I think when most people talk about the configurability of window managers they are talking about the feel more than the look. Can I turn off the click-to-front behavior of windows? I don't want them moving to the front unless I move them to the front. I could never find a way to change that but I've only briefly played with OSX in a store.
Like I said, Apple may not provide a shiny button to do it, but that won't scare your typical *nix hacker...
My main gripe is that it's not as configurable as desktops or window managers in Linux. I'm used to being able to change every thing I can so it's how I just like it, in OS X you're pretty much stuck with the options they allow you to tweak.
Two things: one, I completely agree with your original point, re: installing Linux on OS X. Two, OS X is actually incredibly customizable; Apple doesn't provide options but I assure you it is very tweakable (for instance, all UI elements are stored as PDF snippits, easily replaced). You just gotta dig for it and do some research. Or use something like ThemeChanger and the million other Mac freeware UI-tweaker apps.
1. Flash has an absolutely massive installed base already
2. Adobe can continue to integrate Flash tightly into workflows for Photoshop, Illustrator and... did they go with Dreamweaver or GoLive? whichever. And those tools are heavily entrenched in their own right
3. Flash has a massive community and support system in place
And besides, MS bashing aside, why on earth would I trust Microsoft to do a product like this correctly? They have no track record.
Let's not forget that consumer DVD burners were never given the capability to encrypt, since they can't burn to the area of the disk where the CSS key is stored. So even if the MPAA made a copy, it's likely to have been a clear copy.
Sure I can encrypt. Does it have to be CSS for the law to apply?
Been using Google News since the beginning and thee have been few changes that I noticed... so what are the new features that come out of a full version release?
Beta is supposed to mean feature-complete, but still in testing. The term is misused a lot.
I sympathize with the writers a bit on this one. We're not just talking about 'adapting' a story from book or play to the big screen, which is fraught with its own perils. Writing for the interactive screen is really an entirely new discipline, and one that we are still struggling to understand and create a common language for. If you think about something like the film Memento, and what would be required to write that properly - then imagine that you could experience that linear flow of events from multiple vantage points, multiple timelines... it gets pretty hairy, pretty fast. Then throw in the fact that characters - including the protagonist - can have multiple responses and conversational threads... eccchh. (Anyone remember Ultima 3? What keyword can I bounce off this NPC that will make them regurgitate the clue I need... I resorted to pseudo-dictionary-attacks on some of those).
Also, the expectations for 'game time' are way beyond what a film offers. The amount of dialog in some games is comparable to a novel (those epic RPGs with 20, 30, 40+ hours in them). No wonder the quality suffers.
I do believe Mr. Kojima is attempting to draw the line of 'entertainment' versus 'art'.
I don't buy his position. You could say precisely the same thing about a film.
Of course, there are examples of both entertainment and art in films and videogames. Jurassic Park is not trying to be art - its a popcorn flick, loud noises and thrills. A film like 2001 could certainly be called art. (Kubrick is a great example actually; pretty much all of his films left lots of room for interpretation, as was the intention).
I've seen Ebert put forth this opinion as well, that video games are not really 'art' because with art you are expressing a certain point of view; the argument says, if someone gleans a different experience than what was perhaps intended by the game's creators, then it cannot be art, as art is always about communicating a certain point of view (and emotional manipulation). I would conter this by citing the example of sculpture. A person can walk around a sculpture in three dimensions and potentially glean a multiplicity of meanings from it. By this token, I would argue that there is nothing inherently limiting in the structure of video games in achieving 'art'. What if the creator intends for an experience to be perceived from multiple viewpoints?
FireWire as a standard won't be going anywhere for a while
When I first read that, I thought you meant "FireWire is dead in the water"... now I see you meant the opposite... but I wonder which answer you are getting mod points for.:)
I agree that FireWire will be around for some time, just because of FW target disk mode, and the point-to-point nature of it (as opposed to USB's master-slave).
Anyone have any info on whether or not the MacBook has a dongle for s-video and composite video out, like earlier PowerBooks? I only saw VGA and DVI-out in the specs. This is somewhat alarming; I would consider no analog video out a dealbreaker, personally. What kind of proper laptop doesn't do AV?
Hard to say as it obviously isn't shipping yet, but Apple used to mention this capability in the specs... MacBook, not so much...
Bits on Wheels is about as fun as a download can get; nifty 3D representation of the swarm. I'd like to see someone write a kickass OpenGL screensaver that plugged into this.
Transmission is a bare-bones, ground-up rewrite in C and has really impressive performance. I use this as my default.
Allow me to (re/)introduce a very, very influential professor who shaped the development of many leading Republicans.
Leo Strauss was a prof at the University of Chicago (1949-1968) who had a tremendous influence on the current president, his vice, the secretary of defense, the chief of staff... whatever Karl Rove is... and many more.
