Prove that it's the government's concern for my rights that makes them take 30% of my paycheck (I'm still in school).
They take that money out of your paycheck to pay for the military to prevent someone else invading and taking away your rights. They do it to pay for police that prevent other citizens from taking away your rights. They do it to pay for education for everyone, because a more educated populace is more likely to understand and respect these rights. They use it to fund a system that supports people who need a safety net so they can still eat and get medicial care and have shelter, and if you ever need it, they're supporting your rights to them.
Look, nobody agrees with every place tax money goes, but if you think the only way to benefit from the money is to have it personally, then you don't understand how things work. ---
People who don't vote are dumbasses, and deserve every single tax increase, restrictive law, and dumbass porkbarrel budgets that get passed. People who don't vote have no legitimate right to bitch and moan about the government. When a person does not vote, they choose to have no voice when they do not vote, and so I don't wanna hear any bitching from those that don't vote.
I woudn't put it so bluntly, but yes. It's been said that in a democracy (or whatever facimilie we currently have), "people get the government they deserve". If they don't care about who gets elected, whoever gets elected won't care about them. If you don't want to fight for your individual rights, the government won't fight for them either.
When you think of it, the people who get elected are reasonable versions of who's voting. There's a large amount of conservative Christian polticians, because there's a large amount of conservative Christians voting for them. Politicians don't care about half the population because half the population doesn't care about them.
A well-educated, interested, active public is probably currently the enemy of people in office, because they'd know enough to vote them out. ---
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the implementation of democracy in our country. So much so that I feel that participation in it is consenting to the process, and I do not wish to consent or approve to the US system of governance.
So please explain how your lack of participation does anything to change that system?
I think a vote for someone who wants to change the system is a clearer message of unhappiness with it than not voting. It's surely not easy, but there still is a way to use the system to change itself, should enough people desire to do so. ---
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
Wrong, Mr. Katz. Not voting is nothing more than a big "I don't care." The only message it sends is that you approve of ANY candidate, and that you approve of them all equally. Why? Because ANY OTHER VIEW can be expressed by voting. If you prefer one of them, you vote for them. If you don't like any, you write-in another name, or just don't select any of them - because going to the polls and not picking one still counts as voting.
Not voting only means that you don't want to put any input into the process.
If you plan on not voting to "protest" the system, then you're going about it all wrong. You're not protesting anything. Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out. Sitting at home on voting day will accomplish nothing but to perpetuate the system. Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything! ---
I think they're in trouble anyways. I tried lowering the temp, but it still went up. I think they've got something wrong, and since only one click per IP per day is allowed, it's not like you can then adjust for it.
It's no wonder they're dying, because they're asking people to turn it down, which causes it to keep going up... ---
Politicians trying to get the vote of the moral majority. Conservative parents want their children protected from the "evils" of the internet, no matter what the cost. People tend to forget that children are not the only ones using the internet at libraries. What about college students? What happens when someone without access to the internet in their home needs to do research on breast cancer? the Holocaust? religious cults?
Politicians have to cater to those people that vote. And since the "moral majority" and the like always turn out in huge numbers to vote, they're important. The less the people that disagree with them vote, the more important they become.
If young people voted in higher numbers than old conservative types, young people would be more likely to be catered to. ---
if Nader weren't running, I wouldn't be voting at all, simply because I wouldn't want any of the candidates to be president.
Well, there are plenty of ways to indicate that. Not voting sends no message whatsoever, so nobody can possibly realize this is how you feel. If you don't like ANY, write in someone, or just not vote for anyone. But staying home only indicates that the result is unimportant to you, that it's acceptable no matter who wins. And that is obviously not what you want. ---
If you don't vote, you're statistically voting for the default result.
Exactly. Not voting is giving your approval to ALL of the candidates - after all, if you had an opinion, you'd go make it known, right?
You DON'T have to vote for either of the two big parties. Heck, you don't have to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot. Or even go in to vote and just not select anyone.
