That's a bad analogy. Coca-cola without carmelized sugar wouldn't be anything like the current product. The OP's argument is that a PS3 would be just as useful without an overpriced, pie-in-the-sky optical drive, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
If you want a more accurate analogy, imagine that there's a far less expensive (but comparable in taste and nutritional value) alternative to sugar out there, but that Coke owns the rights to sugar, and that they intend to make a fortune selling sugary products at a very high premium.
The real reason that Blu-ray is being pushed on consumers is that Sony is attempting, yet again, to get their proprietary storage format a foothold in the market. Consumers don't want Blu-ray (it's expensive as all hell), manufacturers don't want Blu-ray (production yields are very low), and content producers don't seem to want it, either. HD-DVD is far more widely supported, nearly as good, and doesn't use expensive, untested technology. Plus, it's already available. But Sony doesn't see royalties every time an HD-DVD disc is sold.
So yeah, you're basically being forced to pay a few hundred bucks extra for a component that doesn't really have any immediate benefit for you. You're paying Sony to saturate the market with a product no one really needs.
It's way, way more than that. The hardware for the Blu-Ray drive is estimated to cost Sony somewhere between $200 and $300 per unit, due in large part to meager production yields. This isn't any blue laser we're talking about; it has to be manufactured to meet very specific standards.
I'm usually pretty lenient with this kind of thing, but Browzar set off my bullshit detector, too. It's certainly not newsworthy, and at best, the story was free advertising for a product that, in the end, is pretty damn trivial.
There was a similar story a few years ago about some kid who added a few very basic enhancements to an instance of IE for a science fair project and got all kinds of mainstream news coverage. It's like, wow, you figured out how to embed ActiveX controls. Grats d00d.
I understand how laypeople might buy some of this crap, but come on. I thought/.ers were better informed than that.
Of course, the segment pieces are designed to take people's words out of context and make them look stupid - I am prety sure that Stewart himself has said he can't believe people still take interviews with them.
Almost every live guest on the show is selling something. It's amazing what kind of abuse people will take to sell a few more books.
The difference is that science is self-monitoring and constantly changing. Given the right equipment, you could duplicate the results of any sound scientific study on your own. Even after ideas become "proven," they are still repeatedly tested and reviewed. It's a long process, and it's even likely that a few of the details currently thought to be scientific fact are wrong (look at the evolution of our model of the atom, for instance, or the increasingly blurry boundary between quantum and classical physics), but the fact is that the scientific model of the universe is very accurate, and the proof is all around us. Additionally, if ideas in science are found to be false, they're discarded. Most religions forbid followers to even question their beliefs, let alone amend them.
I'd also posit that fabricated data is caused by bad scientists, not science itself. When the proper steps are taken, the outcome is very, very rarely incorrect.
There is no proof of the existence of ESP or any other psychic or supernatural phenomenon. James Randi has had a standing offer for decades now of $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate any kind of paranormal or extrasensory power. No one has, no one will, and anyone who claims to have these kinds of powers is either delusional or lying to you, plain and simple.
I don't know what you've seen, but I think most of these "experiences" can be chalked up to the complicated and often counterintuitive workings of the brain. The human mind dislikes incomplete information and disorder, and it's very common for the brain to alter one's perception to make events fit more neatly into one's mental schema. Further, I think most people are romantics at heart, and would prefer to believe that things happen for a reason, or want things to happen in a somewhat poetic way.
Belief in science is belief in logic, and in what can be seen with one's own eyes. It may well require a small commitment for a person to say, "what I see in front of me is what's true," but it's nowhere near the blind leap required to take up a religious faith.
Many other countries have been targets of Islamic terrorism between 9/11 and today--Spain, the UK and India are the three that immediately spring to mind. I agree with you that these attacks aren't perpetrated because "the terrorists hate our freedom," but you're letting Islam off too easily.
For one thing, these people do "hate freedom." Look at the Afghanistan under Taliban control: the mullahs insisted on controlling every aspect of their citizens' lives, down to the grooming of their beards. Not that this level of fanaticism is unique to Islam--the Puritans come to mind--but the Puritans didn't have automatic weapons or rocket-propelled grenades, and their religion didn't explicitly instruct them to subjugate and forcibly convert (or kill) all non-Puritans. And if it's merely a socioeconomic issue, where are all of the [Christian | Jewish | Hindu | Buddhist | Scientologist] suicide bombers?
I have a liberal political background myself, and I found myself following the same line of reasoning as you, Noam Chomsky and other liberals following 9/11--the US exploits its power at the expense of the rest of the world (we do, although to be fair, that's no different than every other significant power in world history), and that's why bin Laden ordered those planes to fly into the World Trade Center. While I'm sure that was a contributing factor, the bottom line is that these people are just crazy. If it wasn't us, they'd be blowing up someone else.