This guy would certainly have landed on the proposed list of 'ideologically fixated' professors, assuming it truly is focusing all edges of the spectrum...
Here's a snippit from the wikipedia entry. As you read this, ask yourself: does any of it seem at all familiar?
According to Strauss, modern Social Science Positivism (the heir to the traditions of both Auguste Comte and Max Weber), in making purportedly value-free judgements, fails the ultimate test of justifying its own existence (which would require a value-judgement, of sorts) and ultimately leads to nihilism. Strauss taught that Liberalism, strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to a sort of nihilism--a kind of decadence, value-free aimlessness, and hedonism which he believed he saw permeating through the very fabric of contemporary American society. In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Philosophy (essentially the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian corpus, but one freed from the Scholastic hermeneutic).
While modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss was interested in governments taking a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question, What is the good for the city and man?
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?
The only way I ace political science classes is by parroting the pinko commie crap that the professor advocates right back to him in my assignments. Works every time.
You learn well, grasshopper. Now you only need switch to regurgitating Republican talking points and you have a bright future ahead of you.
"Jones told Reuters he is out to 'restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus' and says his efforts are aimed at academics who proselytize students from either side of the ideological spectrum, conservative or liberal. 'We are concerned solely with indoctrination, one-sided presentation of ideological controversies and unprofessional classroom behavior,' Jones said on his Web site."
Its about damn time somebody did something about this Intelligent Design nonsense.
Not that you're going to bother supporting that comment, obviously. Just light the fuse and pretend that's somehow insightful. Evidence, reason, logical argumentation - these are the implements of lesser men, right?
In this case, we have the evidence before us:
The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question.
That, my friends, is a McCarthyite witch-hunt. There is no good reason to go around recording UCLA professors; if the school is concerned about the content of lectures, they can monitor them in person easily enough. Wanting recordings of the lectures smacks of a desire to rip what could be construed as controversial statements out of context. These quotes could then be circulated in talking points and the like to shore up the case against these 'ideological' professors.
Two years ago I would have regarded my above statement as paranoid - but we have seen the Swift Boating Method employed a few times now, sadly. It's all too familiar.
Finally, no, we didn't train the Islamists as they didn't even exist as a unitary force. We certainly didn't train them in terror tactics. There were veterans of the Afghan war of liberation against the Soviets on both sides of the subsequent civil war.
Why do you think that? It seems apparent that Al Qaeda ("The Database") was funded and arranged originally by the CIA, the so-called Afghan Trap which became the Soviet Vietnam. What is your theory?
Dude, gratuitously posting links to your own axe-grinding blog is just very poor form.
The only other links you provide are to Steve Jackson bitching about Konfabulator vs Dashboard, and an Inside Mac article which outlines some 1st-gen G5 iMac problems but then ends with:
"I may sound like I would never recommend the iMac G5 to friends or family. Not true. I find the iMac G5 to be a remarkable computer... Though I've seen many first-generation iMac G5's break down on numerous fronts, I haven't witnessed nearly as many second-generation iMac G5's break down on the same scale... there are many, many Mac users out there that haven't had a single problem since handing down the cash for their very own iMac G5.
Your first link was somewhat interesting, many more links in there to typical computer-news grist for the mill - but you've catalogued seemingly every large bug that has occured thoughout OS X's lifetime. That seems disingenuous. We know nothing is bug-free. Don't make me go find a Windows buglist of all time (or substitute any *nix distro's buglist - much less onerous, but still as long as your arm).
Did you notice the 'user rating' on your last link? I am a graphic designer and I can tell you I've never had a single issue with OS X's font management. Not one.
Sadly, Apple isn't learning the right lesson because their sales (thanks largely due to the iPod) are doing well and the Mac Faithful seem willing to live with the flaws just because "it's a Mac".
Apple's going to fuck up from time to time, like any other company. Sometimes they fuck up big. This photocasting thing, its probably a bug. There are much better things to pick on. The DRM in their new CPU, for example.
They've said all along that "standard" controllers will work with the rev (crossing my fingers for native compatibility with my wavebird). So the next Prince of Persia game will be released for all three next-gen platforms, right? But Electroplankton Revo or Tokyo Laser Symphony Revo will only work with the revo's unique controller - playing games built for the revo controller on a PS3 or an Xbox360 is like playing Donkey Konga with the standard gamecube controller.
Keep in mind - there is probably very little standing in Microsoft's/Sony's way if they want to go and make their own Revolution controller knock-off. Big N surely has patents on implementation methods but Sony in particular is famous for finding ways around that. Just food for thought.