If everyone who was going to not vote went in and voted for nobody, that would be a huge percentage, and would definately be noticed. If, when they counted up results, 25% of the people voted for essentially "none of the above", don't you think that would send a message? That all those people found nobody worth voting for? ---
The thought of another democrat being elected and tearing down the rights of the people while building up an even larger, overpowering federal government scares me even more.
Democrats tearing down the rights of the people? You seem to be unaware that the republicans have long been doing a full frontal assault on the first amendment. Just about any law that attempts to circumvent or cancel one of the first amendment freedoms has been sponsored by a republican. ---
Well put. If things were FAIR, then those people should be paying 90% of the taxes.
But of course, money = power, so the people with more money have the power to reduce their taxes by "donating" to (ie buying) politicans who, in return for further promises of money, reduce taxes on those people.
Did you know, that in the last 10 years, the small percentage of people with a lot of money had their average income go up 89%? In comparison, the bottom group had theirs go up 1.3%. ---
Re:Demographics of game players?
on
Trigger Happy
·
· Score: 1
Umm, yeah. Playing Quake and Diablo and being surprised at the demographic playing with you... if realization hasn't hit you over the head after you've written it and read it here, reread. Repeat until results occur.
(laugh) I know, I know... but you'd be suprised how many girls actually are playing Diablo II. I did overstate it a little bit in the first message, though I think it is just because those annoying kids make the most noise. I regularly find myself partying up with other girls - and not because I go looking for them, but because they're the ones that are actually enjoyable to ally with. They work together, share items, are generous, and the like.
Other than maybe one or two people, every person I've played with for any length of time has been a girl. And like I said, not because I choose it that way because of gender, but because of how they play. ---
Demographics of game players?
on
Trigger Happy
·
· Score: 5
If the median age is really now 28, and there are more female players, why is it that just about anything I play on the internet (Quake, Diablo) is full of 12 year olds picking the female characters, naming them stupid things like "BigBoobs" or "SexFreak" and calling each other "fag"? And of course, when finding out I'm a girl, pestering me with "what do you look like?" and stuff.
Oh well, at least it gives me more incentive to take the railgun and castrate them with a slug... ---
The only remotely likely items on the list are nuclear war, pandemic, and asteroid impact - though global warming is an up-and-comer.
Oh really? You have the information on what causes those immense gamma-ray bursts, the likelihood of a superflare, and know that the vacuum isn't going to collapse? Wow, I wish you'd share with us, there's probably some serious scientific knowledge trapped in your head that nobody else knows.
Oh.... you just DECIDED those events are unlikely, and decided to act as if your assumption was the truth. The fact is, things like those currently fall into the area of "unknown probability". Sure, maybe they seem less likely because they haven't occured around here before, but how do we know that's not like someone rolling a die 10 times and getting a six each time, and thus concluding that any other number is unlikely? We could be lucky that things occured as they did, and a return to the more likely event is around the corner.
There's no use in worrying about them, as we can't affect them, but that's not reason to assume they're not going to happen. Wait a second, there's something on the news about an unusual flare on the sun... ---
I've wondered if it would be a good idea to add a law so that any representative/senator who proposes a bill that gets passed, an is later found to be unconstitutional, gets a "strike" against them. Then, after enough "strikes", that person is kicked out of the office, and further banned from politics.
Maybe then some of them would think the constitution isn't just something to try and get around in whatever way they can.
Of course, it would probably just result in them repealing the Bill of Rights. (After all, there's not a chance it would get passed today.) Freedom is a great buzzword, but too much of a pain to actually ENFORCE, it seems. ---
I loaded in Quake and played for the first time in years yesterday. When I went to bed that night, I couldn't get any images to sit still in my head - they were all "jumping" like you when running around in Quake and moving around like crazy. This was before I even fell asleep. I had to keep opening my eyes to get things to settle down.
