My point is that we should be aware of the social dynamic that is censorship. Societies change. Governance changes its shape all the time. If we restrict the meaning of "censorship" to some very specific case, then we will lose sight of the underlying dynamic of censorship.
Gulag is bad, but so is being homeless, etc. In Japan people resort to buying fake identities in order to get an appartment. Why? Because appartment complexes will only rent to you if you have a "reputable" job. Do you see where this is going? This is a problem that coming over in a big way to modern life.
I don't think that our contentment should be established merely upon avoiding Gulag. How would you like if the state argued like this, "hey, what's wrong with warrant-less imprisonment? At least we don't chop of your arms and legs and at least we don't put on a rack... you should be happy!" I wouldn't like it one bit. Screw that!
Censorship really should be redefined to be more broad in modern days. Corporations wield power similar to governments these days. Let's say you were censored by the government of California, but were free to publish in all other states? Would you be OK with that, since it's not the federal government that's censoring? Personally, I wouldn't be OK with that. What if 10 largest corps decide to come to an agreement on a policy of censorship? How about Fortune 100? Would you be OK with that? Being censored by Fortune 100 or Fortune 500 block may be far more effective than being censored by the government in real life. So when companies like Microsoft and Google are doing it, I think it is safe and absolutely correct to call it censorship.
Anything that governs life can be called government. As I see it, Corporations have the power to govern, and they do govern many aspects of our lives. In particular, for 40 hours a week they get to tell you what you will and will not do, more so than the state and federal governments. That's governing.
If you tell me "well you can just quit if you don't like it", I can tell you "well you can just move out of your country if you don't like it". Being able to quit doesn't lessen the fact they they do govern many aspects of our lives. What's worse, is that Corporate government is rarely, if ever, democratic, and is indeed more like a dictatorship.
Interesting experiment would be to measure radiation around the blackholes to see if it has any magnetic evidence. I guess that the core of the black hole (if it has one) is probably not iron or anything else naturally magnetic, plus the gravity is immense. So it should be "easy" to just gather the particles around the blackhole, that respond to magnetic fields, such as with an via radio telescope (I'm guessing a bit here).
I am not sure, but my guess is that electrons that pass through a magnetic field will reflect it somehow. I guess some of them will be trapped, but some should be just "bent" (same as photons), just like the known black hole "lens" effect, but for electrons.
Anyway, just musing. But I think astrophysicists could easily experimentally prove or disprove the magnetism-gravity connection.
Does the magnetic compass work on any planetary body, such as the moon? The reason I am asking is...does it work against gravity fields of bodies with a non-iron core?
This just means the level of ethics has to rise. It doesn't indicate that the funding should be cut back. Two wrongs don't make a right and all...
I can understand a cut back if an equivalent or demonstrably and provably (empirically) no-bs, no-nonsense better solution is put into place.
The total wealth and the mental prowess of our people is more than enough to vanquish poverty forever. That we don't do it is 99% a fault of our political system (and not, mind you, the fault of the disenfranchised voters, who hardly care anymore, as they see that their votes do NOT matter anymore).
Access to "State of the Union" address is more important that combatting poverty initiatives, such as food stamps, etc.? Are you insane?
A hungry down and out man doesn't give a rats ass about state of the union. Give him some financial aid, a permanent address, a shower, some clothes, some places to stay, and pound the hugely discriminating employers into sumbission to (forcefully, if need be) hire the person out. Call it "affirmative employment".
It is complete BS that access to our President's WAR MONGER MORON speach is more important than basic life saving needs of our citizens. The government needs to check out how people live in the middle USA, and what so say of homeless. We should absolutely care about our poor people at the government level, simply because individuals are too greedy (too aggressive and too competitive) at this time.
Loved your reply. Thanks. Generally I accept every single point you make, except your blurbs about crackpots, but more on that below.
My main concern is not how the "chosen" 10 scientists experience science, because, I am sure they're quite OK, just as you said, because they are disciplined and only ally themselves with the viewpoints when profitable, and are able to quickly divorse themselves from those same viewpoints when something better comes along. So, they have a firm yet tentative grasp on their understanding, and that (from my point of view) is not a bad place to be.
I really liked how Feynman talked about science. If you type "Feynman science quotes" into Google you'll get a sample, but I won't be surprised if you know even better quotes yourself.
That's all wonderful. If all the pour kids could get their own chemistry or radio electronic sets and be inspired to play and experiment with those, that's awesome. I had an radioelectronic set when I was growing up. In the "end" I didn't become a scientist and I realized that science doesn't interest me in the least. Why so? Because for me, understanding my own mind and my own experience has become the key point. And here by "understanding" I mean something bigger than just a set of conceptual explanations. But at the same time, I feel like I really do know what science is all about. I grew up reading science encyclopedias with pictures, reading about exploits of Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta, Marconi, etc. To me it sounded like those men were really at the edge of what was understood and known, they challenged the common view and produced experiments that no one has thought of before and I could feel all this excitement in my bones as if I was there in that time. Maybe there wasn't any excitement and I am just deluded, but I feel that there was.:)
So this is what I think is going away. Most experiments in physics these days require some absurdly expensive equipment and they cannot be verified except by another team of 100 in just one or two other spots around the globe. Some think this is great, but I think it sucks because it makes things elitist.
I see no danger of crackpots taking over any time soon. The only way that crackpots can take over, is if the real scientists hide themselves away in their ivory towers and stop talking to public in a way that is inspiring and humane. Do you know when crackpots win? It's not if you let them publish articles in some precious journal! No. Crackpots win when the 100 or so "good" scientists lock themselves away from the rest of the society and publish in an exclusive journal, separating themselves by a way of needless jargon and fancy words and a profound lack of documentation (just like in many software projects, both proprietary and open). What these scientists are in effect doing is, they are marginalising themselves. That's the price of elitism. It's like cutting off the branch you sit on -- not very wise.