With all the ridiculous hype around the PS3 and Xbox360, I've seen many comments here and elsewhere about how Nintendo is going to 'clean up' and 'revolutionize the industry' (gag, choke) simply because:
1. We've had a chance to watch the 1st next-gen console launch, with its attendant hardware failure stories, and criticise it (X360)
2. We've seen Sony do ridiculously stupid things with DRM in the music space, and so we hate them, and have possibly boycotted them
3. Nintendo showed us a really wizzy controller... and not much else.
I like Nintendo, they are true innovators, but the way the hype is blowing right now, people are expecting the sun and moon from their next console. If it doesn't deliver, the fan base is going to be incredibly bitter (well, except for the really hardcore fans). Expectations are very high for the Revolution. But its only partially based on that neat demo they did - the rest is bitterness and resentment towards MS and Sony. Nintendo looks good just standing still... but the Revolution had really better be a true revolution, I actually think the hype is higher for that box than any other at the moment.
Morning, Loundry. Sorry for the delay in responding, I was out last night. I like to take time to respond properly on this thread. I'll quote a bit so we don't get lost.
For me, I see this as an opportunity to turn my thoughts into words and improve my debating skills. I also see it as an opportunity to learn to share mutual respect despite a difference in values. What's in it for you?
I suppose the thing that keeps me responding is much the same - I get the feeling that we probably don't agree on everything, but interestingly enough, your pre-emptive pouncing has seemingly nullified the possibility of flamewar. (Is that an argument for unilateral action?) So I enjoy being able to stretch, as you say, and not have it descend into Godwin terriroty or what have you. Its so hard to have an actual debate on Slashdot sometimes, even though I do think that hypertext makes for a great debate medium (with the caveat of tone and subtlety perhaps being lost).
Regarding Occam's Razor: I understand your wanting to use it in the absense of data. The danger that I see here is in one of the "bugs" in the human mind: the desire for consistency. What humans often do is choose the answer that they think is right, and then stick to it come hell or high water. We humans seem to like this -- we don't like appearing inconsistent and we don't like others that appear inconsistent.
I agree with this. I would add - and this also supports your point - that Occam's should be used very sparingly. The desire for consistency and reassuring patterns can manifest itself with or without a framework of assumption. Your pellagra example is a fascinating one, I'll need to dig a bit more about that before I can discuss it intelligently. Point well taken. Suspicion is good, skepticism is good. As long as it is thoughtfully applied.
Regarding AIDS, yes, it's a very, very in-depth subject. If you are curious, then you can start by asking yourself some questions: There was a scientific process that was used to "discover" the AIDS virus. What, exactly, was this process, and who did it? What are the differences between "AIDS" in North America and "AIDS" in Africa?
Again, I thank you for the insight, but I feel that I should withhold comment until I read some more about this. I will take your suggestion. I feel that there is certainly much more (much more) to AIDS/HIV than what is typically dispersed in the mainstream, but I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to discuss it intelligently. I have had some halting conversations with my aunt, who is a Genetic Counseller, about AIDS; she feels that there is information being stifled on the subject and comments that "it doesn't behave like you would expect."... for what that's worth.
Regarding capitalism, you make some comments that blow my mind because they appear nonsensical to me, and I attribute that to our difference in values. Yes, capitalism stinks, but it's the best thing we got. Compare it to the jury system (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got) and sceintific peer review (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got). When I say that "capitalism stinks", what I mean is that it does a poor job and giving every human a Good Life. (I regard "Good Life" as a highly-subjective and almost superstitious belief.)
Capitalism is indeed the best thing we've got; as a system it has proven more successful than those that have come before it (not that this is a long list - how many systems of self-governed trade are there, really?). My problem with capitalism is that it is imperfect, and not static. To put it another way, I don't believe that capitalism has evolved to the state of perfection that many would attribute to it. I often hear the refrain 'let the market decide'. This works on a very, very simplistic level, but 'the market' is not philanthropic; it is not moral. It simply wants growth. Smith's 'invisible hand' is made out to be some kind of guiding moral force resulting from greed: I don't buy it. Too many
I'm de-foeing you based on sheer bloodymindedness.
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the response.
(Re: tenacity. You are very welcome.)
I will touch on these things you've mentioned - and there's way, way, way too much to go into any real detail - but since you've been kind enough to share these thoughts, I would be remiss, were I to not reciprocate.
I take what you say about your desire not to spread fear seriously. I don't think you're trying to manipulate people. Do you agree that there are some in the environemental movement who would definately exploit fear in this regard? For example, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". I see that film as fear-based propaganda. Do you sympathize with that point of view?