It doesn't help that the Middle East is a barbaric, backward region rife with age-old tribal conflict. If it weren't for the huge amount of oil they're sitting on, the whole region would look a lot like Africa does: frequent civil wars, very little industrial development, extreme poverty. The whole region is basically The Beverly Hillbillies meets Mad Max. Lawlessness runs rampant, and the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia make anarchy look like utopia by comparison. I realise that it may be impolitic to say this, but the Middle East is a backwards, barbaric, bloodthirsty place. People of all ages (including minors) are executed for petty crimes. Women are treated like animals. And a vast majority of the population supports the actions of Islamic terrorists.
I'm not saying anything about individuals--I'm sure there are some kind, intelligent, progressive people living in the "cradle of civilization"--but Middle Eastern culture in general is like something out of the fourteenth century.
I realize that, like in all religions, most followers of Islam (at least in this part of the world) are peaceful people who don't want to hurt anyone. But aren't there better reasons for being nice to people and doing the right thing than fear of being punished by some imaginary being?
First up atheism takes as much faith as religion. So I applaude that you have a faith based system integrated into your life.
I just believe in the empirical. If God comes down from Heaven and starts talking to me tomorrow, I'll believe in God. I just like having proof of something before I let it shape my worldview. I'm silly like that.
so do saturated fats, should we hold McDonalds (religion) accountable for all the fat, unhealthy people (zealots) in the world? Or instead should we say that how people interact with McDonalds is the real problem? A burger a month... no problem... three a day every day... big problem. Like wise faith and religion implemented as caring and sharing, or implemented as a holy war against everyone.
The difference is that if you eat McDonald's every day, it will probably kill you, but it won't have any direct effect on me. However, if some nut with a suitcase bomb steps onto my subway train with a plan to get his 72 virgins, that is very much everyone else's problem. If you want something a little more close to home, look at the control that Christians are intent on exercising on other peoples' decisions about gay marriage, drugs and abortion. Or the insistence that everyone else's children be taught fairy tales in biology class. Or the fact that the Christian voting bloc was the swing vote that put that monkey idiot president of ours in power. If you're more "spiritual" than "religious," more power to ya. But I've found that the vast majority of religious people out there are little more than sheep.
the world is a brilliant magnificent place, screwed up by people, just like everything else.
I agree that the world is magnificent, and that people haven't been taking very good care of it. But that's neither here nor there. Painting things with such broad strokes (world good, man evil) doesn't seem very helpful to me.
"Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history" WTF? Mongols? Roman? Spanish? Cold war? Way go to with the generalisations.
Christianity was, in fact, a cause of serious turmoil in Rome. The Spanish are infamous for their particularly cruel brand of Catholicism, and there have been dozens of feuds in Western Europe caused by some petty disagreement between Christian sects. And the Cold War wasn't a war, but many viewed it as a conflict between God's America and the godless, cold communist state.
"A higher evolutionary state than theism" so its more evolved? More evolved would indicate some kind of advantage over lesser evolved entities, so why aren't the 'evolved' running and governing the world in a athiest way? Aparently you guys are 'the elite' yet your not at the top (most western politicals leaders are affiliated with some religion as are a large number of business people)... go figure?
Would you disagree with any of the following?
There is a strong correlation between countries becoming more secular or progressive, and the development of technology.
More secular states tend to be more prosperous and technologically advanced than theocracies.
Religion has traditionally been an impediment to the development of science.
I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about sociological trends.
" Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses" oh you mean like politics? So we should ditch that was well and all revert to anarchy? Because thats more eveolved right?
Huh? They're not at all alike. Politics is a necessary evil that comes with a government run by a hierarchy of people. But it's better than anarchy. There have been times throughout history when church and state were one, but law and order come from the "state" part, and secular governments function jus
Atheism is, in my opinion, a higher evolutionary state than theism. If you want to talk about progress, the secular, scientific worldview has brought us all kinds of advancements in virtually every aspect of life. Scientists, not priests, discovered electricity, developed antibiotics, found a way to travel to the moon; the list goes on and on. If you look back at human history, religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress. Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses. Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history, and there's been a clear trend over the past few centuries: The more secular a country is, the less likely it is to go to war.
It's popular among secularists these days to placate believers by saying that science and religion can coexist, but I don't believe that's true. The progressive believers, those who no longer believe in stoning disobedient children to death, for instance, are deliberately ignoring a portion of what they consider to be the word of God. The extremists, on the other hand, may find themselves at odds with the modern world, but they're the ones who are truly being faithful to their beliefs.
