The myth that voters vote in their own self-interest has been busted a very long time ago.
I know an ultra-right wing, ultra-conservative, ultra-christian man, who thinks the tea party is the greatest thing in the universe, who probably has a tattoo of G.W. Bush somewhere on him, and who actually sends money to Israel to "immanentize the eschaton" (ahem). His daughter has four kids, and supports them all through welfare, food stamps, and some church handouts, and whose wasted a large chunk of money on failed attempts at college using Gov't grant money. His son is in prison for various drug related charges and has three children while he sits in prison, to an unwed mother, who has another 3 children to other men (she works at Walmart) . He's been milking unemployment since his job disappeared, and admits that he is just waiting for the point he can get Social Security and Medicare. His wife also went to school on the governments dime to be a teacher.
And he votes to destroy the programs that support him and his family. He hates labor, even while his business died because he couldn't compete with businesses who used illegal immigrants to keep costs down. He wants to gut Social Security and Medicare while wanting to benefit from them. He hates Planned Parenthood and reproductive freedom (though it could have saved him from adopting 3 of his kid's kids since they can't support them, and probably never heard of birth control). He supports the war on drugs, even though it got his child in prison the first time (and probably lead to the next two times). He hates welfare and food stamps, though they keep his daughter and her children from starving.
He'll vote for anyone as long as they let him keep his 100 guns, and keep the gays away.
This is the average American voter. Yes, the agenda changes, but it pans out about the same.
Even the "ideologically pure" Libertarians and Greens vote against their own interests by holding an ideology above consequences. In the end they have the same problem as the guy above, they hold a pretty fiction above the actual gritty, shades-of-gray, world, and would force that world, by force, into their silly ideology, consequences be damned. Its for the "greater good", or "they know better".
I'm getting about as much contempt for American voters as I do the politicians we vote in. And continue to vote in even after they screw us the first time. I'm sick of partisanship and people claiming some divine political truth on the basis of what letter they support. I'm so sick of this "us vs. them" bullshit. I'm sick of politics turning into a rerun of Highlander (there can only be one... political party).
Great, you disagree, and sit down and talk about it like adults, and stop acting like idiotic two year olds. And stop thinking that you "won" by shoving something down the throats of the 49% of the population that didn't vote for you to make the 51% happy. Gr... sorry for the rant.
Obama is still very anti-gun, in that he would love to disarm the masses under the guise of "safety and security for America".
Perhaps that needs some evidence? It is quite a claim, after all, and in his term in office so far, I haven't seen a single action pointing to that end.
And, just to add some fuel to the flames, you can be for "gun control" but not be "anti-gun". I know tons of people are for control, but wouldn't dream of actually banning guns. I, for example, think that guns should be at least as regulated as vehicles if not more so, but would be very angry if anyone tried to outright ban them. I like guns. I find them interesting and a useful tool, but I find completely unfettered access to them to be insane.
I don't agree with either party. They all seem to be more concerned with getting reelected than actually doing the job for which they've been elected in the first place.
And here we agree 100%. Right now I find the Republicans to be slightly more insane the the Democrats, but neither of them are doing a very good job of looking out of the American people's interests. I think the re-election thing plays a roll, but also the fact that both sides are infected with bat-shit crazy ideology right now, and would hold that ideology above any human consequences. The only thing going for the Democrats is that they are more fractious and factional than the Republicans at the moment.
No. Perhaps it is early and you are groggy? This would allow you to zone out, and only take control if something surprising suddenly happens. It is much less taxing on you since you don't have to pay nearly as much attention as you would if you were actually driving.
In real life people would be putting on make-up, reading the paper, or watching TV instead of paying any attention at all. Actually that is much like today. Most people are terrible drivers, and most people would agree as long as you exclude them (you are always the best at everything, everyone else is the problem).
People are stupid.
Amen. Though you and me are people too, what does that say?
If this technology existed, was accepted, and is viable I would love it. But only if it had an off switch. Yes, you'd perhaps sacfifice a bit of freedom on highways (though you could just look at it like any other form of public transportation), but you could switch it off in other places and be entirely free to drive about on your own power.
I don't see the big deal. Nor do see it as an exemplar of some grand cosmic battle of ideologies.
Read my post again. I merely stated that even though there is no currently-provided mundane explanation (which is generous), they aren't automatically anything weird.
But the Phoenix Lights are weird. Generally very rare, unexplained occurrences are called "weird". Weird, again, doesn't mean little green men from outer space. We shouldn't play down the novelty just to try to make the UFO crowd shut up.
I firmly doubt that aliens are visiting the earth, but I'm sick of the knee jerk reactions by "skeptics". I put that in quotes since skeptic doesn't mean "defender of things that we believe are true at this moment". A real skeptic wouldn't instantly bash anyone claiming anything outside of his world-view. While I doubt the premise of little green men, I'm open to credible, objective, and reviewed evidence that proves me wrong. And while a UFO sighting will probably never prove the existence of aliens, it could open up further interesting research. I'm guessing that there are tons of phenomena that are currently unexplained by our current state of knowledge. Quickly dismissing them isn't doing anyone a favor.