I understand your dislike of militant environmentalism; indeed, I share your rage at clueless doomsaying book-peddlars, whom I regard as dangerous noise, to be filtered and called out as they are actively working against my survival -- albeit in a very abstract way. I hasten to add, I do not really limit that group to the environmentalists, but rather any such skewed and noisy sources that aren't seeking the little-t truth. The Day After Tomorrow is ridiculous pap of course, and as far as agenda-pushing I actually think that one backfired massively if it was ever meant for that. We may differ in this regard: I would use Occam's Razor again, when speaking of that film, and say the filmmakers knew they could stir up a mild hornet's nest with the plot and used it for a little extra-juicy free publicity - and then some other opportunistic and misguided people decided to pick up that baton and run with it a bit further. That's it, that would be my guess. On the other hand, if one were to propose that the film was concocted specifically to lobby an issue, I wouldn't buy it really: you can spend a lot less money, a lot more directly, and get better results in that regard. For instance.
No apology necessary for the pouncing, frankly now that I can see your position, I think maybe you were a little too light on me... I mean, I was using anecdotes, ferchrissakes...
I'm pleased to see that you recognize that the field of climate change is a dangerous place -- to scientists -- that lay people like you and I (I assume your position, forgive me if I am incorrect) are largely ignorant of. There is a nasty battle going on from which we only see the runoff. The environmentalists have attracted all of the old socialists who are exploiting that position as another method to destroy the things they perceive as evil (captitalism, individualism, America), and I hate those fuckers so the whole notion of environmentalism and climate change is tainted. Likewise, someone with more leftist values will likely see the skepticism of climate change as the defense of greed and exploitation. I don't mean to pigeon-hole your beliefs, but I think it's highly unlikely for you to see eye-to-eye on the issue of climate change because any position is necessarily tied to a political position.
There is an interesting phenomenon that happens with clusters of beliefs -- seemingly disparate beliefs that tend to show up in people with similar core ideologies. I'll give you an example. My girlfriend likes to do yoga. She goes to a yoga class down the street. She's not a hippie by any means - she eats red meat, doesn't like folk music, etc. She complains that in going to the class, its like she has to buy into this entire mindset of beliefs - you couldn't be a pro-war, carnivorous, supercompetitive yoga enthusiast, they'd just disown you somehow. My girlfriend's class always want to go drink wheat grass juice and silly crap like that after a session, and she has to basically resist and just maintain that she simply wants the exercise.
And so it goes with environmentalism. It is tainted - all the 'ism's are tainted. People have axes to grind, although I personally find that it has more to do with personality clashes writ large than issues, ofttimes.
I am not anti-capitalist, although I do see it as highly imperfect. I do not entirely di
Absolutely true. However, if your doctor were to then go on and say, "so, are you homosexual, or are you a junkie?", would his actions still be defensible, or would you smack him upside the head for making an innacurate and crass assumption about you based on a sweeping generalization?
Ouch. You are gonna get some nasty responses to that example.
Gaming is not just a way of life. It's a 24/7 JOB. They make money selling items on e-bay and the like. The players are nothing more than the gamers version of a day/stock trader. In fact, they prolly don't even like the game. It's just another source of real-world income.
Yeah, but day traders don't fuck with the mechanics of my relaxation.
Isn't there a whole other set of Warcraft servers for the asian market?
Are they referring to Chinese players living in North America or Australia? Those versions of the game are in English, how are they differentiating Chinese players at all? Or is it that so-called "Chinese Gold Farmers" have US accounts as well? Perhaps that is necessary for transacting with NA players, I've never engaged their services so I'm not sure how it works.
Boy, you don't give up do you? I have to admit, I admire your tenacity.
It's not beyond my faculties. Rather, beyond my interest and my tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for religious bullshit.
Loundry. Take a breath. I get the feeling that you are reading a tone in my messages that I do not intend. For instance, I also have a very, very low tolerance for religious bullshit. I don't believe I have professed any sort of religious preference anywhere in this thread. I am an atheist, if it makes a difference to you. Where did you get the 'religious' part?
As for 'interest and tolerence' - we have established that your tolerence is zero. Interest is there or you wouldn't be responding. Unless you have some other kind of baggage invested in this discussion.
"Threatened" is not the word you're looking for. Rather, I am belligerent.
Fair enough - you are belligerent (i.e. hostile and aggressive). I find this an odd way to describe one's self generally speaking. Your default emotion is belligerence?
Furthermore, I'm not afraid of you at all.
Yes yes, you said that already. You seem very brave, the way you keep insisting on it. What with your War on Fear and all.
I am strident and combative.
Strident: loud and harsh; grating
Combative: ready or eager to fight; pugnacious
Looks about right to me...
Most everyone picks a cause of good they'd like to fight for. My cause du jour happenes to be standing up against fear-spreading zealots. It just so happens that you fall into the crosshairs, and I apologize for that.