My dreams were just as bad. Made for a crappy night of sleep. ---
Actually, they didn't even do it right. It should have been.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
(You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day.)
It goes back to the wonderful days of USENET, when there wasn't such thing as this newfangled web. We used gopher, and we liked it. And we read usenet with rn or trn, and we didn't have to deal with aol.com, and if we made our sigs more than 4 lines, we would see it being made fun of in alt.fan.warlord.
Then the floodgates opened... and today we get to read about pouring hot grits down a petrified Natalie Portman's shorts and get links to goatse.cx. (you know, if evolution is real, why are people seeming to become less and less intelligent?) ---
I just can't see these degrees getting much respect until such time as there's actually something to teach to the students.
Actually, there is a lot to teach with regards to Nanotech. Sure, not actual means of creating and manipulating atmos/molecules to create objects, but there's a lot more than that. There are a few potential roads to nanotechnology, and all of them require a lot of effort and specialization. Wouldn't it make more sense for someone to get a degree in Nanotech while learning about protein folding, quantum mechanics, and the like, so to increase the chance of being able to combine these methods, than to make someone take more time to get multiple degrees to learn the same stuff?
There's also all the theoretical parts, the ideas that can't be tested yet, but still provide interesting work. When they get to the point of creating molecular machines, wouldn't it be nice to have software ready to help design them, and parts, and even entire machines, ready to start working on?
There is not, by any means, a shortage of things to study and research in such a degree program. The only shortage is of actual molecular nanotechnology itself, and this degree program will likely aim at getting to that point, at least at first. ---
Does that mean we all better go order large amounts of pillows from the internet? After all, if they can protect someone far out in Australia, then surely we can stop a giant flaming space station.:)
What... you mean that commercial WASN'T real? Darn, and I thought they wouldn't do that to us. Next you'll tell me that smoking and drinking really won't make me really cool and highly attractive... ---
I've wondered if there would be any use and/or acceptance of a web site designed to connect the "virtual" communities people have based on interest to the real ones the live in. A place where you register with your location, then can join topic or interest based groups, and you'll be directed toward people that are geographically close to you.
As nice as people are to talk to online, sometimes you want people to go to a movie with, to dinner with, invite over, or the like, and no matter how much to talk to someone from across the country online, they just can't fit in there. Maybe a way to help alleviate the lack of community people feel in more urban areas?
Does anyone see any use, anything appealing, about this idea?
The thing that has constantly annoyed me has been the fact that when the media covers Napster and the whole issue, they seem to always make sure to mention something along the lines of "Napster lets users trade copyrighted songs", "pirate music", or the like. The articles themselves are biased against it, and fail to mention one very important fact - Napster allows users to trade.mp3 music files, it's the users that decide whether to use it for commercial copyrighted music, or free.mp3s that have been released and are legal to trade as such.
I have yet to see one story even mention that it has that legimiate use, that there are files that it is not against the law to copy and distribute.
It would be like a story about VCR's and mentioning "VCR's, which allow people to copy movies instead of buying them..." and forgetting all the other uses they have.
See, the media doesn't have a liberal bias, they have a corporate bias... ---
I don't know if you're going to read this, but if you applied recently (in the last couple months or so), you might want to try logging in as an editor with the name/password you chose. Apparently there was a bug causing editor acceptance letters to not be sent, so people wouldn't know they were approved as editors. ---
I took a course in philosophy of science (Perhaps I didn't learn enough - you be the judge of that), where some of the arguments against the idea is that consciousness is the product of purely biological mechanisms where :
This discounts free will
Trivializes love
Doesn't leave room for the "soul"
Hmph. It's like arguing against the theory of relativity by saying "but that doesn't make sense to me", or arguing against evolution by saying "I don't want to think I'm related to monkeys". Those arguments are not really arguments, they're just effects of the theory that people don't like.
If you want to show that consciousness isn't purely the product of biological mechanisms, then find something more effective then "but I don't like what it implies".