I don't want to come on like a defender of the "paranormal" or UFOology (pronounced "you-fool-ogy"), or ghosts, or other flavors of woo. But there comes a point where just yelling "CARL SAGAN" at people who claim things outside of your belief system gets a bit annoying. Its a bit like the bad type of Christians, who yell "the Bible says" at every dissenting opinion. I love Carl Sagan as much as the next science nerd, but his name isn't an excuse to completely dismiss things. Hell, he loved SETI, and I think our odds of finding life via SETI is about as good it via UFO encounters over Nebraska (read; not very good at all). I still love and support SETI though, not because I think its really going to do much, but because its just neat.
So wait... (some of) the Phoenix Lights are unidentified, flying, and perhaps objects? Someone should come up with an acronym for that, perhaps U.F.O.?
Being a UFO doesn't make something automatically little green men flying around.
So wait... (some of) the Phoenix Lights are unidentified, flying, and perhaps objects? Someone should come up with an acronym for that, perhaps U.F.O.?
Being a UFO doesn't make something automatically little green men flying around.
Actually its an old Slashdot meme, people with higher UIDs replying "you must be new here" to people with lower ones.
Its sad the amount of my brain devoted to old Slashdot memes can't be used for anything useful. It, also, is shocking that we've hit 2 million UIDs, 1 million didn't seem that long ago, and since I registered (and the several years of stalking before that), it seemed to take forever to get to 1 million. I really wish Slashdot would release detailed statistics. How many of those 2 million accounts are trolls, and how many UIDs have been claimed by Micheal Kriste... whatnot.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird.
So am I racist when I say Facebook is an American company? Since when is referring to where things were founded racism? If I say "LiveJournal is Russian", and I somehow attacking Russians?
Stop being so quick to the gun. I didn't see anything remotely racist in the OP's post, nor, I doubt, did most other people. I don't know why you really want to be offended by things, but it probably isn't healthy. People who constantly look for offense are more annoying than the genuinely offensive.
I'd say the opposite. You get a short list of what not to do, and everything else is fine unless it causes a problem.
But then again I'm a general fan of permissiveness. If something isn't a problem most of the time, it should be fine until it turns into one, and then restrict it on a case by case basis.
Jurors aren't criminals. We're giving them responsibility over the fate of individuals (and sometimes life and death), we think that they are responsible enough to basically play god. But we don't think their capable of using a mere phone, like they are little children. I don't think we can have it both ways. I don't want to be held before a jury of morons, like we think they are when it comes to basically everything. How can you treat someone like a drooling moron, but then give them the ability to send ruin, or end, my life?
I say we treat them like responsible adults, unless a member of the jury proves that that isn't the case.
Wait... so I should be paying my undivided attention for that 40 minutes when the lawyers and judge are bickering about fine points of law? I should be really rapt in all the boring procedural stuff that has nothing to do with my role in the trial? Perhaps we should also truss up jurors like Alex in A Clockwork Orange... Trials can be very boring. Even exciting trials can be. I once sat in at a fairly nasty death penalty murder trail, it was facinating... but about half of the two days were spent watching attorney's shuffle paper work back and forth or hanging out by the bench chatting with the judge with the mic off. I wasn't involved in the trial, so I could, at least, spend the time between the interesting (or in this case relevant) bits reading a book.
It is a court, so respectful conduct should be necessary. But there is nothing wrong with discrete cell phone use, as long as it does't distract or break the established rules (no outside news when applicable, etc...). Sure, they shouldn't be chatting or texting during the trial, but I'm sure they will be found in contempt if they try. But a quick game of Angry Birds during lulls is perfectly fine.
My friend wrote short stories on his notebook during lulls, another filled around 50 pages of a legal pad with doodles. Were they bad jurors? Not if they didn't do it during that actual bits of the trial in which they were there for.
Personally I think we should make the whole juror process (especially selection) less annoying and tedious to potential jurors, so less people try to get out of doing it. I personally would rather pull my own teeth with a pair of pliers than be called for jury duty. My last couple experiences were terrible, and made me feel like a criminal. That and I find it odd that we consider jurors to be almost godlike in our legal system, but we value their time less than we value the time of day laborers hanging out outside of Home Depot.
...Technical people are not excluded because they are knowledgable... awyers are not excused because they are part of some elite group...
This might play a roll, but remember that attorneys get to play a roll in selection, and often it is in the attorney's best interest to exclude people trained in critical thought. Trials are not the perfect "based on evidence" affairs that we like to think they are, most of the time lawyers are shooting for emotion by playing on stereotypes and tugging heartstrings. Something a lot of people with technical training can see through, and might even get contemptuous at.
Several of my old philosophy professors discussed never, ever, being accepted for jury duty, for instance. Philosophy is another academic field that teaches critical thought, and independent analysis.
It is in the best interest of lawyers to choose jurors who are easily swayed, and pliable.
Beyond that, most savvy people get out of jury duty. Which diminishes the pool, leaving only those who are not savvy enough to get out, and those few poor civic minded folks who are left. This is a shame, if I was before a jury I would rather have a jury of lawyers, philosophers, and engineers (and other science oriented folk), than what your generally going to end up with.
Yes, I'm a cynical ass. But all my experiences in the court (and justice system in general) system (on both sides) hasn't left me with much confidence.
The OP sounds like an ass, and I am in no way endorsing his elitism. The more special you think you are, the least likely you are to be special. Actually... I can only think or a rare case of someone who actually could be considered "special", or elite. The difference between the OP and some slob working at McDonalds is probably very slim (this is true for most of us). And no, special training, or vast sums of money, does not make one special, since, in the end, what does that matter? You're going to die, and in two generations you'll be lucky if a single person remembers you. Only leaving a positive impact on the world around you makes you special.