No you don't.
It is not my intention to spread fear. Indeed, I have a vested interest in allaying fear, as I believe fear itself is that which robs men of their Reason. Fear truly is the mind killer. But here's the question: do you not discuss things that may potentially strike someone as fearful, out of deference to the possible ramifications instilled by fear of that knowledge? Some things are just scary; indeed, scary things are worth discussing because they mean trouble. Fearmongering, I have no use for - and I would define that as spreading baseless fear. This is where we diverge. I believe there is reason to have real concern over climate change - you believe that some kind of agenda is being pushed, for the sake of fear itself, do I have that right? I can do nothing but assure you that Fear is not my intention. Take that as you will, pugnaciously, belligerently, whatever.
To what end? What the hell for? What would possibly be in it for me?
There are lots of things in it for you. For example: convincing people to your point of view, fighting against what you perceive as evil and ignorance, and helping a thing ("Gaia") that you care about.
Agreed.
It's so much easier to slam your opponent as stupid than it is to actually formulate an argument, isn't it?
Oh, really?
Perhaps a supremely awesomely intelligent individual such as yourself can sympathize with that...
...that which you spout is merely the rhetorical leftist sheen on a bitterly divided battle...
...Your condescending, "I'm smart and you're stupid" invective is part and parcel...
I agree, it is much easier, as you have so readily demonstrated.
But, Loundry, what happened to the data? You remember all those stats I slung your way, 2-3 posts ago? Yes, you do:
How could I trust the data? Can you find me any data about "climate change", anywhere, that isn't attached to someone with some kind of political agenda?
Aaaaaaand there we have it. I was wondering when we'd get to that part.
It is possible for reasonably intelligent people to carry this discussion on ad infinitum. Endless debunking of sources, endless bickering over semantics. You know it and I know it. Myself, I apply
The human body has no way to "remember" a sensation. You can recall what you were thinking at the time, how something affected your emotions, and partially the things you saw. What you cannot actually do is get your body to "refeel" a sensation.
You are probably right about sensations, but I was referring more to actual memories of seasons gone by. Frequency/severity of storms, snow accumulation, that sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, Apple may not provide a shiny button to do it, but that won't scare your typical *nix hacker...
For X11 inside Aqua:
defaults write com.apple.x11 wm_ffm -bool true
for elsewhere:
defaults write com.apple.Terminal FocusFollowsMouse -string YES
and to disable:
defaults delete com.apple.Terminal FocusFollowsMouse
Two things: one, I completely agree with your original point, re: installing Linux on OS X. Two, OS X is actually incredibly customizable; Apple doesn't provide options but I assure you it is very tweakable (for instance, all UI elements are stored as PDF snippits, easily replaced). You just gotta dig for it and do some research. Or use something like ThemeChanger and the million other Mac freeware UI-tweaker apps.
1. Flash has an absolutely massive installed base already
2. Adobe can continue to integrate Flash tightly into workflows for Photoshop, Illustrator and... did they go with Dreamweaver or GoLive? whichever. And those tools are heavily entrenched in their own right
3. Flash has a massive community and support system in place
And besides, MS bashing aside, why on earth would I trust Microsoft to do a product like this correctly? They have no track record.
Sure I can encrypt. Does it have to be CSS for the law to apply?
Beta is supposed to mean feature-complete, but still in testing. The term is misused a lot.
Also, the expectations for 'game time' are way beyond what a film offers. The amount of dialog in some games is comparable to a novel (those epic RPGs with 20, 30, 40+ hours in them). No wonder the quality suffers.
I don't buy his position. You could say precisely the same thing about a film.
Of course, there are examples of both entertainment and art in films and videogames. Jurassic Park is not trying to be art - its a popcorn flick, loud noises and thrills. A film like 2001 could certainly be called art. (Kubrick is a great example actually; pretty much all of his films left lots of room for interpretation, as was the intention).
I've seen Ebert put forth this opinion as well, that video games are not really 'art' because with art you are expressing a certain point of view; the argument says, if someone gleans a different experience than what was perhaps intended by the game's creators, then it cannot be art, as art is always about communicating a certain point of view (and emotional manipulation). I would conter this by citing the example of sculpture. A person can walk around a sculpture in three dimensions and potentially glean a multiplicity of meanings from it. By this token, I would argue that there is nothing inherently limiting in the structure of video games in achieving 'art'. What if the creator intends for an experience to be perceived from multiple viewpoints?
When I first read that, I thought you meant "FireWire is dead in the water"... now I see you meant the opposite... but I wonder which answer you are getting mod points for. :)
I agree that FireWire will be around for some time, just because of FW target disk mode, and the point-to-point nature of it (as opposed to USB's master-slave).