Like you I also think science will go on, and so will spiritual endeavors. I do see what's happening in schools though (wife is a teacher) and it makes me sad. Who cares if some scientists know what science is about? It's not felt over here where I am. That's where I am coming from.
Hehe.. Never going to happen. We are "reincarnated" right now, and I don't see you sending emails to your former worlds. You really don't understand the Buddhist principle of rebirth. The you of today is the rebirth of the you of yesterday. This process doesn't stop at "death", but at the same time, you are not the same as when you were a tiny baby. In fact, in their lifetime, people can change so much that former friends cannot recognize them. Buddhist idea of rebirth is like that. It doesn't mean something permanent passing somewhere. It just means that all experience builds on previous experience and arises in relationship with it, and there is nothing to prove that this process ever stops (or starts, for that matter).
What you say about Jesus is just you holding onto an identity. You want to identify yourself with Jesus, because you're affraid to stand on your own two feet. Mind you, that's not wrong. It's natural. Trying to achieve strength is also a weakness. Being willingly weak is strength, but only when you realize you have willed it so. If you don't see it as your will, then it's neither strength nor weakness nor in between, because it may not be judged in terms that relate to will, and "strength" is precisely a term that relates to will and has no meaning otherwise.
What you discern in my posts is incorrect. While I do like many Buddhist teachings, I am not a Buddhist. While I do like some Hindu teachings, I am not a Hindu. I am just a person who knows something...feels something. I do not associate myself with any creeds or movements, but I do like to see what they have to say from time to time.
The whole meditation and aura thing is just a game of cat and mouse, but don't take my word for it. Observing the mind at work in "mundane" and "altered" states can serve as the basis of wisdom, but only if you pay attention in an undogmatic way. Otherwise all those experiences become the means to further entrench yourself in your own viewpoint -- far from a state of unhindered liberty, this is a prison for the mind.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it's exactly the opposite. Science deals with things that AREN'T understood. Scientists, by definition are people who aren't satisfied with the "explanations" (science is about understanding and predictability, not explanations) of the universe. Maybe you're thinking about religion?
Vast majority of science education, in fact, I'd say ALL, up to the highest undergraduate studies are all about uncritical reading of the "facts" discovered by current science. Most people never question anything they read, but rather, the graduate, get a job and maybe, if lucky, make use of 1% of what they've learned. Meanwhile, the other 99% remains within their mind as, more or less, an untouchable and unquestionable dogma.
You see, if you don't want to face the fact that scientists can be subtly and yet powerfully dogmatic, just as religious officers can be, then you won't get far in your understanding of what's going on within your own mind.
Now, supposedly, once you get to graduate, doctoral and post-doctoral studies, questioning attitude may (if lucky) resurface.
Here is what's been happening.
In the past, science was a wild thing that people did in their spare time as a true love of the mysteries in the universe. Doctor discovering electricity. Lawyer doing maths. Etc. Etc. It was fun and it was a genuine critical analysis of nature, because people truly were questing. But what's happening now is this. All that knowledge has been gathered up and codified and many topics are now considered "closed" and "uninteresting". There are no more medical doctors discovering electricity, because science is no longer wild. Science has been tamed. Science has been shaped into a perfect square and institutionalized. Now Universities are science mills in the same way that Monasteries can be considered "mystic mills" or "religious office mills". From a social point of view the same thing has happened in science as in spiritual life. The original, bold, daring, fearless explorative spirit of wild and unorthodox thinkers got codified, streamlined, shaped, molded, processed, reprocessed, and finally, institutionalized to the point where very little genuine science is going on AT A HEART LEVEL. Mostly science these days is a boring chore, a job, it's something you do 9 to 5. When you make some discovery, people now are so used to discoveries, everyone will go "blah.. nice, whatever". You'll get some article published. YAWN. It's not the same as it used to be, and that's too bad!
Science, just like spirituality, if it wants to flourish, it has to inhabit the hearts of common people. It must be unleashed from the labs. That also means scientists need to relinquish their stronghold on dogma. Here a step -- dismantle the whole "journal" institution. Make publishing cheap and accessable to all. De-elitise science. Make science about exploring the mysteries rather than digesting understanding. Instead of understanding, a proper mindset for science is of not-understanding. But mostly when a person picks up a book of physics, they don't think it might be 100% false. They think that it's correct. Highschool students are not taught to question the science books. Undergrads are not taught that either. And that's too bad.
The attitude is that questioning is something only an expert should engage in, turns a natural questive attitude into something inaccessably elite and remote. That's going to destroy science, mark my word. Science is already on its way to being corporatized and monetized. It's only a matter of time when sharing of information stops and greed takes over. Some would say it already happened. Science is no longer pure, but done for money. It's like creating Churches to gather money -- same corruption process is happening in religion too. Dogma, greed, money, closed-mindedness, elitism.
Instead of slamming religion you should look at it as your older brother and learn from its faults. But, nay, scientists are so arrogant, they don't want to learn anything from "non-scientific" fields.
LOL. It's impossible to test it. No experience can either confirm or deny it.
To make it simple, try to understand this -- you are just like me. Why should my omniscience override yours? You are just as empowered to keep that Ford Tempo from moving as I am in moving it.
And understand this too -- true action has no counter-force. When things move without overcoming anything, this state of effortless abiding is omnipotence. In fact, it is just this natural state you experience now.