However, in this case the diagnosis seems to be done by an actual psychologist, so it's probably trustworthy.
Perhaps. I have more faith in psychologists than I do in the lay public, but only barely. Psychology is an art, and most of it has little or no basis in "hard" science, such as physiology or neurology. Autism, aspergers especially is approaching the level of gross over-diagnosis, and trendiness that ADD/ADHD has.
That isn't to say that the kid doesn't have some flavor of it, or has particular problems. Its just odd that we choose to play up the problems, rather than focus on his skills. We wouldn't drop any other mental condition into this context. We wouldn't say "This kid is very smart, and has allergies", or "this kid is very smart and has mild depression". Autism has some silly misplaced mystique. Sometimes its a necessary part of a story (like with Kim Peek, and other savants), sometimes its completely pointless.
My girlfriend used to work with people with functional problems, including people with severe autism. She laughed at this kid, he's charming, and obviously functional.
Yes, amazingly enough it's possible to lead a happy, succesful and productive life even if you have a mental or physical condition
It is. But as one of my psychology proffesors told me, "a trait becomes an illness only when it hampers your ability to function". Merely not being social isn't a problem at all. Its natural (though sadly rare) to value things above mere social immersion. If anything we're too focused on the social, and not nearly focused enough on the individual, or more mental pursuits. Caring more about solving an equation than being popular isn't a bad thing. Most of the intelligent people I know are very socially awkward, and this is fine. When your more intelligent than your peers, some social issues will follow naturally. If you care about mucking with relativity, or solving inegrals, and the rest of your peer group care about football and American idol and can't understand a damn thing you care about... then yes... there will be problems. Is this a psychological problem? Probably not. The kid will grow to work around it; if he doesn't, only then will he have a problem.
Along time ago, when I was in high school, I knew a very brilliant kid. He graduated halfway through his junior year, with a good chunk of college level honors credits under his belt. He managed a to get a full ride engineering scholarship to MIT. He went for a semester, started to get burnt out and went to ASU instead. By his second year, he completely fizzled and dropped out "indefinitely". Did this kid have aspergers? Probably not, as it didn't really exist back then, and he managed to have a decent social circle. But then again this high school had a very high population of nerds, and we all formed a tight knit group, with all of our idiosyncrasies and obsessions. More importantly we could get together after school and talk about math, physics, computers and logic. In a more typical school, this kid would appear socially stunted.
It translates into ensuring that children who have the condition train social contacts enough to become full-functional adults, since that's where the condition often causes problems. It's the same as any other diagnosis: defend against potential problems before they have a chance to develop, and solve any that already have.
There is a risk though of deciding that normal introversion is somehow an illness. Some people don't get fulfillment from texting and checking Facebook every 13 seconds, These people are perfectly normal. If I had my druthers I would ditch every single one of my social responsibilities to sit around and read books and take apart random technology. If the kid doesn't care for people, so be it. The kid I talked about before, after he ditched out of ASU, he quickly found a nice girl and got married. Sometimes you have to grow into soc
Is there really such a thing? From everything I've read, learned, and experienced shows that there is no strict "typical" in humans, just a range of traits collapsing on a bell curve. Some people may be more typical in certain metrics, vary in others, and only when taken as aggregate turn into something somewhat mirroring "typical".
High functioning autists are special gene sequences that bubble up every now and then, but environmental and sociological pressures will prevent them from being the norm.
I haven't read any reputable research showing anything like this. Autism, and the soon to be defunct aspergers, is a spectrum disorder, meaning showing a specific genetic or physiological cause is very difficult, if not impossible. This is especially true thanks to its largely subjective nature, and the fact that it might be more over-diagnosed than ADD/ADHD now. Psychology is an art, and lacking in objective measures, it is to science what criticism is to art. When we have a solid physiological basis for autism, or large swaths of the spectrum, then I'll sit up and pay attention.
Autism isn't as interesting as the actual, Rainmanesque, savants. Sure they aren't as potentially useful, but they are much more interesting, and may prove to be more scientifically useful. Kim Peek, the man who Rainman is loosely based on, was fascinating, and studies of him might likely prove very important to cognitive neuroscience. But then again, science often learns much more from the edge cases than from the rank and file.
This kid has Aspergers syndrome and is making the most of it.
Does he? Or is that a knee jerk diagnosis for smart people who also don't really care much about social crap? Watching the video, he seems very highly functioning, he doesn't seem at all disabled. Is he mentally ill for holding academics above socialization? Does every nerd have aspergers? Does that even mean anything? Does anyone really care?
I really can't wait for the new DSM, when we all can kiss Aspergers goodbye. Its a completely useless diagnosis. Going by the DSM, I could be diagnosed with it; yet I have a very long term (7 years), cohabitational, girlfriend (sinmate), friends (not a lot, but a small number of high quality ones), etc... So what exactly does that diagnosis show?
Sorry for the almost flamebait. I just don't see why "he has aspergers" is at all meaningful. Shouldn't there articles focus on the fact that he's extremely smart, and applying himself at very interesting problems. Its like reading an article on Einsteins fashion sense... Banal, and it completely misses the point. Or the silly "Einstein couldn't tie his shoes and pissed himself" myths. Yes, it brings highly intelligent people down so the more normal people don't feel quite so bad for not being as gifted. But it often is over stated, and generally completely meaningless. This is especially true for aspergers, which doesn't actually translate to something meaningful or useful. If it actually pointed to an organic cause of this kids extraordinarily talents, then it would be interesting.