Hard to say as it obviously isn't shipping yet, but Apple used to mention this capability in the specs... MacBook, not so much...
Transmission is a bare-bones, ground-up rewrite in C and has really impressive performance. I use this as my default.
Leo Strauss was a prof at the University of Chicago (1949-1968) who had a tremendous influence on the current president, his vice, the secretary of defense, the chief of staff... whatever Karl Rove is... and many more.
This guy would certainly have landed on the proposed list of 'ideologically fixated' professors, assuming it truly is focusing all edges of the spectrum...
Here's a snippit from the wikipedia entry. As you read this, ask yourself: does any of it seem at all familiar?
According to Strauss, modern Social Science Positivism (the heir to the traditions of both Auguste Comte and Max Weber), in making purportedly value-free judgements, fails the ultimate test of justifying its own existence (which would require a value-judgement, of sorts) and ultimately leads to nihilism. Strauss taught that Liberalism, strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to a sort of nihilism--a kind of decadence, value-free aimlessness, and hedonism which he believed he saw permeating through the very fabric of contemporary American society. In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Philosophy (essentially the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian corpus, but one freed from the Scholastic hermeneutic).
While modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss was interested in governments taking a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question, What is the good for the city and man?
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?
You learn well, grasshopper. Now you only need switch to regurgitating Republican talking points and you have a bright future ahead of you.
Its about damn time somebody did something about this Intelligent Design nonsense.
Uh...that is what we're talking about, right?
In this case, we have the evidence before us:
The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question.
That, my friends, is a McCarthyite witch-hunt. There is no good reason to go around recording UCLA professors; if the school is concerned about the content of lectures, they can monitor them in person easily enough. Wanting recordings of the lectures smacks of a desire to rip what could be construed as controversial statements out of context. These quotes could then be circulated in talking points and the like to shore up the case against these 'ideological' professors.
Two years ago I would have regarded my above statement as paranoid - but we have seen the Swift Boating Method employed a few times now, sadly. It's all too familiar.
Why do you think that? It seems apparent that Al Qaeda ("The Database") was funded and arranged originally by the CIA, the so-called Afghan Trap which became the Soviet Vietnam. What is your theory?
The only other links you provide are to Steve Jackson bitching about Konfabulator vs Dashboard, and an Inside Mac article which outlines some 1st-gen G5 iMac problems but then ends with:
"I may sound like I would never recommend the iMac G5 to friends or family. Not true. I find the iMac G5 to be a remarkable computer... Though I've seen many first-generation iMac G5's break down on numerous fronts, I haven't witnessed nearly as many second-generation iMac G5's break down on the same scale... there are many, many Mac users out there that haven't had a single problem since handing down the cash for their very own iMac G5.
Your first link was somewhat interesting, many more links in there to typical computer-news grist for the mill - but you've catalogued seemingly every large bug that has occured thoughout OS X's lifetime. That seems disingenuous. We know nothing is bug-free. Don't make me go find a Windows buglist of all time (or substitute any *nix distro's buglist - much less onerous, but still as long as your arm).
Did you notice the 'user rating' on your last link? I am a graphic designer and I can tell you I've never had a single issue with OS X's font management. Not one.
Sadly, Apple isn't learning the right lesson because their sales (thanks largely due to the iPod) are doing well and the Mac Faithful seem willing to live with the flaws just because "it's a Mac".
Don't be sad - we're all pretty happy.
Apple's going to fuck up from time to time, like any other company. Sometimes they fuck up big. This photocasting thing, its probably a bug. There are much better things to pick on. The DRM in their new CPU, for example.
Keep in mind - there is probably very little standing in Microsoft's/Sony's way if they want to go and make their own Revolution controller knock-off. Big N surely has patents on implementation methods but Sony in particular is famous for finding ways around that. Just food for thought.
1. We've had a chance to watch the 1st next-gen console launch, with its attendant hardware failure stories, and criticise it (X360)
2. We've seen Sony do ridiculously stupid things with DRM in the music space, and so we hate them, and have possibly boycotted them
3. Nintendo showed us a really wizzy controller... and not much else.
I like Nintendo, they are true innovators, but the way the hype is blowing right now, people are expecting the sun and moon from their next console. If it doesn't deliver, the fan base is going to be incredibly bitter (well, except for the really hardcore fans). Expectations are very high for the Revolution. But its only partially based on that neat demo they did - the rest is bitterness and resentment towards MS and Sony. Nintendo looks good just standing still... but the Revolution had really better be a true revolution, I actually think the hype is higher for that box than any other at the moment.
For me, I see this as an opportunity to turn my thoughts into words and improve my debating skills. I also see it as an opportunity to learn to share mutual respect despite a difference in values. What's in it for you?