But, you may ask, how can you make use of it? You can and you don't even need to learn how. What you need is fearlessness, but fearlessness will not come if you are not familiar with all consequences of identity (identity of anything, personal or that of things).
If you feel you have to give something up, it meens you feel you possess it. Rather than giving it up, the notion of possession as it relates to identity should be examined thoroughly. You may find that, LO, there has never been anything that possessed anything else, thus nothing to give up. In this way you may be free of worry.
And don't take it too seriously, because if you do, you will ruin its power.
The more hard to understand it is, the more people will come up with their own, wrong interpretations.
There is no such thing as "wrong interpretation".
If there was "wrong interpretation" then there would be "right interpretation" also.
But, the very meaning of the word "interpretation" is "not the original".
Because interpretation is not the original, it is always, always misleading (or, plainly put, false).
When we say that something is a mystery we mean we don't understand it. There is only one kind of person who constantly denigrates the mystical -- the one who tries to eliminate non-understanding and replace it with understanding at every opportunity. And what kind of person is that? Usually it's a very fearful person who tries to secure themselves based on understanding. But because there is never enough understanding, for there are always questions available to those willing to ask, there is never any security for such person. Thus they remain fearful and have to resort to denigration of mystics out of their own fear.
On the other hand, any fool who lost desire to ask questions can claim to have complete understanding. Ignorance is bliss.
The scientific community tends to fall into "I am quite satisfied with my understanding of the universe" crowd. Why do I say this? Because, except for the top few luminaries, most are lemmings who uncritically read the limited words of other scientists as unquestionable truth.
When Einstein first came out with his ideas, the scientific community said he was insane. But now look how embedded his name became within the community. Shame the fools don't learn their lesson.
I am omniscient, even as it is. You have a lot of truth in your post, but you are still not seeing it. Conceiving of yourself as "impartial" is indeed arrogance, but, my friend, conceiving of yourself as "ignorant" is arrogance as well, because therein you implicitely claim to understand what true knowledge is. Precisely not deliniating oneself in any way, not elevating, not lowering, and not asserting a "neutral" point in between some extremes of high and low, is the eye of omniscience.
God, if true, has no need to give himself a name, but a name doesn't hurt or disturb anything either. Call it "God" or call it "me", it's only different to the extent we believe it is different. Beyond appearances nothing can be either proved or disproved. In this context the word "belief" refers to more than just a gathering of conceptual explanations, but a certain behavioral modality. Awareness can never be limited by behaviors. You can call it the primordially untainted nature of God, or you can call it Buddhism, which doesn't believe in a central deity. It's only different in the mind of he/she who sees the difference. It's only the same in the mind of he/she who sees the sameness. It has no intrinsic quality of either sameness or difference.
Because I can understand all this without becoming limited by this very understanding, I am indeed omniscient.
No slam intended, but I disagree with you completely. I think RMS has a superb, clear-sighted grasp on the so-called 'real world'. His thinking is lucid. His language is plain and easy to follow even for a dog, never mind a human being. His actions are plain, straightforward and fearless. He has a decent sense of humor and makes jokes about himself from time to time. He really understands very thoroughly the subtle dynamics of human relationships. I would venture to say that he is one of the truly few people who actually understand themselves.
I'm sure he has some flaws, but from what I can see, he is either the most or one of the most intelligent, sincere and truly compassionate beings on this dusty planet.
It is very unfortunate that people uncritically acquiesce to the miseries so much so, that they use the state of misery as a validation of reality, such that if it's not miserable, it's a dream, but if it is miserable, it must be real. With this kind of mindset, a certain self-fulfilling prophecy comes to pass...
Truth is, all beings have immense power sealed within their hearts. This power surpasses the atomic bomb and even the Big Bang. We do not have to kowtow to anyone. Period. Stand tall and act from your highest right every single second -- to do anything less than this is death -- a life not worth living.
If I have to be designated "a criminal" for exercising basic software freedoms, then so be it. If my family should be killed for it, so be it. If I am killed or tortured for it -- so be it. Because life of bondage is no life at all -- it is death. And what's the point of having a family for a corpse? Family only means something to someone who is alive.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not perfect and I am not a zealot. I run Windows every day, both at home and at work. And I am wrong and RMS is right. That's all there is to it. I am wrong and he's right. You are not likely to find me attacking RMS just because I use Windows, because I can recognize my own wrongness, even if I have no strong desire to change it. I can praise someone who criticizes me, and this doesn't bind me in any way.
Since day one this engine has been giving results comparable to Google in quality. Google has more features, such as cache, but cache is a controversial feature. So maybe alltheweb is "gooder" (re: do no evil) for not including a cache feature.
As far as I know there are no graphics or other junk there. It's owned by Overture, which had some negative buzz about it in the past, if I remember correctly...but you never know -- times change. IBM was considered evil but now is considered good. Microsoft might yet end up being a good guy and Google might become very evil indeed.
Mind you, I find monickers such as "good" and "evil" to be of only very limited usefulness.
I must, to the best of my ability, conduct myself the way I think is right. In other words, if I don't like kickbacks, I should neither offer them nor accept them. If I don't like greed, I should be generous. If I don't like elitism, I should share everything I know (as long as people want to hear it, otherwise it would be an imposition instead of sharing). If I think temptations can corrupt people, then I need to be the first one to rise above it. If I don't like closed-mindedness then I should open my own mind first.
