractive). But other species CAN, and we can't even imagine it.
There is a difference between understanding, and knowing. I UNDERSTAND how a bat "sees", but I do not, and can never, KNOW what a bat sees.
I can understand how your thinking, given sufficient technology, but I can never know what your thinking. This is even more striking with thought, since our brains are wired differently, and half of our subjective experience is not directly dictated by neurology, but by external, and past, context.
The Shining is something I wanted to stay away from. The Kubrik version was great, but not dependant on the book (actually it is best to ignore the book completely). But then the made for TV one is far superiour story-wise than the Kubrik one, and I actually like the casting MORE than the Kubrik version, with the exception of the kid and the old black-dude. The wife in the Kubrik version DESERVED to die for being such a helpless, obnoxious moron. Jack, in the Kubrik version, was fucked to begin with, there was very little character development involved.
In the book and the miniseries, Jack slowely grows insane as the solitude and presence of the Overlook gets to him. I love Nicolson as much as the next guy, but he should not have been cast as Jack.
Granted, the new movie had some REALLY bad aspects from the book. The ghost bar people, which should have been marginalized, and made clear that they only existed in Jacks head. And the stupid hedges of course.
But they did have the Overlook boiler as a character, as it should have been in ANY version of the shining. And included the most ominous peice of foreshadowing, and the creepiest line Mr. King hasd ever included in a novel, "sometimes she creeps".
This movie may or may not be good, but if you're looking to find out 'did they fuck up', I guarantee you will not enjoy that movie or any other that is made from a favorite book of yours.
Not true. It depends on the amount of deviation, thr actual quality of the movie, and how far it differs in some unknown quality called spirit.
I managed to enjoy MOST of LoTR, excluding The Two Towers, which completely failed to encompass the scope and character of the book.
The Sci-Fi channel Dune movies were actually quite a good adaptation of the books. While the David Lynch/Laurentis version was HIDEOUS. Though it could stand on it's own two feet as an unrelated movie.
Ditto with Ridely Scott's Bladerunner, which failed to cover the book at all, but still somehow managed to capture the essence of the book. Though I still hate the directors cut, and despise that fact that the original version is completely lost. Shame that verges on censorship, since PKD liked the ORIGINAL cut, and never had anything to do with the cut. Sadly every other Dick translation was an abomination that never should have been tried. Hopefully aSD isn't.
You see, I can be CRITICAL of movies based on books I love, but can still enjoy them on their own merits, as long as they capture something good from the book.
I'd recommend that you read previous posts. H2G2 isn't about the story (as nice as it was), as much as it is about the wit and humor, the banter. It seems that they took out much of the funny bits, leaving it a hollow shell of what it could have been. I'm not being pedantic here either, I respected the LoTR movies, even if they removed much of the backstory and charater development that was present in the (masterful) books. The LoTR movie at least captured the epic scope and atmosphere of the books, whereas H2G2 does not seem, from this review, to even come close.
Also when you adapt a movie from a book with a semi-fanatical and cult-like fanbase, you must expect SEVERE critisism if you move to far away from the original source (or sources in this case).
For a moment I though that your constant typos and mispellings were done for some opaque (yet deep) reason. But now that I realize that they aren't, I'm very frightened. Please don't criticize things if you cannot do it in proper English, it's hard to take someone seriously who cannot type/spell/parse the language. No flame meant, just a helpful suggestion to up your credibility. The fact that you mangled the abortion that is "13375p34k" is even scarier, though.
I agree. But in the static community of the internet it isn't as functional. When I get my woodworking magazine, the publisher knows that the person there wasn't expecting Maxim, where on the internet, this is impossible. Also, targeted marketing is often just wrong, when I read /., and get a server company's ad on top, I have to laugh, it might be good for 50% of /., but for the rest it is laugable.
Also, I figure it is within my rights to block EVERY ad I come across, except the unobtrusive Google type ones. Revenge for those bastards trying to steal mindshare in the real world (yes, because of advertising, I no longer even watch TV), and for slowly morphing out culture into a bunch of easily manipulated sheeple. If some poor developer is stapped for cash, let him ask for donations, or actually provide a service that we can voluntarily support. Don't FORCE us to support you.
Often I pass through webpages, think their crap, and move on. Now why should I be forced to let them get money for their crap?
In the end I am completely against all forms of adversiment. Let the product speak for itself, and not let some idiotic form of brainwashing make our society ugly, flashy, inefficient, and stupid. If your product can't sell on it's own, then it shouldn't sell, and you should go out of buisness, or design something that someone actually WANTS.
Sorry, one of those days.