I don't know your personal feelings of the worth of the arguments, as it wasn't clear from the posting, but I had to add my 2 cents.
In the meantime, I'll continue to believe in free will because it was predestined for me to do so.:) ---
But then we won't be human any more. We are defined by both our capabilities and our limitations, and any attempt at altering the mechanisms of our conscioussness is invarably going to alter the very nature of who we are and how we think.
So what if we do things to ourselves that make us cease to be human? That would only be a bad thing if "human" were the best we could be. I have this doubt that human beings are the optimum form of life, and if we are, then that's pretty sad.
And should people start making changes to themselves, it doesn't mean they'll be alone afterwards. If nothing else, you'll have groups making the same changes to contine to be together as that group, to make sure there isn't the problem of being alone.
Look, if any of you biological fundamentalists feel that changing to something other than what would be called "human" is negative, then you don't have to do it, should the opportunity ever arise. If you think that it's the equivalent of "sailing off the edge of the world", then don't get in the boat. Just don't prevent anyone else from exploring what may be out there. ---
That's understandable. I have signed up thrice in three different categories to be an editor. I have not ever heard back from them. That means that either their registration/application process is so difficult or counter-intuitive that I cannot figure it out, or that they just don't give a shit if they get another editor or not. Either way, I'm not surprised that they don't have as many editors as they would like or need.
Thanks for the comment, I'm bringing it to the attention of those people responsible for accepting new editors. It took me two applications to be accepted, and the first one seemed to have found it's way to/dev/null like yours did. If you do decide to apply again (once you're accepted, it's not nearly as bad as the initial application), just remember to apply to smaller categories with few subcategories (especially ones without any editor currently), and fill in the URL fields of the application.
I do agree that what they did to you is a horrible way to get people to edit and even use the directory...:) ---
I must say, it's sad to see Yahoo at the top of the list, and the Open Directory Project not even on there, especially since it's now bigger than Yahoo, and growing faster. (Though, as always, it's in need of editors.)
It is an interesting list to look over, some of the ones on there are very suprising. ---
Slashdot Mirror
Prove that it's the government's concern for my rights that makes them take 30% of my paycheck (I'm still in school).
They take that money out of your paycheck to pay for the military to prevent someone else invading and taking away your rights. They do it to pay for police that prevent other citizens from taking away your rights. They do it to pay for education for everyone, because a more educated populace is more likely to understand and respect these rights. They use it to fund a system that supports people who need a safety net so they can still eat and get medicial care and have shelter, and if you ever need it, they're supporting your rights to them.
Look, nobody agrees with every place tax money goes, but if you think the only way to benefit from the money is to have it personally, then you don't understand how things work.
---
People who don't vote are dumbasses, and deserve every single tax increase, restrictive law, and dumbass porkbarrel budgets that get passed. People who don't vote have no legitimate right to bitch and moan about the government. When a person does not vote, they choose to have no voice when they do not vote, and so I don't wanna hear any bitching from those that don't vote.
I woudn't put it so bluntly, but yes. It's been said that in a democracy (or whatever facimilie we currently have), "people get the government they deserve". If they don't care about who gets elected, whoever gets elected won't care about them. If you don't want to fight for your individual rights, the government won't fight for them either.
When you think of it, the people who get elected are reasonable versions of who's voting. There's a large amount of conservative Christian polticians, because there's a large amount of conservative Christians voting for them. Politicians don't care about half the population because half the population doesn't care about them.
A well-educated, interested, active public is probably currently the enemy of people in office, because they'd know enough to vote them out.
---
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the implementation of democracy in our country. So much so that I feel that participation in it is consenting to the process, and I do not wish to consent or approve to the US system of governance.
So please explain how your lack of participation does anything to change that system?
I think a vote for someone who wants to change the system is a clearer message of unhappiness with it than not voting. It's surely not easy, but there still is a way to use the system to change itself, should enough people desire to do so.