I suppose the thing that keeps me responding is much the same - I get the feeling that we probably don't agree on everything, but interestingly enough, your pre-emptive pouncing has seemingly nullified the possibility of flamewar. (Is that an argument for unilateral action?) So I enjoy being able to stretch, as you say, and not have it descend into Godwin terriroty or what have you. Its so hard to have an actual debate on Slashdot sometimes, even though I do think that hypertext makes for a great debate medium (with the caveat of tone and subtlety perhaps being lost).
Regarding Occam's Razor: I understand your wanting to use it in the absense of data. The danger that I see here is in one of the "bugs" in the human mind: the desire for consistency. What humans often do is choose the answer that they think is right, and then stick to it come hell or high water. We humans seem to like this -- we don't like appearing inconsistent and we don't like others that appear inconsistent.
I agree with this. I would add - and this also supports your point - that Occam's should be used very sparingly. The desire for consistency and reassuring patterns can manifest itself with or without a framework of assumption. Your pellagra example is a fascinating one, I'll need to dig a bit more about that before I can discuss it intelligently. Point well taken. Suspicion is good, skepticism is good. As long as it is thoughtfully applied.
Regarding AIDS, yes, it's a very, very in-depth subject. If you are curious, then you can start by asking yourself some questions: There was a scientific process that was used to "discover" the AIDS virus. What, exactly, was this process, and who did it? What are the differences between "AIDS" in North America and "AIDS" in Africa?
Again, I thank you for the insight, but I feel that I should withhold comment until I read some more about this. I will take your suggestion. I feel that there is certainly much more (much more) to AIDS/HIV than what is typically dispersed in the mainstream, but I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to discuss it intelligently. I have had some halting conversations with my aunt, who is a Genetic Counseller, about AIDS; she feels that there is information being stifled on the subject and comments that "it doesn't behave like you would expect."... for what that's worth.
Regarding capitalism, you make some comments that blow my mind because they appear nonsensical to me, and I attribute that to our difference in values. Yes, capitalism stinks, but it's the best thing we got. Compare it to the jury system (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got) and sceintific peer review (it stinks, but it's the best thing we got). When I say that "capitalism stinks", what I mean is that it does a poor job and giving every human a Good Life. (I regard "Good Life" as a highly-subjective and almost superstitious belief.)
Capitalism is indeed the best thing we've got; as a system it has proven more successful than those that have come before it (not that this is a long list - how many systems of self-governed trade are there, really?). My problem with capitalism is that it is imperfect, and not static. To put it another way, I don't believe that capitalism has evolved to the state of perfection that many would attribute to it. I often hear the refrain 'let the market decide'. This works on a very, very simplistic level, but 'the market' is not philanthropic; it is not moral. It simply wants growth. Smith's 'invisible hand' is made out to be some kind of guiding moral force resulting from greed: I don't buy it. Too many
(Re: tenacity. You are very welcome.)
I will touch on these things you've mentioned - and there's way, way, way too much to go into any real detail - but since you've been kind enough to share these thoughts, I would be remiss, were I to not reciprocate.
I take what you say about your desire not to spread fear seriously. I don't think you're trying to manipulate people. Do you agree that there are some in the environemental movement who would definately exploit fear in this regard? For example, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". I see that film as fear-based propaganda. Do you sympathize with that point of view?
I understand your dislike of militant environmentalism; indeed, I share your rage at clueless doomsaying book-peddlars, whom I regard as dangerous noise, to be filtered and called out as they are actively working against my survival -- albeit in a very abstract way. I hasten to add, I do not really limit that group to the environmentalists, but rather any such skewed and noisy sources that aren't seeking the little-t truth. The Day After Tomorrow is ridiculous pap of course, and as far as agenda-pushing I actually think that one backfired massively if it was ever meant for that. We may differ in this regard: I would use Occam's Razor again, when speaking of that film, and say the filmmakers knew they could stir up a mild hornet's nest with the plot and used it for a little extra-juicy free publicity - and then some other opportunistic and misguided people decided to pick up that baton and run with it a bit further. That's it, that would be my guess. On the other hand, if one were to propose that the film was concocted specifically to lobby an issue, I wouldn't buy it really: you can spend a lot less money, a lot more directly, and get better results in that regard. For instance.
No apology necessary for the pouncing, frankly now that I can see your position, I think maybe you were a little too light on me... I mean, I was using anecdotes, ferchrissakes...