Can't say I am perfect. Far from it. But I have not exactly given up either. At this point in my life, while I may grumble here and there about people (bitch and moan, blah blah blah), I really don't care how they conduct themselves. I mostly care about how I conduct myself. Often I succumb to the temptation of finding faults in others, where I should seek them out in myself first. But generally, I really do try to live by the above. I might be a lamer and not that good at it. Maybe I am mostly a bullshitter. But I can say I at least attempt it.:) Oh, and before you ask me, no, I am not a Christian. I believe in spiritual development, but I am a very big skeptic when it comes to organized religion, etc.
So to answer your question, I feel that I am going to turn the world around by first turning myself around. I could be fooling myself, but it's at least fun for me to think so.
I'm of Russian descent (culturally), and I have to tell you, right on!:) Great comment there. When I was in the USSR (which no longer exists as such), there was no concept of a "nerd" at all. It was a wildly different thing for me to learn about "nerdiness" here in USA. In fact, I still don't associate mentally myself with nerds, although some people probably think I am (and I don't mind it either, although I don't encourage it). The whole "nerd" stereotype is really really lame, if you ask me, and it exists solely in USA, as far as I know. Where I came from often what would be called a "jock" and a "nerd" here would very OFTEN be the same person. It would be quite common that the person is doing very well athletically AND intellecitually, and there was no stigma against either. In other words, athletes were not automatically considered dumn and smart people were not automatically considered weak.
I myself got offered a recommendation for a job once for a 10k kickback (I didn't accept). That's at my, low, low level (compared the exec levels). That's just my own experience, but I also have friends, etc. I also have a dad who was in high management positions for many years (he didn't do these kinds of things, cause WOAAAA he has morals; there were also auditors all around, but that didn't stop the other guys). In other words, I know a thing or two about human nature and life, that allows me to say stuff like that with a straight face.
There is a lot of corruption, nepotism, group-level censorship, peer-pressure, arbitrary decision making and all kinds of other bullshit going on all over the place. What are you? 20-25? I hope so, cause you still have time to wake up from your utopian dream. Stop swallowing CNN propaganda about how capitalism results in the most efficient market. Human beings are quite easily tempted and those who resist temptation are legendary precisely because such behavior is not the norm. Like how many articles exist about Warren Buffet living in a 100k home and driving an old car? A ton and a half? Why? Because it's not normal. There was news coverage about an owner of a textile factory in the north-east USA who didn't sell out his employees and who treated them right. Then there was a fire and the factory burned to the ground. Every employee STAYED and helped rebuild the factory, because they loved their boss so much. Why was this in the news? Because it's NOT the norm! The norm was to outsource textile industry and here was a lone guy who not only refused to outsource, but treated his employees like gold, and it got in the news for that reason. Because the normal thing is to treat employees like crap. In fact, my dad had fanatically loyal employees just for that exact reason -- because he treated them like human beings and not as a resource for self-advancement.
Every dollar saved is some money passed on to the consumer.
You're wrong about that and you know it. Most saved dollars in fact do NOT pass onto the consumer! At best, they pass onto the shareholders or are reinvested into business, but more likely they are used for golden handshakes and exorbitant executive salaries and benefits (such as special loans, stocks and other such things).
"Yes men" are precisely the people who are bound by conditions -- they fear for their lives and those of their families, and that's exactly why they are "yes men". The man who can say NO when needed is precisely the kind of man who is not affraid to lose life and comfort. Because such man doesn't produce yes'es and no's out of fear, he is less likely to be biased and is more trustworthy, but at the same time, timid people are often affraid of such a man.
It is ironic, but it is people who love their families the most who end up hurting their families by creating a world where the power is so unevenly distributed. If people were less skittish, and yes, this means, not so worried about their families, then it would be difficult to bully people and boss them around, and there would be fewer scams and inequities, and the families would benefit. In the long run cowardice hurts us all.
I used to have RSI to the point where if I lifted my hands above my head, my smaller digits would instantly become numb. Right now it is mostly (99%) self-healed and gone. Read below for my solution.
RSI is caused by stress, lack of sleep, and poor diet (lack of sleep is itself also stress). If you try to type faster than is comfortable, and unconsciously pound on the keyboard, you will get it. You are even more likely to get it if you work in a very stressful environment. However, if you type without hurry and only apply enough effort to activate the key and no more, then you won't get it.
If you have RSI, stop typing faster than is comfortable. Don't reach for your ultimate typing speed. Stop pounding the keyboard -- apply only enough force to activate the key. Eat decent food and sleep 8 hours a day. It would also help to use a wrist exercise equipment, such as a physiotherapy ball/gel, or even some sports grip equipment (often a spring with two handles), to strenghten up your wrist by exercise, but do not overdo it. If you stretch your wrists -- do it gently and do not overstretch (this is important!). And watch your RSI go away.:)
An important point is not to reintroduce stress through stressful stretching and exercise. So when stretching, don't go crazy and don't push it hard -- go easy on your hands and relax.
You may slip back into the old pounding the keyboard spazmatically routine, so you have to be careful not to regress into a bad habit once you get rid of it.
I think there is some truth to what you say. However, I've also seen programs that worked perfectly (or, at least, without any known or visible flaws), and yet were a completely unmaintainable mess under the hood.
I think if the codebase is frozen long enough, then no matter how bad it is, a relatively careful person can iron out enough bugs to make it look polished.
Where you see a difference between a clean codebase and a messy one, is during some non-trivial expansion or extention that's done over a relatively short period of time. Clean codebase can withstand that type of change and absorb it nicely, and a messy codebase will crumble.
But if you manage the release cycle wisely and have decent programmers on the project (they don't have to be the best, just decent and honest), you can iron out even the most crumbly code with some patience. That's my opinion and experience.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that we should be aware of the social dynamic that is censorship. Societies change. Governance changes its shape all the time. If we restrict the meaning of "censorship" to some very specific case, then we will lose sight of the underlying dynamic of censorship.