Yahoo did much the same, as does any other corporation who acquires another property. It makes sense for them to roll things into a single registration/user account framework, and I really don't have much of a problem with that. Granted, I'm not a big Youtube user (I watch, but don't contribute), and thus I really don't have a stake in the issue. Its like when Yahoo rolled Flickr into its crappy account system, it was a pain, but ultimately silly. I did have a stake in Flickr (I contributed), and hated every bit of it. But in retrospect it was just annoying, not the end of the world.
If you have diverse services it is logical to roll them together into a common framework, and (in marketing speak) experience.
Picasa nags you? Ignore it, or don't use it. Picasa, like Flickr, is a social networking service, what do you expect?
Don't get me wrong, I'm leery of Google. Right now they are fine, but there is a growing potential for them not to be. When I got my Droid, I was creeped out by Google wanting to know, and share, my location data with the internet, for instance. Yes, I can turn it off, but it still is damn creepy.
So, running with this, Microsoft would be the Zerg (huge, and assimilative, capable of burrowing and spawning vast numbers), and Apple the Protoss (expensive and shiny, quasi-religious).
I now can see the some guy working on Bing and the Win7 phones screaming, "SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS".
For some reason I find this very amusing. But not as amusing as when someone at Apple hears "nuclear launch detected."
So... being that no one claimed to be intimidated, everyone must have been intimidated!
Thus, the people who supported prop 8 must have intimidated a lot of people against it, since I don't see many claims of intimidation on their side either.
My kitchen sink is the most intimidating object of them all, since NO ONE claims that it intimidated them. A truly horrid device, that sink.
Also, I think your wrong, some people did claim some public intimidation based on their views of prop 8. But, IMO, as long as their was no violence, or violations of rights, its perfectly within the realm of public discourse. As I said before (with a typo, even); "Shame is a powerful tool", and a perfectly legitimate one.
Boycott is. They were used for intimidation. Or do you think that posting all those personal addresses was just for fun?
Isn't that what boycotts are? You avoid purchasing from companies that do things you find immoral or reprehensible. Am I being a bad person and intimidating Sony, by refusing the buy their products?
Also we have laws ensuring that data like that is public for a reason. Shame is a powerful too, as is holding people responsible for their choices. If you are terrified of the public out cry for your opinions, perhaps your opinions are getting a public outcry for a reason.
I'd endorse a boycott on anyone who supported prop 8, on the other hand. A boycott and a very nice public shaming. Feel free to reciprocate when I support something you find morally repugnant. As long as their is no violence or crimes, it is perfectly fine and dandy. I don't see much evidence for wide scale lynching on Prop 8 supporters due to the Huffington post, or any other posting of perfectly, 100% legal, public records.
As if Google fucking doesn't. You're a joke and your post shows that it bites your ass that the company you love to hate the most actually is a step up on a company that you desperately try to keep pushing on people as doing "no evil."
Do they? Evidence please. I've been using Google services for a very long time, and haven't ran into any obvious privacy problems. I've been using Microsoft services for longer, and am perplexed on how I need to send them my data once a month just so they can sure that I'm still not a criminal.
Google has a decent track record of keeping customer privacy on the forefront. MS isn't trustworthy in the slightest. I don't trust either of them, but I trust Google slightly more.
Also, anyone loves a corporation is a moron. Unless they founded it, or get their livelihood from them, corporate loyalty is idiotic. Who the hell cares? Apple, Microsoft, and Google are not really worth the emotional attachment.
I'm not Capitalism's largest fan... But thats not quite true either. True capitalism doesn't necessarily even mean shares, or shareholders would exist. If there was a much more fragmented market, and large monopolies and ultra massive conglomerates were stomped out, then the free market would move closer to helping the social good.
Basically Capitalism is a tool, and it could be used for good or ill. The government exists to constrain it, and subjugate it to the common good. Or at least strike a balance between individual profit and the said common good.
I really can't think of an alternative to capitalism.
You really think they understand computers and IT better than Microsoft? After all, Microsoft has been in the business since the 80's.
Argument by authority. I could argue that Microsoft isn't really an authority, nor very much interested in consumer privacy, and that in their epochs (30 years...) of business they have made plenty of mistakes. I have as much faith in Microsoft as I do in the FTC (not much), but at least the FTC is (supposedly) looking out for me, while MS only cares about MS.
I agree, they should be looking at Google and Facebook. But, remember, Microsoft is trying to get into the same markets as them now. They aren't just a software company anymore, they're trying to get into the whole "social content" market just like Google and Facebook.
If FTC wants to do something, they should look into that and let the good companies like Microsoft be alone.
When the hell did MS turn into a "good company"? Their OS phones home every month, against your will. They've played fast and loose with customer data. MS is a "good company" in the "they are good at being a company" sense, but not in "they are good to customers, and play well with others" sense.
Also, the FTC rules aren't aimed straight at MS, they are aimed at the whole industry. MS just took affront to them, since they will hurt the bottom line. I'd bet that the FTC looked at Facebook and Google too, and probably looked at them more than MS, because they hold a bigger mindshare when it comes to potential privacy issues.
Slashdot Mirror
The myth that voters vote in their own self-interest has been busted a very long time ago.