I'd also like to add that the human mind has the capability to convince itself of the veracity of some incredible horseshit--look at Scientology, for instance. Heaven's Gate? Jonestown? These people were all sure they were right about the nature of the universe, just as you appear to be. The only difference between your beliefs and theirs is that yours are more widespread.
Take a step back and look at the modern world objectively. Religion threatens us in a very serious way. Islamic terrorism is a threat now, but it's nothing compared to what it will be when nuclear weapons technology becomes more advanced and widespread. It doesn't help that the world's only remaining superpower is being run by what the Muslims (and some of us) see as a villain straight out of central casting.
Believing in God, in my opinion, is no different than believing in Santa Claus. It may be comforting, but no matter how much you want to believe it, a fat man in red is not going to make presents appear in front of the tree in your living room. The world would be so much better off if people would just see it for what it was.
It's not the language itself that makes the programming menial, but there seems to be a strong correlation between a project being boring and a project being written in Visual Basic. More complex, demanding, interesting tasks are generally done in other languages.
I neglected to mention in my previous post that I do have ADD, which probably matters. That being said, yeah, it's a lousy job. I'd consider the vast majority of jobs to be undesirable. But as a 22-year old college dropout, it's not like I have employers lining up outside my door with offers.:)
Occasionally, you can find projects (or ways of creating projects) that are somewhat exciting. For instance, I managed to convince my employers to let me spend a month writing a PDF parser and generator from scratch in VB6 a year or so ago. But the fact remains that most of the work needed to produce our products is just boring. It's the way of the world. If everyone could do the job they wanted, to quote Office Space, "then there wouldn't be any janitors, because no one wants to clean shit up for a living."
So yeah, my situation kind of sucks. But at the end of the day, breezing through a boring job on Adderall is better than miserably slogging through the same job, and they both beat the hell out of being broke.:)
Meth amphetimine is dangerous cheap and plentiful. Long term use includes symptoms very like schizophrenia. I can't imagine why it's so widely used.
Good point. Anyone whose curiosity has been piqued by this article should be sure to recognize the difference between amphetamines and methamphetamine. I take Adderall every day, and would never touch meth. To be clear:
Meth is very, very dangerous. It's devastatingly addictive and using it has serious consequences for your body, your mind and your legal status. Adderall and Ritalin probably aren't going to hurt you, but meth can very easily ruin your life.
That being said, I think you're underestimating the effects of Adderall. It doesn't make anyone smarter, but it might make you more motivated to do boring shit. That's better for my productivity than a few extra IQ points could ever be.
90% of current programmers probably do not use those drugs, since they're overkill for Visual Basic coding...
I wrote Visual Basic code for years, and I took Adderall twice a day. I (or rather my employment status) probably couldn't have survived without it.
There's a common misunderstanding about stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin. They don't make you smarter or faster. They make you able to focus, and they make typically miserable tasks interesting. (Wiring database fields to GUI forms all day is boring, soul-crushing work, but well-paying, challenging jobs don't grow on trees.) They make you feel productive while performing the most menial tasks.
The reason that students take Adderall to cram for exams isn't because it makes you smarter, but because it increases your attention span and allows you to focus on really dry subject matter, so you can study for longer. It also keeps you awake at times when even coffee could not--that, from what I've seen, is the only place where abuse of the drug occurs.
This is anecdotal, but I know a lot of people who took unprescribed Adderall in college. Most of them have never touched any other illicit drugs, but they find the substance useful, and it doesn't seem to cause any harm. I really don't see the rationale for making it illegal for adults without ADD.
And that is one of the main reasons that the United States has such problems with fundamentalist Christianity at the moment. You let people raise their kids however they want, and a large number of them will be raised to be crazy. Which I wouldn't have a problem with, but crazy people vote, and, well, look what happens.
And to take it a step further, what about the David Koresh types whose idea of raising children includes teenage sex with elders? Most (sane) people would say that clearly requires intervention, but what about parents hitting their kids with a belt? Spanking them? What about the mental torture involved in telling a child it will go to hell? Where do you draw the line between indulging peoples' superstitions and interceding on behalf of innocents?
Worse still, some ideas pose a danger to society. At the moment, it appears that the world may be hurtling toward a global holy war between Christianity and Islam, one that could conceivably kill every person on the planet. Is it worth allowing children to be indoctorinated to interpret the Bible literally, knowing that it likely increases the odds of that outcome?
It's become taboo to talk about things like this, and I think it's partially because it's very uncomfortable to do so. I don't like the idea of the government telling people what (or what not) to believe any more than you do. I don't want to believe that allowing people to believe the things they want is so dangerous. And I'm aware that it's just as likely that the views mandated by a government could just as easily be the wrong ones. But ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
I don't have any answers. This issue, like most issues that are often reduced to soundbites, is deceptively complex. Where would you draw the line?