Gulag is bad, but so is being homeless, etc. In Japan people resort to buying fake identities in order to get an appartment. Why? Because appartment complexes will only rent to you if you have a "reputable" job. Do you see where this is going? This is a problem that coming over in a big way to modern life.
I don't think that our contentment should be established merely upon avoiding Gulag. How would you like if the state argued like this, "hey, what's wrong with warrant-less imprisonment? At least we don't chop of your arms and legs and at least we don't put on a rack... you should be happy!" I wouldn't like it one bit. Screw that!
Censorship really should be redefined to be more broad in modern days. Corporations wield power similar to governments these days. Let's say you were censored by the government of California, but were free to publish in all other states? Would you be OK with that, since it's not the federal government that's censoring? Personally, I wouldn't be OK with that. What if 10 largest corps decide to come to an agreement on a policy of censorship? How about Fortune 100? Would you be OK with that? Being censored by Fortune 100 or Fortune 500 block may be far more effective than being censored by the government in real life. So when companies like Microsoft and Google are doing it, I think it is safe and absolutely correct to call it censorship.
Anything that governs life can be called government. As I see it, Corporations have the power to govern, and they do govern many aspects of our lives. In particular, for 40 hours a week they get to tell you what you will and will not do, more so than the state and federal governments. That's governing.
If you tell me "well you can just quit if you don't like it", I can tell you "well you can just move out of your country if you don't like it". Being able to quit doesn't lessen the fact they they do govern many aspects of our lives. What's worse, is that Corporate government is rarely, if ever, democratic, and is indeed more like a dictatorship.
Very nice. Where did you get this Rumi poem, if you don't mind me asking? I haven't seen this one before.
Interesting experiment would be to measure radiation around the blackholes to see if it has any magnetic evidence. I guess that the core of the black hole (if it has one) is probably not iron or anything else naturally magnetic, plus the gravity is immense. So it should be "easy" to just gather the particles around the blackhole, that respond to magnetic fields, such as with an via radio telescope (I'm guessing a bit here).
I am not sure, but my guess is that electrons that pass through a magnetic field will reflect it somehow. I guess some of them will be trapped, but some should be just "bent" (same as photons), just like the known black hole "lens" effect, but for electrons.
Anyway, just musing. But I think astrophysicists could easily experimentally prove or disprove the magnetism-gravity connection.
Does the magnetic compass work on any planetary body, such as the moon? The reason I am asking is...does it work against gravity fields of bodies with a non-iron core?
Surely you mean republicrat and democan?
This just means the level of ethics has to rise. It doesn't indicate that the funding should be cut back. Two wrongs don't make a right and all...
I can understand a cut back if an equivalent or demonstrably and provably (empirically) no-bs, no-nonsense better solution is put into place.
The total wealth and the mental prowess of our people is more than enough to vanquish poverty forever. That we don't do it is 99% a fault of our political system (and not, mind you, the fault of the disenfranchised voters, who hardly care anymore, as they see that their votes do NOT matter anymore).
Access to "State of the Union" address is more important that combatting poverty initiatives, such as food stamps, etc.? Are you insane?
A hungry down and out man doesn't give a rats ass about state of the union. Give him some financial aid, a permanent address, a shower, some clothes, some places to stay, and pound the hugely discriminating employers into sumbission to (forcefully, if need be) hire the person out. Call it "affirmative employment".
It is complete BS that access to our President's WAR MONGER MORON speach is more important than basic life saving needs of our citizens. The government needs to check out how people live in the middle USA, and what so say of homeless. We should absolutely care about our poor people at the government level, simply because individuals are too greedy (too aggressive and too competitive) at this time.
Loved your reply. Thanks. Generally I accept every single point you make, except your blurbs about crackpots, but more on that below.
:)
My main concern is not how the "chosen" 10 scientists experience science, because, I am sure they're quite OK, just as you said, because they are disciplined and only ally themselves with the viewpoints when profitable, and are able to quickly divorse themselves from those same viewpoints when something better comes along. So, they have a firm yet tentative grasp on their understanding, and that (from my point of view) is not a bad place to be.
I really liked how Feynman talked about science. If you type "Feynman science quotes" into Google you'll get a sample, but I won't be surprised if you know even better quotes yourself.
That's all wonderful. If all the pour kids could get their own chemistry or radio electronic sets and be inspired to play and experiment with those, that's awesome. I had an radioelectronic set when I was growing up. In the "end" I didn't become a scientist and I realized that science doesn't interest me in the least. Why so? Because for me, understanding my own mind and my own experience has become the key point. And here by "understanding" I mean something bigger than just a set of conceptual explanations. But at the same time, I feel like I really do know what science is all about. I grew up reading science encyclopedias with pictures, reading about exploits of Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta, Marconi, etc. To me it sounded like those men were really at the edge of what was understood and known, they challenged the common view and produced experiments that no one has thought of before and I could feel all this excitement in my bones as if I was there in that time. Maybe there wasn't any excitement and I am just deluded, but I feel that there was.
So this is what I think is going away. Most experiments in physics these days require some absurdly expensive equipment and they cannot be verified except by another team of 100 in just one or two other spots around the globe. Some think this is great, but I think it sucks because it makes things elitist.
I see no danger of crackpots taking over any time soon. The only way that crackpots can take over, is if the real scientists hide themselves away in their ivory towers and stop talking to public in a way that is inspiring and humane. Do you know when crackpots win? It's not if you let them publish articles in some precious journal! No. Crackpots win when the 100 or so "good" scientists lock themselves away from the rest of the society and publish in an exclusive journal, separating themselves by a way of needless jargon and fancy words and a profound lack of documentation (just like in many software projects, both proprietary and open). What these scientists are in effect doing is, they are marginalising themselves. That's the price of elitism. It's like cutting off the branch you sit on -- not very wise.