I know an ultra-right wing, ultra-conservative, ultra-christian man, who thinks the tea party is the greatest thing in the universe, who probably has a tattoo of G.W. Bush somewhere on him, and who actually sends money to Israel to "immanentize the eschaton" (ahem). His daughter has four kids, and supports them all through welfare, food stamps, and some church handouts, and whose wasted a large chunk of money on failed attempts at college using Gov't grant money. His son is in prison for various drug related charges and has three children while he sits in prison, to an unwed mother, who has another 3 children to other men (she works at Walmart) . He's been milking unemployment since his job disappeared, and admits that he is just waiting for the point he can get Social Security and Medicare. His wife also went to school on the governments dime to be a teacher.
And he votes to destroy the programs that support him and his family. He hates labor, even while his business died because he couldn't compete with businesses who used illegal immigrants to keep costs down. He wants to gut Social Security and Medicare while wanting to benefit from them. He hates Planned Parenthood and reproductive freedom (though it could have saved him from adopting 3 of his kid's kids since they can't support them, and probably never heard of birth control). He supports the war on drugs, even though it got his child in prison the first time (and probably lead to the next two times). He hates welfare and food stamps, though they keep his daughter and her children from starving.
He'll vote for anyone as long as they let him keep his 100 guns, and keep the gays away.
This is the average American voter. Yes, the agenda changes, but it pans out about the same.
Even the "ideologically pure" Libertarians and Greens vote against their own interests by holding an ideology above consequences. In the end they have the same problem as the guy above, they hold a pretty fiction above the actual gritty, shades-of-gray, world, and would force that world, by force, into their silly ideology, consequences be damned. Its for the "greater good", or "they know better".
I'm getting about as much contempt for American voters as I do the politicians we vote in. And continue to vote in even after they screw us the first time. I'm sick of partisanship and people claiming some divine political truth on the basis of what letter they support. I'm so sick of this "us vs. them" bullshit. I'm sick of politics turning into a rerun of Highlander (there can only be one... political party).
Great, you disagree, and sit down and talk about it like adults, and stop acting like idiotic two year olds. And stop thinking that you "won" by shoving something down the throats of the 49% of the population that didn't vote for you to make the 51% happy. Gr... sorry for the rant.
Obama is still very anti-gun, in that he would love to disarm the masses under the guise of "safety and security for America".
Perhaps that needs some evidence? It is quite a claim, after all, and in his term in office so far, I haven't seen a single action pointing to that end.
And, just to add some fuel to the flames, you can be for "gun control" but not be "anti-gun". I know tons of people are for control, but wouldn't dream of actually banning guns. I, for example, think that guns should be at least as regulated as vehicles if not more so, but would be very angry if anyone tried to outright ban them. I like guns. I find them interesting and a useful tool, but I find completely unfettered access to them to be insane.
I don't agree with either party. They all seem to be more concerned with getting reelected than actually doing the job for which they've been elected in the first place.
And here we agree 100%. Right now I find the Republicans to be slightly more insane the the Democrats, but neither of them are doing a very good job of looking out of the American people's interests. I think the re-election thing plays a roll, but also the fact that both sides are infected with bat-shit crazy ideology right now, and would hold that ideology above any human consequences. The only thing going for the Democrats is that they are more fractious and factional than the Republicans at the moment.
No. Perhaps it is early and you are groggy? This would allow you to zone out, and only take control if something surprising suddenly happens. It is much less taxing on you since you don't have to pay nearly as much attention as you would if you were actually driving.
In real life people would be putting on make-up, reading the paper, or watching TV instead of paying any attention at all. Actually that is much like today. Most people are terrible drivers, and most people would agree as long as you exclude them (you are always the best at everything, everyone else is the problem).
People are stupid.
Amen. Though you and me are people too, what does that say?
Stop trying to shove Ayn Rand into everything.
If this technology existed, was accepted, and is viable I would love it. But only if it had an off switch. Yes, you'd perhaps sacfifice a bit of freedom on highways (though you could just look at it like any other form of public transportation), but you could switch it off in other places and be entirely free to drive about on your own power.
I don't see the big deal. Nor do see it as an exemplar of some grand cosmic battle of ideologies.
Read my post again. I merely stated that even though there is no currently-provided mundane explanation (which is generous), they aren't automatically anything weird.
But the Phoenix Lights are weird. Generally very rare, unexplained occurrences are called "weird". Weird, again, doesn't mean little green men from outer space. We shouldn't play down the novelty just to try to make the UFO crowd shut up.
I firmly doubt that aliens are visiting the earth, but I'm sick of the knee jerk reactions by "skeptics". I put that in quotes since skeptic doesn't mean "defender of things that we believe are true at this moment". A real skeptic wouldn't instantly bash anyone claiming anything outside of his world-view. While I doubt the premise of little green men, I'm open to credible, objective, and reviewed evidence that proves me wrong. And while a UFO sighting will probably never prove the existence of aliens, it could open up further interesting research. I'm guessing that there are tons of phenomena that are currently unexplained by our current state of knowledge. Quickly dismissing them isn't doing anyone a favor.