---
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
Wrong, Mr. Katz. Not voting is nothing more than a big "I don't care." The only message it sends is that you approve of ANY candidate, and that you approve of them all equally. Why? Because ANY OTHER VIEW can be expressed by voting. If you prefer one of them, you vote for them. If you don't like any, you write-in another name, or just don't select any of them - because going to the polls and not picking one still counts as voting.
Not voting only means that you don't want to put any input into the process.
If you plan on not voting to "protest" the system, then you're going about it all wrong. You're not protesting anything. Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out. Sitting at home on voting day will accomplish nothing but to perpetuate the system. Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!
---
I think they're in trouble anyways. I tried lowering the temp, but it still went up. I think they've got something wrong, and since only one click per IP per day is allowed, it's not like you can then adjust for it.
It's no wonder they're dying, because they're asking people to turn it down, which causes it to keep going up...
---
Politicians trying to get the vote of the moral majority. Conservative parents want their children protected from the "evils" of the internet, no matter what the cost. People tend to forget that children are not the only ones using the internet at libraries. What about college students? What happens when someone without access to the internet in their home needs to do research on breast cancer? the Holocaust? religious cults?
Politicians have to cater to those people that vote. And since the "moral majority" and the like always turn out in huge numbers to vote, they're important. The less the people that disagree with them vote, the more important they become.
If young people voted in higher numbers than old conservative types, young people would be more likely to be catered to.
---
if Nader weren't running, I wouldn't be voting at all, simply because I wouldn't want any of the candidates to be president.
Well, there are plenty of ways to indicate that. Not voting sends no message whatsoever, so nobody can possibly realize this is how you feel. If you don't like ANY, write in someone, or just not vote for anyone. But staying home only indicates that the result is unimportant to you, that it's acceptable no matter who wins. And that is obviously not what you want.
---
If you don't vote, you're statistically voting for the default result.
Exactly. Not voting is giving your approval to ALL of the candidates - after all, if you had an opinion, you'd go make it known, right?
You DON'T have to vote for either of the two big parties. Heck, you don't have to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot. Or even go in to vote and just not select anyone.
If everyone who was going to not vote went in and voted for nobody, that would be a huge percentage, and would definately be noticed. If, when they counted up results, 25% of the people voted for essentially "none of the above", don't you think that would send a message? That all those people found nobody worth voting for?
---
The thought of another democrat being elected and tearing down the rights of the people while building up an even larger, overpowering federal government scares me even more.
Democrats tearing down the rights of the people? You seem to be unaware that the republicans have long been doing a full frontal assault on the first amendment. Just about any law that attempts to circumvent or cancel one of the first amendment freedoms has been sponsored by a republican.
---
Well put. If things were FAIR, then those people should be paying 90% of the taxes.
But of course, money = power, so the people with more money have the power to reduce their taxes by "donating" to (ie buying) politicans who, in return for further promises of money, reduce taxes on those people.
Did you know, that in the last 10 years, the small percentage of people with a lot of money had their average income go up 89%? In comparison, the bottom group had theirs go up 1.3%.
---
Umm, yeah. Playing Quake and Diablo and being surprised at the demographic playing with you... if realization hasn't hit you over the head after you've written it and read it here, reread. Repeat until results occur.
(laugh) I know, I know... but you'd be suprised how many girls actually are playing Diablo II. I did overstate it a little bit in the first message, though I think it is just because those annoying kids make the most noise. I regularly find myself partying up with other girls - and not because I go looking for them, but because they're the ones that are actually enjoyable to ally with. They work together, share items, are generous, and the like.
Other than maybe one or two people, every person I've played with for any length of time has been a girl. And like I said, not because I choose it that way because of gender, but because of how they play.
---
If the median age is really now 28, and there are more female players, why is it that just about anything I play on the internet (Quake, Diablo) is full of 12 year olds picking the female characters, naming them stupid things like "BigBoobs" or "SexFreak" and calling each other "fag"? And of course, when finding out I'm a girl, pestering me with "what do you look like?" and stuff.