Like you I also think science will go on, and so will spiritual endeavors. I do see what's happening in schools though (wife is a teacher) and it makes me sad. Who cares if some scientists know what science is about? It's not felt over here where I am. That's where I am coming from.
Hehe.. Never going to happen. We are "reincarnated" right now, and I don't see you sending emails to your former worlds. You really don't understand the Buddhist principle of rebirth. The you of today is the rebirth of the you of yesterday. This process doesn't stop at "death", but at the same time, you are not the same as when you were a tiny baby. In fact, in their lifetime, people can change so much that former friends cannot recognize them. Buddhist idea of rebirth is like that. It doesn't mean something permanent passing somewhere. It just means that all experience builds on previous experience and arises in relationship with it, and there is nothing to prove that this process ever stops (or starts, for that matter).
What you say about Jesus is just you holding onto an identity. You want to identify yourself with Jesus, because you're affraid to stand on your own two feet. Mind you, that's not wrong. It's natural. Trying to achieve strength is also a weakness. Being willingly weak is strength, but only when you realize you have willed it so. If you don't see it as your will, then it's neither strength nor weakness nor in between, because it may not be judged in terms that relate to will, and "strength" is precisely a term that relates to will and has no meaning otherwise.
What you discern in my posts is incorrect. While I do like many Buddhist teachings, I am not a Buddhist. While I do like some Hindu teachings, I am not a Hindu. I am just a person who knows something...feels something. I do not associate myself with any creeds or movements, but I do like to see what they have to say from time to time.
The whole meditation and aura thing is just a game of cat and mouse, but don't take my word for it. Observing the mind at work in "mundane" and "altered" states can serve as the basis of wisdom, but only if you pay attention in an undogmatic way. Otherwise all those experiences become the means to further entrench yourself in your own viewpoint -- far from a state of unhindered liberty, this is a prison for the mind.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it's exactly the opposite. Science deals with things that AREN'T understood. Scientists, by definition are people who aren't satisfied with the "explanations" (science is about understanding and predictability, not explanations) of the universe. Maybe you're thinking about religion?
Vast majority of science education, in fact, I'd say ALL, up to the highest undergraduate studies are all about uncritical reading of the "facts" discovered by current science. Most people never question anything they read, but rather, the graduate, get a job and maybe, if lucky, make use of 1% of what they've learned. Meanwhile, the other 99% remains within their mind as, more or less, an untouchable and unquestionable dogma.
You see, if you don't want to face the fact that scientists can be subtly and yet powerfully dogmatic, just as religious officers can be, then you won't get far in your understanding of what's going on within your own mind.
Now, supposedly, once you get to graduate, doctoral and post-doctoral studies, questioning attitude may (if lucky) resurface.
Here is what's been happening.
In the past, science was a wild thing that people did in their spare time as a true love of the mysteries in the universe. Doctor discovering electricity. Lawyer doing maths. Etc. Etc. It was fun and it was a genuine critical analysis of nature, because people truly were questing. But what's happening now is this. All that knowledge has been gathered up and codified and many topics are now considered "closed" and "uninteresting". There are no more medical doctors discovering electricity, because science is no longer wild. Science has been tamed. Science has been shaped into a perfect square and institutionalized. Now Universities are science mills in the same way that Monasteries can be considered "mystic mills" or "religious office mills". From a social point of view the same thing has happened in science as in spiritual life. The original, bold, daring, fearless explorative spirit of wild and unorthodox thinkers got codified, streamlined, shaped, molded, processed, reprocessed, and finally, institutionalized to the point where very little genuine science is going on AT A HEART LEVEL. Mostly science these days is a boring chore, a job, it's something you do 9 to 5. When you make some discovery, people now are so used to discoveries, everyone will go "blah.. nice, whatever". You'll get some article published. YAWN. It's not the same as it used to be, and that's too bad!
Science, just like spirituality, if it wants to flourish, it has to inhabit the hearts of common people. It must be unleashed from the labs. That also means scientists need to relinquish their stronghold on dogma. Here a step -- dismantle the whole "journal" institution. Make publishing cheap and accessable to all. De-elitise science. Make science about exploring the mysteries rather than digesting understanding. Instead of understanding, a proper mindset for science is of not-understanding. But mostly when a person picks up a book of physics, they don't think it might be 100% false. They think that it's correct. Highschool students are not taught to question the science books. Undergrads are not taught that either. And that's too bad.
The attitude is that questioning is something only an expert should engage in, turns a natural questive attitude into something inaccessably elite and remote. That's going to destroy science, mark my word. Science is already on its way to being corporatized and monetized. It's only a matter of time when sharing of information stops and greed takes over. Some would say it already happened. Science is no longer pure, but done for money. It's like creating Churches to gather money -- same corruption process is happening in religion too. Dogma, greed, money, closed-mindedness, elitism.
Instead of slamming religion you should look at it as your older brother and learn from its faults. But, nay, scientists are so arrogant, they don't want to learn anything from "non-scientific" fields.
LOL. It's impossible to test it. No experience can either confirm or deny it.
To make it simple, try to understand this -- you are just like me. Why should my omniscience override yours? You are just as empowered to keep that Ford Tempo from moving as I am in moving it.
And understand this too -- true action has no counter-force. When things move without overcoming anything, this state of effortless abiding is omnipotence. In fact, it is just this natural state you experience now.