I don't want to come on like a defender of the "paranormal" or UFOology (pronounced "you-fool-ogy"), or ghosts, or other flavors of woo. But there comes a point where just yelling "CARL SAGAN" at people who claim things outside of your belief system gets a bit annoying. Its a bit like the bad type of Christians, who yell "the Bible says" at every dissenting opinion. I love Carl Sagan as much as the next science nerd, but his name isn't an excuse to completely dismiss things. Hell, he loved SETI, and I think our odds of finding life via SETI is about as good it via UFO encounters over Nebraska (read; not very good at all). I still love and support SETI though, not because I think its really going to do much, but because its just neat.
im not even talking about LSD being a product of cia.
Good thing, since it isn't.
So wait... (some of) the Phoenix Lights are unidentified, flying, and perhaps objects? Someone should come up with an acronym for that, perhaps U.F.O.?
Being a UFO doesn't make something automatically little green men flying around.
So wait... (some of) the Phoenix Lights are unidentified, flying, and perhaps objects? Someone should come up with an acronym for that, perhaps U.F.O.?
Being a UFO doesn't make something automatically little green men flying around.
Come for the news; stay for the absolute lack of news.
Actually its an old Slashdot meme, people with higher UIDs replying "you must be new here" to people with lower ones.
Its sad the amount of my brain devoted to old Slashdot memes can't be used for anything useful. It, also, is shocking that we've hit 2 million UIDs, 1 million didn't seem that long ago, and since I registered (and the several years of stalking before that), it seemed to take forever to get to 1 million. I really wish Slashdot would release detailed statistics. How many of those 2 million accounts are trolls, and how many UIDs have been claimed by Micheal Kriste... whatnot.
You must be new here.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird.
So am I racist when I say Facebook is an American company? Since when is referring to where things were founded racism? If I say "LiveJournal is Russian", and I somehow attacking Russians?
Stop being so quick to the gun. I didn't see anything remotely racist in the OP's post, nor, I doubt, did most other people. I don't know why you really want to be offended by things, but it probably isn't healthy. People who constantly look for offense are more annoying than the genuinely offensive.
I'd say the opposite. You get a short list of what not to do, and everything else is fine unless it causes a problem.
But then again I'm a general fan of permissiveness. If something isn't a problem most of the time, it should be fine until it turns into one, and then restrict it on a case by case basis.
Jurors aren't criminals. We're giving them responsibility over the fate of individuals (and sometimes life and death), we think that they are responsible enough to basically play god. But we don't think their capable of using a mere phone, like they are little children. I don't think we can have it both ways. I don't want to be held before a jury of morons, like we think they are when it comes to basically everything. How can you treat someone like a drooling moron, but then give them the ability to send ruin, or end, my life?
I say we treat them like responsible adults, unless a member of the jury proves that that isn't the case.
Wait... so I should be paying my undivided attention for that 40 minutes when the lawyers and judge are bickering about fine points of law? I should be really rapt in all the boring procedural stuff that has nothing to do with my role in the trial? Perhaps we should also truss up jurors like Alex in A Clockwork Orange... Trials can be very boring. Even exciting trials can be. I once sat in at a fairly nasty death penalty murder trail, it was facinating... but about half of the two days were spent watching attorney's shuffle paper work back and forth or hanging out by the bench chatting with the judge with the mic off. I wasn't involved in the trial, so I could, at least, spend the time between the interesting (or in this case relevant) bits reading a book.
It is a court, so respectful conduct should be necessary. But there is nothing wrong with discrete cell phone use, as long as it does't distract or break the established rules (no outside news when applicable, etc...). Sure, they shouldn't be chatting or texting during the trial, but I'm sure they will be found in contempt if they try. But a quick game of Angry Birds during lulls is perfectly fine.
My friend wrote short stories on his notebook during lulls, another filled around 50 pages of a legal pad with doodles. Were they bad jurors? Not if they didn't do it during that actual bits of the trial in which they were there for.
Personally I think we should make the whole juror process (especially selection) less annoying and tedious to potential jurors, so less people try to get out of doing it. I personally would rather pull my own teeth with a pair of pliers than be called for jury duty. My last couple experiences were terrible, and made me feel like a criminal. That and I find it odd that we consider jurors to be almost godlike in our legal system, but we value their time less than we value the time of day laborers hanging out outside of Home Depot.
...Technical people are not excluded because they are knowledgable ... awyers are not excused because they are part of some elite group...
This might play a roll, but remember that attorneys get to play a roll in selection, and often it is in the attorney's best interest to exclude people trained in critical thought. Trials are not the perfect "based on evidence" affairs that we like to think they are, most of the time lawyers are shooting for emotion by playing on stereotypes and tugging heartstrings. Something a lot of people with technical training can see through, and might even get contemptuous at.
Several of my old philosophy professors discussed never, ever, being accepted for jury duty, for instance. Philosophy is another academic field that teaches critical thought, and independent analysis.
It is in the best interest of lawyers to choose jurors who are easily swayed, and pliable.
Beyond that, most savvy people get out of jury duty. Which diminishes the pool, leaving only those who are not savvy enough to get out, and those few poor civic minded folks who are left. This is a shame, if I was before a jury I would rather have a jury of lawyers, philosophers, and engineers (and other science oriented folk), than what your generally going to end up with.
Yes, I'm a cynical ass. But all my experiences in the court (and justice system in general) system (on both sides) hasn't left me with much confidence.
The OP sounds like an ass, and I am in no way endorsing his elitism. The more special you think you are, the least likely you are to be special. Actually... I can only think or a rare case of someone who actually could be considered "special", or elite. The difference between the OP and some slob working at McDonalds is probably very slim (this is true for most of us). And no, special training, or vast sums of money, does not make one special, since, in the end, what does that matter? You're going to die, and in two generations you'll be lucky if a single person remembers you. Only leaving a positive impact on the world around you makes you special.