If I thought protests did an ounce of good, I'd be out there every day. But it's not like the administration is unaware that we're pissed off, and it's not like protesters do anything to win support for your cause. (They probably hurt your chances among mainstream voters, if anything, and it's certainly not like they produce direct results.)
Sadly, part of living in a democracy is realizing that your voice is only one of millions, and that you alone can't do a whole lot to exact any real change. It's how the system is designed to work. I vote in every election and donate money when I can, and I talk to whoever will listen about my views. But nothing I do outside of that is really going to change anything. Until November, barring a violent overthrow of the government, no one who hasn't been elected can do a damn thing.
The electoral college just needs to go. It essentially means that the votes of the minority party in non-swing states don't matter at all, and it causes candidates to pander mainly to the interests of voters in swing states. It's just one more layer of obfuscation between the will of the people and the outcome of an election, and as far as I can see, it has no real benefit whatsoever.
I was talking about proportional representation in electing members of Congress. The way it stands now, each state is carved (essentially arbitrarily) into districts, and each district elects a single representative to the U.S. House. Of course, the district maps are controlled by the individual states, so whatever party controls a given state will attempt to ensure it has a majority in as many districts as possible. I'm still shocked that such brazen redistricting is considered acceptable, but it's extremely commonplace. (At the risk of sounding partisan, the Republicans have been far more guilty of this lately, but that's arguably because they're the ones in power.)
The downside to proportional representation is that you'd be voting for parties and not individual candidates, but it's not like that would make any kind of practical difference at all in today's government--anyone who votes for a person over a platform to serve in Congress is hopelessly naive.
I agree with you that the only way the system gets changed is if one side says, "yeah, we'll lose seats now, but it's better for the country in the long term." In other words, you might hear news of it on the radio as you're driving to the store to pick up your copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Given that the original discussion was about modern government, not people or ethnicities, and that neither of the governments in question were around prior to the late 18th century, I think it's entirely appropriate to focus on the last two hundred years. (I'd also argue that the past two hundred years are far, far more relevant than the rest of human history combined when discussing the present day.) Do you really want to argue about which culture throughout history has been more important? Surely you can appreciate that even conclusively determining where one culture begins and another ends would be impossible. Such a vague topic could never lead anywhere productive.
I'll interpret your attempt to shift the argument as a sign that you could not, in fact, come up with a satisfactory response to my question. Not surprising, but interesting. (Wow, that sounds pretty smug and self-superior, doesn't it?) No matter. Here's another one: If there had been no Western interaction (directly or indirectly) with China in, say, the past two hundred years, where do you think the country would be in terms of technological development?
I think I have a fairly objective view of the world. My country certainly isn't perfect. But arguing that the United States hasn't been highly influential throughout the course of its history is just factually wrong, by virtually any standard, and the fact that you don't like the country and seem to think all of its citizens are stupid does nothing to change that.
I agree with everything you listed in that last paragraph, and I know a lot of other Americans who do, too. Unfortunately, something like 40% of the country believes that Jesus is coming back in the next 50 years, and it's not easy explaining to that particular demographic how instant-runoff voting would allow for a more diverse spectrum of candidates. (Yeah, it's embarrassing, but it's still a minority of Americans.) It's impossible to win a national election without a portion of that vote, and placating those people is a full-time job. The gerrymandering has to stop, too. (I like the idea of having states appoint representatives proportionally by party.)
And it doesn't help that the minority party is hopelessly inept.
I think a country absolutely plays a role in cultivating the great minds of the ages, and deserves a share of the credit.
It's easy to forget that the free and open exchange of ideas is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of mankind. You don't see many modern luminaries coming from poor, third-world countries, and you certainly don't see many coming from extremist dictatorships like North Korea or the Khmer Rouge. I'm certainly not suggesting that the people in these countries are somehow inferior, but since they're not, doesn't it necessarily follow that there's something environmental about the discrepancy?
Name one major Chinese invention of the past 200 years that is currently in widespread use in the rest of the developed world.
"Centuries" might have been a minor stretch, but let me put it another way: the last time the U.S. wasn't at the forefront of scientific research and innovation, people drove around in horse-drawn buggies and used candles for light. I think it's safe to say that the United States has had a vast impact on the development of technology in general.
My assertaion was that a country where only white, male landowners can vote is not a "modern liberal democracy". Modern democracy has been a gradual process, I think NZ was the first country to achieve it.