I'm pleased to see that you recognize that the field of climate change is a dangerous place -- to scientists -- that lay people like you and I (I assume your position, forgive me if I am incorrect) are largely ignorant of. There is a nasty battle going on from which we only see the runoff. The environmentalists have attracted all of the old socialists who are exploiting that position as another method to destroy the things they perceive as evil (captitalism, individualism, America), and I hate those fuckers so the whole notion of environmentalism and climate change is tainted. Likewise, someone with more leftist values will likely see the skepticism of climate change as the defense of greed and exploitation. I don't mean to pigeon-hole your beliefs, but I think it's highly unlikely for you to see eye-to-eye on the issue of climate change because any position is necessarily tied to a political position.
There is an interesting phenomenon that happens with clusters of beliefs -- seemingly disparate beliefs that tend to show up in people with similar core ideologies. I'll give you an example. My girlfriend likes to do yoga. She goes to a yoga class down the street. She's not a hippie by any means - she eats red meat, doesn't like folk music, etc. She complains that in going to the class, its like she has to buy into this entire mindset of beliefs - you couldn't be a pro-war, carnivorous, supercompetitive yoga enthusiast, they'd just disown you somehow. My girlfriend's class always want to go drink wheat grass juice and silly crap like that after a session, and she has to basically resist and just maintain that she simply wants the exercise.
And so it goes with environmentalism. It is tainted - all the 'ism's are tainted. People have axes to grind, although I personally find that it has more to do with personality clashes writ large than issues, ofttimes.
I am not anti-capitalist, although I do see it as highly imperfect. I do not entirely di
Ouch. You are gonna get some nasty responses to that example.
This is not one of them, though.
Yeah, but day traders don't fuck with the mechanics of my relaxation.
[reads that line again]
I'll let you parse that however you like.
Are they referring to Chinese players living in North America or Australia? Those versions of the game are in English, how are they differentiating Chinese players at all? Or is it that so-called "Chinese Gold Farmers" have US accounts as well? Perhaps that is necessary for transacting with NA players, I've never engaged their services so I'm not sure how it works.
It's not beyond my faculties. Rather, beyond my interest and my tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for religious bullshit.
Loundry. Take a breath. I get the feeling that you are reading a tone in my messages that I do not intend. For instance, I also have a very, very low tolerance for religious bullshit. I don't believe I have professed any sort of religious preference anywhere in this thread. I am an atheist, if it makes a difference to you. Where did you get the 'religious' part?
As for 'interest and tolerence' - we have established that your tolerence is zero. Interest is there or you wouldn't be responding. Unless you have some other kind of baggage invested in this discussion.
"Threatened" is not the word you're looking for. Rather, I am belligerent.
Fair enough - you are belligerent (i.e. hostile and aggressive). I find this an odd way to describe one's self generally speaking. Your default emotion is belligerence?
Furthermore, I'm not afraid of you at all.
Yes yes, you said that already. You seem very brave, the way you keep insisting on it. What with your War on Fear and all.
I am strident and combative.
Strident: loud and harsh; grating
Combative: ready or eager to fight; pugnacious
Looks about right to me...
Most everyone picks a cause of good they'd like to fight for. My cause du jour happenes to be standing up against fear-spreading zealots. It just so happens that you fall into the crosshairs, and I apologize for that.
No you don't.
It is not my intention to spread fear. Indeed, I have a vested interest in allaying fear, as I believe fear itself is that which robs men of their Reason. Fear truly is the mind killer. But here's the question: do you not discuss things that may potentially strike someone as fearful, out of deference to the possible ramifications instilled by fear of that knowledge? Some things are just scary; indeed, scary things are worth discussing because they mean trouble. Fearmongering, I have no use for - and I would define that as spreading baseless fear. This is where we diverge. I believe there is reason to have real concern over climate change - you believe that some kind of agenda is being pushed, for the sake of fear itself, do I have that right? I can do nothing but assure you that Fear is not my intention. Take that as you will, pugnaciously, belligerently, whatever.
To what end? What the hell for? What would possibly be in it for me?
There are lots of things in it for you. For example: convincing people to your point of view, fighting against what you perceive as evil and ignorance, and helping a thing ("Gaia") that you care about.
Agreed.
It's so much easier to slam your opponent as stupid than it is to actually formulate an argument, isn't it?
Oh, really?
Perhaps a supremely awesomely intelligent individual such as yourself can sympathize with that...
I agree, it is much easier, as you have so readily demonstrated.
But, Loundry, what happened to the data? You remember all those stats I slung your way, 2-3 posts ago? Yes, you do:
How could I trust the data? Can you find me any data about "climate change", anywhere, that isn't attached to someone with some kind of political agenda?
Aaaaaaand there we have it. I was wondering when we'd get to that part.
It is possible for reasonably intelligent people to carry this discussion on ad infinitum. Endless debunking of sources, endless bickering over semantics. You know it and I know it. Myself, I apply
You are probably right about sensations, but I was referring more to actual memories of seasons gone by. Frequency/severity of storms, snow accumulation, that sort of thing.