I don't know, I think that there are definate disadvantages to a discriminatory work place, but your argument seems rather weak. In any hiring practice you must limit (sometimes arbitrary) the pool of available workers, especially in todays market where the amount of available workers outweigh the amount of available jobs. In doing this, all companies would be getting less effecient/competative/whatever, and this would continue as long as some form discrimination is in place.
Is "I don't like the look of that guy" count as an arbitrary discrimination? It seems to. But I think that that logic is pretty common in hiring practices, probably more common than "she's a chick, don't hire her".
And what would this disadvantage be, pre tell?
Ugh, I just saw my mistake, and I generally despise the blanket equality crowd. But I guess my mistake advances argument, so all is not lost.
While (ignoring my previous mistake) I agree that there are definate physiological (and hence psychological) differences between genders, I don't think that these differences matter much practically. I have not heard of any psychological, or cognitive feat that a female could do better than a male, or visa versa (ignoring, of course nursing and childbirth). Sure, each gender has differing potentiality (if that is a word) if different areas. (Males; upper body strength, logic, single task concentration: females; lower body strength, empathy, multitasking, etc...). When hireing people for a skilled and trained position, though, both genders will probably perform the task in the same general way,as they were taught to.
This is one reason why I think there should be a single skill set in which EVERYONE is judged for a job, and judged only by this skill set. I'm all for taking race and gender off of applications, and letting the persons abilities speak for themselves. And if more women have a general propensity for the job, sobeit.
On the other hands, the CULTURE of men and women are radically different (which is only a side effect of physiology), and I think it would be beneficial to product design to represent both cultures and the resultant differences in taste. I, as a guy, am more apt to like no-frills interfaces, which have a minimal of superfluous features, and most women I know would prefer only the features they need, placed in an aesthetic manner.
You do realize that your post was actually more sexist (in the literal sense, not the namby-pamby PC sense) than the parents. I really don't see women as bringing any benefits unique, or intrinsic to them as a gender. I am quite sick of the view that women offer something special that men don't, it is just as sexist as saying that they don't offer as much. I have yet to meet a female who can offer (outside the sexual arena) something that a male could not.
A mixed workplace, though, is a more healthy place. So hiring more women does have a extrinsic benefit, being that diversity allows more stimulation due to richness of enviroment.
But, simple cost analysis does support the grandparent. Women cost more money. Though I have read various solutions to this, such as hiring couples, so the male(or female) can take on added hours in the case of spawning and childrearing. Your analysis supports the parent in this (and agrees with them once the PC mythology is removed), being that they do not bring as much productivity to the mix on average as a male does.
I support Google though in wishing to have a 50/50 m/f makeup. Because as I said, diverstiy is a good thing. I also hope that they do not change, or lower standards for women, as compared to men (as most fire/police departments do), which I find despicable. If you do the same job, you should have the exact same requirements and obligations, reguardless of race or gender.
Sorry, I'm in an argumentative mood today.
Bah! I'm a lefty as well, and I do use my mouse (at home at least) in my left hand, albeit with standard (right handed) button mapping (Left click with middle, right with index), and most public mice are not hand specific, so I generally use them with my left hand, with the standard mappeing. Idiotic hand-specific mice I generally use right handed.
I am pretty much ambidextrious though, but I'm more comfortable with my left hand when it comes to mousing and computer use.
Actually most of the lefties I know do pretty much the same thing, at home. Use the mouse left handed.
What gets me though are games that use wsad as the default movement scheme. Whats wrong with the arrow keys, or num pad? It seems that designers forget that lefties are not all that rare, we are a sizable minority (roughly 14%).
And then there are bootlegs, public domain indie, publically released recordings, and the like. I don't understand what you mean by Government Produced, there are hundreds of gig of publically available (and legal) music out there.
I think that in Europe it is harder to actually use AIM. All (not most) of my European friends communicate only with MSN when over the puddle, and then use both when they're back here.
there is a certain point where you can't learn from reading. In HS I took a psych class, and without the teacher I highly doubt that I could have grasped most of the text at the level that I was at. Now this is different, but there are also years of education intervening.
And one of the most influencial people of my life was a HS teacher. She forced us to read 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World, and then forced us to design a utopia. I had my first brush with philosophy because of this woman, I picked up Thom. More's Utopia, and tried to slough through it, this teacher took me under wing, and helped.
I'd say that this teacher is the opposite of what your postulating, she, while not breaking any rules, taught us to try and question authority, even her.
I can say I'm honestly a better person, just for this one teacher I met in HS. Sure, other things happened, but this one class guided me on, and granted me all the intellectual curiosity I have today. Same thing with my CS class, in HS.
You don't have to go to school. To be more precise, you don't have to go to uni, there are plenty of trade schools out there. Go there if your goal is to make money, and be inflexible.