Let's let this one slide. I think I'm right; you think you're right, and without a more restrictive definition of "modern liberal democracy," it's clearly a matter of perspective. We can find more important things to argue about.
Aceptable discourse? Whatever dude - the fact is you made presumptions about the OP that criticism of America==support of China. That is stupid.
No, I made a presumption that someone living in China who chose a Chinese pseudonym and domain name might, somehow, support China. I hope this gets through to you, because I'm not going to say it a fourth time.
(As an aside, is it just me, or is calling someone "dude" in an argument a pretty clear sign of rhetorical capitulation? Just an observation.)
The difference between you & me is that I do not defend my government when they're in the wrong. You are (with your "US, still more human rights then China" argument)
I've made it very clear that I don't support most of the actions taken by the current administration. However, I still feel that it's inappropriate (and rude) to hold all Americans responsible for this. Such accusations, directed at certain other ethnic groups, would be labelled racism or bigotry.
You're misinterpreting the point of my original argument. It's not "still more human rights than China," but rather "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." And at this point in our global development, we all pretty much live in the same house.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bad analogy. Coca-cola without carmelized sugar wouldn't be anything like the current product. The OP's argument is that a PS3 would be just as useful without an overpriced, pie-in-the-sky optical drive, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
If you want a more accurate analogy, imagine that there's a far less expensive (but comparable in taste and nutritional value) alternative to sugar out there, but that Coke owns the rights to sugar, and that they intend to make a fortune selling sugary products at a very high premium.
The real reason that Blu-ray is being pushed on consumers is that Sony is attempting, yet again, to get their proprietary storage format a foothold in the market. Consumers don't want Blu-ray (it's expensive as all hell), manufacturers don't want Blu-ray (production yields are very low), and content producers don't seem to want it, either. HD-DVD is far more widely supported, nearly as good, and doesn't use expensive, untested technology. Plus, it's already available. But Sony doesn't see royalties every time an HD-DVD disc is sold.
So yeah, you're basically being forced to pay a few hundred bucks extra for a component that doesn't really have any immediate benefit for you. You're paying Sony to saturate the market with a product no one really needs.
It's way, way more than that. The hardware for the Blu-Ray drive is estimated to cost Sony somewhere between $200 and $300 per unit, due in large part to meager production yields. This isn't any blue laser we're talking about; it has to be manufactured to meet very specific standards.
I don't know who it was who coined the term "waaambulance," but I was just thinking that I'd really like to put them in a real one.
Nothing personal. I just loathe that term.
Or if you or one of your friends is in the business of selling voting machines.
I don't see that happening all that soon. Sure, the US has its problems, but the best universities are still here.
And who the hell would want to live in China?
Wait a minute, isn't this the same country whose > 1 billion minds can't even design a low-grade CPU without stealing foreign IP? Riiiiight...
China may have the resources and manpower to make it look like the next superpower, but they seem intent on screwing it up at every opportunity.
I'm usually pretty lenient with this kind of thing, but Browzar set off my bullshit detector, too. It's certainly not newsworthy, and at best, the story was free advertising for a product that, in the end, is pretty damn trivial.
/.ers were better informed than that.
There was a similar story a few years ago about some kid who added a few very basic enhancements to an instance of IE for a science fair project and got all kinds of mainstream news coverage. It's like, wow, you figured out how to embed ActiveX controls. Grats d00d.
I understand how laypeople might buy some of this crap, but come on. I thought
Almost every live guest on the show is selling something. It's amazing what kind of abuse people will take to sell a few more books.
The difference is that science is self-monitoring and constantly changing. Given the right equipment, you could duplicate the results of any sound scientific study on your own. Even after ideas become "proven," they are still repeatedly tested and reviewed. It's a long process, and it's even likely that a few of the details currently thought to be scientific fact are wrong (look at the evolution of our model of the atom, for instance, or the increasingly blurry boundary between quantum and classical physics), but the fact is that the scientific model of the universe is very accurate, and the proof is all around us. Additionally, if ideas in science are found to be false, they're discarded. Most religions forbid followers to even question their beliefs, let alone amend them.
I'd also posit that fabricated data is caused by bad scientists, not science itself. When the proper steps are taken, the outcome is very, very rarely incorrect.
There is no proof of the existence of ESP or any other psychic or supernatural phenomenon. James Randi has had a standing offer for decades now of $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate any kind of paranormal or extrasensory power. No one has, no one will, and anyone who claims to have these kinds of powers is either delusional or lying to you, plain and simple.
I don't know what you've seen, but I think most of these "experiences" can be chalked up to the complicated and often counterintuitive workings of the brain. The human mind dislikes incomplete information and disorder, and it's very common for the brain to alter one's perception to make events fit more neatly into one's mental schema. Further, I think most people are romantics at heart, and would prefer to believe that things happen for a reason, or want things to happen in a somewhat poetic way.