But, you may ask, how can you make use of it? You can and you don't even need to learn how. What you need is fearlessness, but fearlessness will not come if you are not familiar with all consequences of identity (identity of anything, personal or that of things).
If you feel you have to give something up, it meens you feel you possess it. Rather than giving it up, the notion of possession as it relates to identity should be examined thoroughly. You may find that, LO, there has never been anything that possessed anything else, thus nothing to give up. In this way you may be free of worry.
And don't take it too seriously, because if you do, you will ruin its power.
The more hard to understand it is, the more people will come up with their own, wrong interpretations.
There is no such thing as "wrong interpretation".
If there was "wrong interpretation" then there would be "right interpretation" also.
But, the very meaning of the word "interpretation" is "not the original".
Because interpretation is not the original, it is always, always misleading (or, plainly put, false).
When we say that something is a mystery we mean we don't understand it. There is only one kind of person who constantly denigrates the mystical -- the one who tries to eliminate non-understanding and replace it with understanding at every opportunity. And what kind of person is that? Usually it's a very fearful person who tries to secure themselves based on understanding. But because there is never enough understanding, for there are always questions available to those willing to ask, there is never any security for such person. Thus they remain fearful and have to resort to denigration of mystics out of their own fear.
On the other hand, any fool who lost desire to ask questions can claim to have complete understanding. Ignorance is bliss.
The scientific community tends to fall into "I am quite satisfied with my understanding of the universe" crowd. Why do I say this? Because, except for the top few luminaries, most are lemmings who uncritically read the limited words of other scientists as unquestionable truth.
When Einstein first came out with his ideas, the scientific community said he was insane. But now look how embedded his name became within the community. Shame the fools don't learn their lesson.
I am omniscient, even as it is. You have a lot of truth in your post, but you are still not seeing it. Conceiving of yourself as "impartial" is indeed arrogance, but, my friend, conceiving of yourself as "ignorant" is arrogance as well, because therein you implicitely claim to understand what true knowledge is. Precisely not deliniating oneself in any way, not elevating, not lowering, and not asserting a "neutral" point in between some extremes of high and low, is the eye of omniscience.
God, if true, has no need to give himself a name, but a name doesn't hurt or disturb anything either. Call it "God" or call it "me", it's only different to the extent we believe it is different. Beyond appearances nothing can be either proved or disproved. In this context the word "belief" refers to more than just a gathering of conceptual explanations, but a certain behavioral modality. Awareness can never be limited by behaviors. You can call it the primordially untainted nature of God, or you can call it Buddhism, which doesn't believe in a central deity. It's only different in the mind of he/she who sees the difference. It's only the same in the mind of he/she who sees the sameness. It has no intrinsic quality of either sameness or difference.
Because I can understand all this without becoming limited by this very understanding, I am indeed omniscient.
No slam intended, but I disagree with you completely. I think RMS has a superb, clear-sighted grasp on the so-called 'real world'. His thinking is lucid. His language is plain and easy to follow even for a dog, never mind a human being. His actions are plain, straightforward and fearless. He has a decent sense of humor and makes jokes about himself from time to time. He really understands very thoroughly the subtle dynamics of human relationships. I would venture to say that he is one of the truly few people who actually understand themselves.
I'm sure he has some flaws, but from what I can see, he is either the most or one of the most intelligent, sincere and truly compassionate beings on this dusty planet.
It is very unfortunate that people uncritically acquiesce to the miseries so much so, that they use the state of misery as a validation of reality, such that if it's not miserable, it's a dream, but if it is miserable, it must be real. With this kind of mindset, a certain self-fulfilling prophecy comes to pass...
Truth is, all beings have immense power sealed within their hearts. This power surpasses the atomic bomb and even the Big Bang. We do not have to kowtow to anyone. Period. Stand tall and act from your highest right every single second -- to do anything less than this is death -- a life not worth living.
If I have to be designated "a criminal" for exercising basic software freedoms, then so be it. If my family should be killed for it, so be it. If I am killed or tortured for it -- so be it. Because life of bondage is no life at all -- it is death. And what's the point of having a family for a corpse? Family only means something to someone who is alive.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not perfect and I am not a zealot. I run Windows every day, both at home and at work. And I am wrong and RMS is right. That's all there is to it. I am wrong and he's right. You are not likely to find me attacking RMS just because I use Windows, because I can recognize my own wrongness, even if I have no strong desire to change it. I can praise someone who criticizes me, and this doesn't bind me in any way.
http://www.alltheweb.com/
Since day one this engine has been giving results comparable to Google in quality. Google has more features, such as cache, but cache is a controversial feature. So maybe alltheweb is "gooder" (re: do no evil) for not including a cache feature.
As far as I know there are no graphics or other junk there. It's owned by Overture, which had some negative buzz about it in the past, if I remember correctly...but you never know -- times change. IBM was considered evil but now is considered good. Microsoft might yet end up being a good guy and Google might become very evil indeed.
Mind you, I find monickers such as "good" and "evil" to be of only very limited usefulness.
Sincere answer --
:) Oh, and before you ask me, no, I am not a Christian. I believe in spiritual development, but I am a very big skeptic when it comes to organized religion, etc.
I must, to the best of my ability, conduct myself the way I think is right. In other words, if I don't like kickbacks, I should neither offer them nor accept them. If I don't like greed, I should be generous. If I don't like elitism, I should share everything I know (as long as people want to hear it, otherwise it would be an imposition instead of sharing). If I think temptations can corrupt people, then I need to be the first one to rise above it. If I don't like closed-mindedness then I should open my own mind first.