And, happily, one of the things I learned in school, is the the world is actually NOT about money, our culture is about money. The world couldn't give a damn about money. Education is all about learning about the world, and being that money is only a very minor aspect of it, eduction should not be about money, and money alone.
There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.
Then there are people like me, who could compete, and then realized that they could go to school for knowledge, and got sidetracked because it is more interesting than a trade. Competition is overrated, I will never sacrafice my integredy for the ability to compete. Sure, I might make slightly less money than you, but I figure I'll be a slightly more whole person than someone who just wants to go to trade school.
Sadly, as I think the gp pointed out, our uni's are aspiring to be mere trade schools, which sucks for all of those who really want to learn.
I hate that outlook, if you want to go to vocational school, become a mechanic or go to ITT tech or one of it's clones. If you want to do anything else, I would much rather have you be well rounded, thoughtful, and capable of though outside of your "specialization". But then again I'm one of those shrinking minorities that view education as an ends, and not a means. Sure, it might someday help you get a job, but that should never be it's sole purpose.
I still view some of the people who went/go to school for a trade with some minor contempt, the education people, and the forestry people up here (NAU). They lack a balance that I think would make them excellent, and not mere trained drones.
But then again I go to school for philosophy. I decided along time ago I'd much rather learn, than be taught. I'd much rather develop my brain, than learn some s-r arch needed to complete a task for money.
Oh well.
I have read some Rand, and will never claim to be an expert. Her work just doesn't seem to be worth the time investment for me. That an in real life she was a nasty person, with her exclusive cult of personality.
The problem is that all of this is really well in fine in some idealized, and utterly fictitious world, but is abortive and nonsensical in the real world, in which we sadly live.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
This is just another version of idealism. I could see this is a less than ideal world, if it was applicable. What of very real innate characteristics of humanity, a sense of belonging, for example, community. What of J.S. Mill, we need someone to tell us what to do, or more specifically what not to do.
Sure, in the real world the law will be misused by individuals, and more frighteningly by vast soul-less corporations. Thats why law is an evolutionary process, it (law) tries to strenghten itself against its foes (greed, power), to keep it's foes from winning, and ironically enough to keep its foes happy and healthy within the bounds of mutual possibility.
If opening my mind requires me to accept the dogma of any group, I refuse. I try to live in the middle of all extremes, I feel that is where truth lies. Also, when it comes to politics/economics/real-life I think that idealism is a bad thing, you cannot translate purely rational structures to a real world, especially when your (rhetorical) to blind to see past your own ideals.
Feeding the troll... but...
What is wrong with a little socialism? It seems that most sane governments have been able to handle a little bit of socialization with no ill effects (Canada), and have come out on top of the US as for standard of living.
But then again the ghost of McCarthy would roll over in his red white and blue grave.
Right... And our corporate masters are looking out for our best interests... sure. I always just thought that they were looking for the best ways to sodomize us without us leaving? All you free market people rant about choice, and that is exactly the whole point behind DEMOCRACY, these are our elected officials. The government is evil because you voted them in. Rhetorical you, mind.
And the whole jist of this, is COMMUNITY, not government. Yes, I like my community. I'd pick it over free market, or a 5% price difference. Wanna know why? Because the money goes to community, and hence enriches MY enviroment, and my neighborhood. Seems like a better thing than making Ayn Rand or Adam Smith happy.
Remember, it is YOUR government if you voted. And if you didn't you have no right to open your mouth.
I find it hilarious that these great saviours, the "private businesses", need good old government interference to forbid any effort of providing a community and/or municipal WiFi network access.
/.er to explain. If they are so against the government regulating industry, why would they be for industry regulating government? And if corporations could do it cheaper, what is wrong with letting government do it, and then if they are correct the gov't won't be able to compete?
Good point. And one that I would like the average Randian Libertarian
Though if we had community cable/broadband, and it cost a couple bucks more, I'd choose it over the telco or cable company, just to support my community. I doubt that most people would do this, though, caring more about their pocket books than the state of where they live. If my neighbor takes my money for service, I view that as a better situation than some rich ass living in New York or California taking it.
But then again I live is a rather small violently liberal community, one that passed a law to keep superwallmart out, and from undercutting the locally owned buisness.
Never make me think of this again. NEVER!
Actually one evening I noticed the same thing with pool. After 2 or so beers I play like a champ, after that I'm lucky to hit the cue ball, and before that I'll take ten minutes picturing geometry, and completely miss the shot.
Same thing for dealing with the opossite sex. After 2 beers I'm charming, after that I'm a drooling fool, and before I'm just a reserved, toungue tied geek.
This might be a question of inhibition though, and not actual mental power. In pool I fear losing. With chicks I fear making an ass of myself. With the right amount of booze, before it muddles my brains, I don't care.