Belief in science is belief in logic, and in what can be seen with one's own eyes. It may well require a small commitment for a person to say, "what I see in front of me is what's true," but it's nowhere near the blind leap required to take up a religious faith.
Many other countries have been targets of Islamic terrorism between 9/11 and today--Spain, the UK and India are the three that immediately spring to mind. I agree with you that these attacks aren't perpetrated because "the terrorists hate our freedom," but you're letting Islam off too easily.
For one thing, these people do "hate freedom." Look at the Afghanistan under Taliban control: the mullahs insisted on controlling every aspect of their citizens' lives, down to the grooming of their beards. Not that this level of fanaticism is unique to Islam--the Puritans come to mind--but the Puritans didn't have automatic weapons or rocket-propelled grenades, and their religion didn't explicitly instruct them to subjugate and forcibly convert (or kill) all non-Puritans. And if it's merely a socioeconomic issue, where are all of the [Christian | Jewish | Hindu | Buddhist | Scientologist] suicide bombers?
I have a liberal political background myself, and I found myself following the same line of reasoning as you, Noam Chomsky and other liberals following 9/11--the US exploits its power at the expense of the rest of the world (we do, although to be fair, that's no different than every other significant power in world history), and that's why bin Laden ordered those planes to fly into the World Trade Center. While I'm sure that was a contributing factor, the bottom line is that these people are just crazy. If it wasn't us, they'd be blowing up someone else.
It doesn't help that the Middle East is a barbaric, backward region rife with age-old tribal conflict. If it weren't for the huge amount of oil they're sitting on, the whole region would look a lot like Africa does: frequent civil wars, very little industrial development, extreme poverty. The whole region is basically The Beverly Hillbillies meets Mad Max. Lawlessness runs rampant, and the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia make anarchy look like utopia by comparison. I realise that it may be impolitic to say this, but the Middle East is a backwards, barbaric, bloodthirsty place. People of all ages (including minors) are executed for petty crimes. Women are treated like animals. And a vast majority of the population supports the actions of Islamic terrorists.
I'm not saying anything about individuals--I'm sure there are some kind, intelligent, progressive people living in the "cradle of civilization"--but Middle Eastern culture in general is like something out of the fourteenth century.
I realize that, like in all religions, most followers of Islam (at least in this part of the world) are peaceful people who don't want to hurt anyone. But aren't there better reasons for being nice to people and doing the right thing than fear of being punished by some imaginary being?
I just believe in the empirical. If God comes down from Heaven and starts talking to me tomorrow, I'll believe in God. I just like having proof of something before I let it shape my worldview. I'm silly like that.
The difference is that if you eat McDonald's every day, it will probably kill you, but it won't have any direct effect on me. However, if some nut with a suitcase bomb steps onto my subway train with a plan to get his 72 virgins, that is very much everyone else's problem. If you want something a little more close to home, look at the control that Christians are intent on exercising on other peoples' decisions about gay marriage, drugs and abortion. Or the insistence that everyone else's children be taught fairy tales in biology class. Or the fact that the Christian voting bloc was the swing vote that put that monkey idiot president of ours in power. If you're more "spiritual" than "religious," more power to ya. But I've found that the vast majority of religious people out there are little more than sheep.
I agree that the world is magnificent, and that people haven't been taking very good care of it. But that's neither here nor there. Painting things with such broad strokes (world good, man evil) doesn't seem very helpful to me.
Christianity was, in fact, a cause of serious turmoil in Rome. The Spanish are infamous for their particularly cruel brand of Catholicism, and there have been dozens of feuds in Western Europe caused by some petty disagreement between Christian sects. And the Cold War wasn't a war, but many viewed it as a conflict between God's America and the godless, cold communist state.
Would you disagree with any of the following?
I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about sociological trends.
Huh? They're not at all alike. Politics is a necessary evil that comes with a government run by a hierarchy of people. But it's better than anarchy. There have been times throughout history when church and state were one, but law and order come from the "state" part, and secular governments function jus
OK, I'll bite.
Atheism is, in my opinion, a higher evolutionary state than theism. If you want to talk about progress, the secular, scientific worldview has brought us all kinds of advancements in virtually every aspect of life. Scientists, not priests, discovered electricity, developed antibiotics, found a way to travel to the moon; the list goes on and on. If you look back at human history, religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress. Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses. Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history, and there's been a clear trend over the past few centuries: The more secular a country is, the less likely it is to go to war.