Can't say I am perfect. Far from it. But I have not exactly given up either. At this point in my life, while I may grumble here and there about people (bitch and moan, blah blah blah), I really don't care how they conduct themselves. I mostly care about how I conduct myself. Often I succumb to the temptation of finding faults in others, where I should seek them out in myself first. But generally, I really do try to live by the above. I might be a lamer and not that good at it. Maybe I am mostly a bullshitter. But I can say I at least attempt it.
So to answer your question, I feel that I am going to turn the world around by first turning myself around. I could be fooling myself, but it's at least fun for me to think so.
I'm of Russian descent (culturally), and I have to tell you, right on! :) Great comment there. When I was in the USSR (which no longer exists as such), there was no concept of a "nerd" at all. It was a wildly different thing for me to learn about "nerdiness" here in USA. In fact, I still don't associate mentally myself with nerds, although some people probably think I am (and I don't mind it either, although I don't encourage it). The whole "nerd" stereotype is really really lame, if you ask me, and it exists solely in USA, as far as I know. Where I came from often what would be called a "jock" and a "nerd" here would very OFTEN be the same person. It would be quite common that the person is doing very well athletically AND intellecitually, and there was no stigma against either. In other words, athletes were not automatically considered dumn and smart people were not automatically considered weak.
I myself got offered a recommendation for a job once for a 10k kickback (I didn't accept). That's at my, low, low level (compared the exec levels). That's just my own experience, but I also have friends, etc. I also have a dad who was in high management positions for many years (he didn't do these kinds of things, cause WOAAAA he has morals; there were also auditors all around, but that didn't stop the other guys). In other words, I know a thing or two about human nature and life, that allows me to say stuff like that with a straight face.
There is a lot of corruption, nepotism, group-level censorship, peer-pressure, arbitrary decision making and all kinds of other bullshit going on all over the place. What are you? 20-25? I hope so, cause you still have time to wake up from your utopian dream. Stop swallowing CNN propaganda about how capitalism results in the most efficient market. Human beings are quite easily tempted and those who resist temptation are legendary precisely because such behavior is not the norm. Like how many articles exist about Warren Buffet living in a 100k home and driving an old car? A ton and a half? Why? Because it's not normal. There was news coverage about an owner of a textile factory in the north-east USA who didn't sell out his employees and who treated them right. Then there was a fire and the factory burned to the ground. Every employee STAYED and helped rebuild the factory, because they loved their boss so much. Why was this in the news? Because it's NOT the norm! The norm was to outsource textile industry and here was a lone guy who not only refused to outsource, but treated his employees like gold, and it got in the news for that reason. Because the normal thing is to treat employees like crap. In fact, my dad had fanatically loyal employees just for that exact reason -- because he treated them like human beings and not as a resource for self-advancement.
Every dollar saved is some money passed on to the consumer.
You're wrong about that and you know it. Most saved dollars in fact do NOT pass onto the consumer! At best, they pass onto the shareholders or are reinvested into business, but more likely they are used for golden handshakes and exorbitant executive salaries and benefits (such as special loans, stocks and other such things).
Very nice story. Thanks for sharing it.
please mod parent up
"Yes men" are precisely the people who are bound by conditions -- they fear for their lives and those of their families, and that's exactly why they are "yes men". The man who can say NO when needed is precisely the kind of man who is not affraid to lose life and comfort. Because such man doesn't produce yes'es and no's out of fear, he is less likely to be biased and is more trustworthy, but at the same time, timid people are often affraid of such a man.
It is ironic, but it is people who love their families the most who end up hurting their families by creating a world where the power is so unevenly distributed. If people were less skittish, and yes, this means, not so worried about their families, then it would be difficult to bully people and boss them around, and there would be fewer scams and inequities, and the families would benefit. In the long run cowardice hurts us all.
I used to have RSI to the point where if I lifted my hands above my head, my smaller digits would instantly become numb. Right now it is mostly (99%) self-healed and gone. Read below for my solution.
:)
RSI is caused by stress, lack of sleep, and poor diet (lack of sleep is itself also stress). If you try to type faster than is comfortable, and unconsciously pound on the keyboard, you will get it. You are even more likely to get it if you work in a very stressful environment. However, if you type without hurry and only apply enough effort to activate the key and no more, then you won't get it.
If you have RSI, stop typing faster than is comfortable. Don't reach for your ultimate typing speed. Stop pounding the keyboard -- apply only enough force to activate the key. Eat decent food and sleep 8 hours a day. It would also help to use a wrist exercise equipment, such as a physiotherapy ball/gel, or even some sports grip equipment (often a spring with two handles), to strenghten up your wrist by exercise, but do not overdo it. If you stretch your wrists -- do it gently and do not overstretch (this is important!). And watch your RSI go away.
An important point is not to reintroduce stress through stressful stretching and exercise. So when stretching, don't go crazy and don't push it hard -- go easy on your hands and relax.
You may slip back into the old pounding the keyboard spazmatically routine, so you have to be careful not to regress into a bad habit once you get rid of it.
I think there is some truth to what you say. However, I've also seen programs that worked perfectly (or, at least, without any known or visible flaws), and yet were a completely unmaintainable mess under the hood.
I think if the codebase is frozen long enough, then no matter how bad it is, a relatively careful person can iron out enough bugs to make it look polished.
Where you see a difference between a clean codebase and a messy one, is during some non-trivial expansion or extention that's done over a relatively short period of time. Clean codebase can withstand that type of change and absorb it nicely, and a messy codebase will crumble.
But if you manage the release cycle wisely and have decent programmers on the project (they don't have to be the best, just decent and honest), you can iron out even the most crumbly code with some patience. That's my opinion and experience.