Oh well, at least it gives me more incentive to take the railgun and castrate them with a slug...
---
The only remotely likely items on the list are nuclear war, pandemic, and asteroid impact - though global warming is an up-and-comer.
Oh really? You have the information on what causes those immense gamma-ray bursts, the likelihood of a superflare, and know that the vacuum isn't going to collapse? Wow, I wish you'd share with us, there's probably some serious scientific knowledge trapped in your head that nobody else knows.
Oh.... you just DECIDED those events are unlikely, and decided to act as if your assumption was the truth. The fact is, things like those currently fall into the area of "unknown probability". Sure, maybe they seem less likely because they haven't occured around here before, but how do we know that's not like someone rolling a die 10 times and getting a six each time, and thus concluding that any other number is unlikely? We could be lucky that things occured as they did, and a return to the more likely event is around the corner.
There's no use in worrying about them, as we can't affect them, but that's not reason to assume they're not going to happen. Wait a second, there's something on the news about an unusual flare on the sun...
---
I've wondered if it would be a good idea to add a law so that any representative/senator who proposes a bill that gets passed, an is later found to be unconstitutional, gets a "strike" against them. Then, after enough "strikes", that person is kicked out of the office, and further banned from politics.
Maybe then some of them would think the constitution isn't just something to try and get around in whatever way they can.
Of course, it would probably just result in them repealing the Bill of Rights. (After all, there's not a chance it would get passed today.) Freedom is a great buzzword, but too much of a pain to actually ENFORCE, it seems.
---
I loaded in Quake and played for the first time in years yesterday. When I went to bed that night, I couldn't get any images to sit still in my head - they were all "jumping" like you when running around in Quake and moving around like crazy. This was before I even fell asleep. I had to keep opening my eyes to get things to settle down.
My dreams were just as bad. Made for a crappy night of sleep.
---
Actually, they didn't even do it right. It should have been.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
(You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day.)
It goes back to the wonderful days of USENET, when there wasn't such thing as this newfangled web. We used gopher, and we liked it. And we read usenet with rn or trn, and we didn't have to deal with aol.com, and if we made our sigs more than 4 lines, we would see it being made fun of in alt.fan.warlord.
Then the floodgates opened... and today we get to read about pouring hot grits down a petrified Natalie Portman's shorts and get links to goatse.cx. (you know, if evolution is real, why are people seeming to become less and less intelligent?)
---
I just can't see these degrees getting much respect until such time as there's actually something to teach to the students.
Actually, there is a lot to teach with regards to Nanotech. Sure, not actual means of creating and manipulating atmos/molecules to create objects, but there's a lot more than that. There are a few potential roads to nanotechnology, and all of them require a lot of effort and specialization. Wouldn't it make more sense for someone to get a degree in Nanotech while learning about protein folding, quantum mechanics, and the like, so to increase the chance of being able to combine these methods, than to make someone take more time to get multiple degrees to learn the same stuff?
There's also all the theoretical parts, the ideas that can't be tested yet, but still provide interesting work. When they get to the point of creating molecular machines, wouldn't it be nice to have software ready to help design them, and parts, and even entire machines, ready to start working on?
There is not, by any means, a shortage of things to study and research in such a degree program. The only shortage is of actual molecular nanotechnology itself, and this degree program will likely aim at getting to that point, at least at first.
---
Does that mean we all better go order large amounts of pillows from the internet? After all, if they can protect someone far out in Australia, then surely we can stop a giant flaming space station. :)
What... you mean that commercial WASN'T real? Darn, and I thought they wouldn't do that to us. Next you'll tell me that smoking and drinking really won't make me really cool and highly attractive...
---
I've wondered if there would be any use and/or acceptance of a web site designed to connect the "virtual" communities people have based on interest to the real ones the live in. A place where you register with your location, then can join topic or interest based groups, and you'll be directed toward people that are geographically close to you.