It's popular among secularists these days to placate believers by saying that science and religion can coexist, but I don't believe that's true. The progressive believers, those who no longer believe in stoning disobedient children to death, for instance, are deliberately ignoring a portion of what they consider to be the word of God. The extremists, on the other hand, may find themselves at odds with the modern world, but they're the ones who are truly being faithful to their beliefs.
I'd also like to add that the human mind has the capability to convince itself of the veracity of some incredible horseshit--look at Scientology, for instance. Heaven's Gate? Jonestown? These people were all sure they were right about the nature of the universe, just as you appear to be. The only difference between your beliefs and theirs is that yours are more widespread.
Take a step back and look at the modern world objectively. Religion threatens us in a very serious way. Islamic terrorism is a threat now, but it's nothing compared to what it will be when nuclear weapons technology becomes more advanced and widespread. It doesn't help that the world's only remaining superpower is being run by what the Muslims (and some of us) see as a villain straight out of central casting.
Believing in God, in my opinion, is no different than believing in Santa Claus. It may be comforting, but no matter how much you want to believe it, a fat man in red is not going to make presents appear in front of the tree in your living room. The world would be so much better off if people would just see it for what it was.
Somehow, I think Linus Torvalds knows that Windows NT drivers are not compatible with Linux.
If manipulating people through fear is an integral part of video games, then Jack Thompson is way ahead of the curve.
It's not the language itself that makes the programming menial, but there seems to be a strong correlation between a project being boring and a project being written in Visual Basic. More complex, demanding, interesting tasks are generally done in other languages.
I neglected to mention in my previous post that I do have ADD, which probably matters. That being said, yeah, it's a lousy job. I'd consider the vast majority of jobs to be undesirable. But as a 22-year old college dropout, it's not like I have employers lining up outside my door with offers. :)
Occasionally, you can find projects (or ways of creating projects) that are somewhat exciting. For instance, I managed to convince my employers to let me spend a month writing a PDF parser and generator from scratch in VB6 a year or so ago. But the fact remains that most of the work needed to produce our products is just boring. It's the way of the world. If everyone could do the job they wanted, to quote Office Space, "then there wouldn't be any janitors, because no one wants to clean shit up for a living."
So yeah, my situation kind of sucks. But at the end of the day, breezing through a boring job on Adderall is better than miserably slogging through the same job, and they both beat the hell out of being broke. :)
Meth amphetimine is dangerous cheap and plentiful. Long term use includes symptoms very like schizophrenia. I can't imagine why it's so widely used.
Good point. Anyone whose curiosity has been piqued by this article should be sure to recognize the difference between amphetamines and methamphetamine. I take Adderall every day, and would never touch meth. To be clear:
Meth is very, very dangerous. It's devastatingly addictive and using it has serious consequences for your body, your mind and your legal status. Adderall and Ritalin probably aren't going to hurt you, but meth can very easily ruin your life.
That being said, I think you're underestimating the effects of Adderall. It doesn't make anyone smarter, but it might make you more motivated to do boring shit. That's better for my productivity than a few extra IQ points could ever be.
90% of current programmers probably do not use those drugs, since they're overkill for Visual Basic coding...
I wrote Visual Basic code for years, and I took Adderall twice a day. I (or rather my employment status) probably couldn't have survived without it.
There's a common misunderstanding about stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin. They don't make you smarter or faster. They make you able to focus, and they make typically miserable tasks interesting. (Wiring database fields to GUI forms all day is boring, soul-crushing work, but well-paying, challenging jobs don't grow on trees.) They make you feel productive while performing the most menial tasks.
The reason that students take Adderall to cram for exams isn't because it makes you smarter, but because it increases your attention span and allows you to focus on really dry subject matter, so you can study for longer. It also keeps you awake at times when even coffee could not--that, from what I've seen, is the only place where abuse of the drug occurs.
This is anecdotal, but I know a lot of people who took unprescribed Adderall in college. Most of them have never touched any other illicit drugs, but they find the substance useful, and it doesn't seem to cause any harm. I really don't see the rationale for making it illegal for adults without ADD.
And that is one of the main reasons that the United States has such problems with fundamentalist Christianity at the moment. You let people raise their kids however they want, and a large number of them will be raised to be crazy. Which I wouldn't have a problem with, but crazy people vote, and, well, look what happens.
And to take it a step further, what about the David Koresh types whose idea of raising children includes teenage sex with elders? Most (sane) people would say that clearly requires intervention, but what about parents hitting their kids with a belt? Spanking them? What about the mental torture involved in telling a child it will go to hell? Where do you draw the line between indulging peoples' superstitions and interceding on behalf of innocents?