However, in this case the diagnosis seems to be done by an actual psychologist, so it's probably trustworthy.
Perhaps. I have more faith in psychologists than I do in the lay public, but only barely. Psychology is an art, and most of it has little or no basis in "hard" science, such as physiology or neurology. Autism, aspergers especially is approaching the level of gross over-diagnosis, and trendiness that ADD/ADHD has.
That isn't to say that the kid doesn't have some flavor of it, or has particular problems. Its just odd that we choose to play up the problems, rather than focus on his skills. We wouldn't drop any other mental condition into this context. We wouldn't say "This kid is very smart, and has allergies", or "this kid is very smart and has mild depression". Autism has some silly misplaced mystique. Sometimes its a necessary part of a story (like with Kim Peek, and other savants), sometimes its completely pointless.
My girlfriend used to work with people with functional problems, including people with severe autism. She laughed at this kid, he's charming, and obviously functional.
Yes, amazingly enough it's possible to lead a happy, succesful and productive life even if you have a mental or physical condition
It is. But as one of my psychology proffesors told me, "a trait becomes an illness only when it hampers your ability to function". Merely not being social isn't a problem at all. Its natural (though sadly rare) to value things above mere social immersion. If anything we're too focused on the social, and not nearly focused enough on the individual, or more mental pursuits. Caring more about solving an equation than being popular isn't a bad thing. Most of the intelligent people I know are very socially awkward, and this is fine. When your more intelligent than your peers, some social issues will follow naturally. If you care about mucking with relativity, or solving inegrals, and the rest of your peer group care about football and American idol and can't understand a damn thing you care about... then yes... there will be problems. Is this a psychological problem? Probably not. The kid will grow to work around it; if he doesn't, only then will he have a problem.
Along time ago, when I was in high school, I knew a very brilliant kid. He graduated halfway through his junior year, with a good chunk of college level honors credits under his belt. He managed a to get a full ride engineering scholarship to MIT. He went for a semester, started to get burnt out and went to ASU instead. By his second year, he completely fizzled and dropped out "indefinitely". Did this kid have aspergers? Probably not, as it didn't really exist back then, and he managed to have a decent social circle. But then again this high school had a very high population of nerds, and we all formed a tight knit group, with all of our idiosyncrasies and obsessions. More importantly we could get together after school and talk about math, physics, computers and logic. In a more typical school, this kid would appear socially stunted.
It translates into ensuring that children who have the condition train social contacts enough to become full-functional adults, since that's where the condition often causes problems. It's the same as any other diagnosis: defend against potential problems before they have a chance to develop, and solve any that already have.
There is a risk though of deciding that normal introversion is somehow an illness. Some people don't get fulfillment from texting and checking Facebook every 13 seconds, These people are perfectly normal. If I had my druthers I would ditch every single one of my social responsibilities to sit around and read books and take apart random technology. If the kid doesn't care for people, so be it. The kid I talked about before, after he ditched out of ASU, he quickly found a nice girl and got married. Sometimes you have to grow into soc
neuro-typicals
Is there really such a thing? From everything I've read, learned, and experienced shows that there is no strict "typical" in humans, just a range of traits collapsing on a bell curve. Some people may be more typical in certain metrics, vary in others, and only when taken as aggregate turn into something somewhat mirroring "typical".
High functioning autists are special gene sequences that bubble up every now and then, but environmental and sociological pressures will prevent them from being the norm.
I haven't read any reputable research showing anything like this. Autism, and the soon to be defunct aspergers, is a spectrum disorder, meaning showing a specific genetic or physiological cause is very difficult, if not impossible. This is especially true thanks to its largely subjective nature, and the fact that it might be more over-diagnosed than ADD/ADHD now. Psychology is an art, and lacking in objective measures, it is to science what criticism is to art. When we have a solid physiological basis for autism, or large swaths of the spectrum, then I'll sit up and pay attention.
Autism isn't as interesting as the actual, Rainmanesque, savants. Sure they aren't as potentially useful, but they are much more interesting, and may prove to be more scientifically useful. Kim Peek, the man who Rainman is loosely based on, was fascinating, and studies of him might likely prove very important to cognitive neuroscience. But then again, science often learns much more from the edge cases than from the rank and file.
This kid has Aspergers syndrome and is making the most of it.
Does he? Or is that a knee jerk diagnosis for smart people who also don't really care much about social crap? Watching the video, he seems very highly functioning, he doesn't seem at all disabled. Is he mentally ill for holding academics above socialization? Does every nerd have aspergers? Does that even mean anything? Does anyone really care?
I really can't wait for the new DSM, when we all can kiss Aspergers goodbye. Its a completely useless diagnosis. Going by the DSM, I could be diagnosed with it; yet I have a very long term (7 years), cohabitational, girlfriend (sinmate), friends (not a lot, but a small number of high quality ones), etc... So what exactly does that diagnosis show?
Sorry for the almost flamebait. I just don't see why "he has aspergers" is at all meaningful. Shouldn't there articles focus on the fact that he's extremely smart, and applying himself at very interesting problems. Its like reading an article on Einsteins fashion sense... Banal, and it completely misses the point. Or the silly "Einstein couldn't tie his shoes and pissed himself" myths. Yes, it brings highly intelligent people down so the more normal people don't feel quite so bad for not being as gifted. But it often is over stated, and generally completely meaningless. This is especially true for aspergers, which doesn't actually translate to something meaningful or useful. If it actually pointed to an organic cause of this kids extraordinarily talents, then it would be interesting.