As nice as people are to talk to online, sometimes you want people to go to a movie with, to dinner with, invite over, or the like, and no matter how much to talk to someone from across the country online, they just can't fit in there. Maybe a way to help alleviate the lack of community people feel in more urban areas?
Does anyone see any use, anything appealing, about this idea?
---
The thing that has constantly annoyed me has been the fact that when the media covers Napster and the whole issue, they seem to always make sure to mention something along the lines of "Napster lets users trade copyrighted songs", "pirate music", or the like. The articles themselves are biased against it, and fail to mention one very important fact - Napster allows users to trade .mp3 music files, it's the users that decide whether to use it for commercial copyrighted music, or free .mp3s that have been released and are legal to trade as such.
I have yet to see one story even mention that it has that legimiate use, that there are files that it is not against the law to copy and distribute.
It would be like a story about VCR's and mentioning "VCR's, which allow people to copy movies instead of buying them..." and forgetting all the other uses they have.
See, the media doesn't have a liberal bias, they have a corporate bias...
---
I don't know if you're going to read this, but if you applied recently (in the last couple months or so), you might want to try logging in as an editor with the name/password you chose. Apparently there was a bug causing editor acceptance letters to not be sent, so people wouldn't know they were approved as editors.
---
I took a course in philosophy of science (Perhaps I didn't learn enough - you be the judge of that), where some of the arguments against the idea is that consciousness is the product of purely biological mechanisms where :
:)
This discounts free will
Trivializes love
Doesn't leave room for the "soul"
Hmph. It's like arguing against the theory of relativity by saying "but that doesn't make sense to me", or arguing against evolution by saying "I don't want to think I'm related to monkeys". Those arguments are not really arguments, they're just effects of the theory that people don't like.
If you want to show that consciousness isn't purely the product of biological mechanisms, then find something more effective then "but I don't like what it implies".
I don't know your personal feelings of the worth of the arguments, as it wasn't clear from the posting, but I had to add my 2 cents.
In the meantime, I'll continue to believe in free will because it was predestined for me to do so.
---
But then we won't be human any more. We are defined by both our capabilities and our limitations, and any attempt at altering the mechanisms of our conscioussness is invarably going to alter the very nature of who we are and how we think.
So what if we do things to ourselves that make us cease to be human? That would only be a bad thing if "human" were the best we could be. I have this doubt that human beings are the optimum form of life, and if we are, then that's pretty sad.
And should people start making changes to themselves, it doesn't mean they'll be alone afterwards. If nothing else, you'll have groups making the same changes to contine to be together as that group, to make sure there isn't the problem of being alone.
Look, if any of you biological fundamentalists feel that changing to something other than what would be called "human" is negative, then you don't have to do it, should the opportunity ever arise. If you think that it's the equivalent of "sailing off the edge of the world", then don't get in the boat. Just don't prevent anyone else from exploring what may be out there.
---
That's understandable. I have signed up thrice in three different categories to be an editor. I have not ever heard back from them. That means that either their registration/application process is so difficult or counter-intuitive that I cannot figure it out, or that they just don't give a shit if they get another editor or not. Either way, I'm not surprised that they don't have as many editors as they would like or need.
/dev/null like yours did. If you do decide to apply again (once you're accepted, it's not nearly as bad as the initial application), just remember to apply to smaller categories with few subcategories (especially ones without any editor currently), and fill in the URL fields of the application.
:)
Thanks for the comment, I'm bringing it to the attention of those people responsible for accepting new editors. It took me two applications to be accepted, and the first one seemed to have found it's way to
I do agree that what they did to you is a horrible way to get people to edit and even use the directory...
---
I must say, it's sad to see Yahoo at the top of the list, and the Open Directory Project not even on there, especially since it's now bigger than Yahoo, and growing faster. (Though, as always, it's in need of editors.)
It is an interesting list to look over, some of the ones on there are very suprising.
---