Yahoo did much the same, as does any other corporation who acquires another property. It makes sense for them to roll things into a single registration/user account framework, and I really don't have much of a problem with that. Granted, I'm not a big Youtube user (I watch, but don't contribute), and thus I really don't have a stake in the issue. Its like when Yahoo rolled Flickr into its crappy account system, it was a pain, but ultimately silly. I did have a stake in Flickr (I contributed), and hated every bit of it. But in retrospect it was just annoying, not the end of the world.
If you have diverse services it is logical to roll them together into a common framework, and (in marketing speak) experience.
Picasa nags you? Ignore it, or don't use it. Picasa, like Flickr, is a social networking service, what do you expect?
Don't get me wrong, I'm leery of Google. Right now they are fine, but there is a growing potential for them not to be. When I got my Droid, I was creeped out by Google wanting to know, and share, my location data with the internet, for instance. Yes, I can turn it off, but it still is damn creepy.
I like this.
So, running with this, Microsoft would be the Zerg (huge, and assimilative, capable of burrowing and spawning vast numbers), and Apple the Protoss (expensive and shiny, quasi-religious).
I now can see the some guy working on Bing and the Win7 phones screaming, "SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS".
For some reason I find this very amusing. But not as amusing as when someone at Apple hears "nuclear launch detected."
So... being that no one claimed to be intimidated, everyone must have been intimidated!
Thus, the people who supported prop 8 must have intimidated a lot of people against it, since I don't see many claims of intimidation on their side either.
My kitchen sink is the most intimidating object of them all, since NO ONE claims that it intimidated them. A truly horrid device, that sink.
Also, I think your wrong, some people did claim some public intimidation based on their views of prop 8. But, IMO, as long as their was no violence, or violations of rights, its perfectly within the realm of public discourse. As I said before (with a typo, even); "Shame is a powerful tool", and a perfectly legitimate one.
Boycott is. They were used for intimidation. Or do you think that posting all those personal addresses was just for fun?
Isn't that what boycotts are? You avoid purchasing from companies that do things you find immoral or reprehensible. Am I being a bad person and intimidating Sony, by refusing the buy their products?
Also we have laws ensuring that data like that is public for a reason. Shame is a powerful too, as is holding people responsible for their choices. If you are terrified of the public out cry for your opinions, perhaps your opinions are getting a public outcry for a reason.
I'd endorse a boycott on anyone who supported prop 8, on the other hand. A boycott and a very nice public shaming. Feel free to reciprocate when I support something you find morally repugnant. As long as their is no violence or crimes, it is perfectly fine and dandy. I don't see much evidence for wide scale lynching on Prop 8 supporters due to the Huffington post, or any other posting of perfectly, 100% legal, public records.
As if Google fucking doesn't. You're a joke and your post shows that it bites your ass that the company you love to hate the most actually is a step up on a company that you desperately try to keep pushing on people as doing "no evil."
Do they? Evidence please. I've been using Google services for a very long time, and haven't ran into any obvious privacy problems. I've been using Microsoft services for longer, and am perplexed on how I need to send them my data once a month just so they can sure that I'm still not a criminal.
Google has a decent track record of keeping customer privacy on the forefront. MS isn't trustworthy in the slightest. I don't trust either of them, but I trust Google slightly more.
Also, anyone loves a corporation is a moron. Unless they founded it, or get their livelihood from them, corporate loyalty is idiotic. Who the hell cares? Apple, Microsoft, and Google are not really worth the emotional attachment.
I'm not Capitalism's largest fan... But thats not quite true either. True capitalism doesn't necessarily even mean shares, or shareholders would exist. If there was a much more fragmented market, and large monopolies and ultra massive conglomerates were stomped out, then the free market would move closer to helping the social good.
Basically Capitalism is a tool, and it could be used for good or ill. The government exists to constrain it, and subjugate it to the common good. Or at least strike a balance between individual profit and the said common good.
I really can't think of an alternative to capitalism.
You really think they understand computers and IT better than Microsoft? After all, Microsoft has been in the business since the 80's.
Argument by authority. I could argue that Microsoft isn't really an authority, nor very much interested in consumer privacy, and that in their epochs (30 years...) of business they have made plenty of mistakes. I have as much faith in Microsoft as I do in the FTC (not much), but at least the FTC is (supposedly) looking out for me, while MS only cares about MS.
I agree, they should be looking at Google and Facebook. But, remember, Microsoft is trying to get into the same markets as them now. They aren't just a software company anymore, they're trying to get into the whole "social content" market just like Google and Facebook.
If FTC wants to do something, they should look into that and let the good companies like Microsoft be alone.
When the hell did MS turn into a "good company"? Their OS phones home every month, against your will. They've played fast and loose with customer data. MS is a "good company" in the "they are good at being a company" sense, but not in "they are good to customers, and play well with others" sense.
Also, the FTC rules aren't aimed straight at MS, they are aimed at the whole industry. MS just took affront to them, since they will hurt the bottom line. I'd bet that the FTC looked at Facebook and Google too, and probably looked at them more than MS, because they hold a bigger mindshare when it comes to potential privacy issues.