Worse still, some ideas pose a danger to society. At the moment, it appears that the world may be hurtling toward a global holy war between Christianity and Islam, one that could conceivably kill every person on the planet. Is it worth allowing children to be indoctorinated to interpret the Bible literally, knowing that it likely increases the odds of that outcome?
It's become taboo to talk about things like this, and I think it's partially because it's very uncomfortable to do so. I don't like the idea of the government telling people what (or what not) to believe any more than you do. I don't want to believe that allowing people to believe the things they want is so dangerous. And I'm aware that it's just as likely that the views mandated by a government could just as easily be the wrong ones. But ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
I don't have any answers. This issue, like most issues that are often reduced to soundbites, is deceptively complex. Where would you draw the line?
If I thought protests did an ounce of good, I'd be out there every day. But it's not like the administration is unaware that we're pissed off, and it's not like protesters do anything to win support for your cause. (They probably hurt your chances among mainstream voters, if anything, and it's certainly not like they produce direct results.)
Sadly, part of living in a democracy is realizing that your voice is only one of millions, and that you alone can't do a whole lot to exact any real change. It's how the system is designed to work. I vote in every election and donate money when I can, and I talk to whoever will listen about my views. But nothing I do outside of that is really going to change anything. Until November, barring a violent overthrow of the government, no one who hasn't been elected can do a damn thing.
The electoral college just needs to go. It essentially means that the votes of the minority party in non-swing states don't matter at all, and it causes candidates to pander mainly to the interests of voters in swing states. It's just one more layer of obfuscation between the will of the people and the outcome of an election, and as far as I can see, it has no real benefit whatsoever.
I was talking about proportional representation in electing members of Congress. The way it stands now, each state is carved (essentially arbitrarily) into districts, and each district elects a single representative to the U.S. House. Of course, the district maps are controlled by the individual states, so whatever party controls a given state will attempt to ensure it has a majority in as many districts as possible. I'm still shocked that such brazen redistricting is considered acceptable, but it's extremely commonplace. (At the risk of sounding partisan, the Republicans have been far more guilty of this lately, but that's arguably because they're the ones in power.)
The downside to proportional representation is that you'd be voting for parties and not individual candidates, but it's not like that would make any kind of practical difference at all in today's government--anyone who votes for a person over a platform to serve in Congress is hopelessly naive.
I agree with you that the only way the system gets changed is if one side says, "yeah, we'll lose seats now, but it's better for the country in the long term." In other words, you might hear news of it on the radio as you're driving to the store to pick up your copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Given that the original discussion was about modern government, not people or ethnicities, and that neither of the governments in question were around prior to the late 18th century, I think it's entirely appropriate to focus on the last two hundred years. (I'd also argue that the past two hundred years are far, far more relevant than the rest of human history combined when discussing the present day.) Do you really want to argue about which culture throughout history has been more important? Surely you can appreciate that even conclusively determining where one culture begins and another ends would be impossible. Such a vague topic could never lead anywhere productive.
I'll interpret your attempt to shift the argument as a sign that you could not, in fact, come up with a satisfactory response to my question. Not surprising, but interesting. (Wow, that sounds pretty smug and self-superior, doesn't it?) No matter. Here's another one: If there had been no Western interaction (directly or indirectly) with China in, say, the past two hundred years, where do you think the country would be in terms of technological development?
I think I have a fairly objective view of the world. My country certainly isn't perfect. But arguing that the United States hasn't been highly influential throughout the course of its history is just factually wrong, by virtually any standard, and the fact that you don't like the country and seem to think all of its citizens are stupid does nothing to change that.
I agree with everything you listed in that last paragraph, and I know a lot of other Americans who do, too. Unfortunately, something like 40% of the country believes that Jesus is coming back in the next 50 years, and it's not easy explaining to that particular demographic how instant-runoff voting would allow for a more diverse spectrum of candidates. (Yeah, it's embarrassing, but it's still a minority of Americans.) It's impossible to win a national election without a portion of that vote, and placating those people is a full-time job. The gerrymandering has to stop, too. (I like the idea of having states appoint representatives proportionally by party.)
And it doesn't help that the minority party is hopelessly inept.
I think a country absolutely plays a role in cultivating the great minds of the ages, and deserves a share of the credit.
It's easy to forget that the free and open exchange of ideas is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of mankind. You don't see many modern luminaries coming from poor, third-world countries, and you certainly don't see many coming from extremist dictatorships like North Korea or the Khmer Rouge. I'm certainly not suggesting that the people in these countries are somehow inferior, but since they're not, doesn't it necessarily follow that there's something environmental about the discrepancy?
Name one major Chinese invention of the past 200 years that is currently in widespread use in the rest of the developed world.
"Centuries" might have been a minor stretch, but let me put it another way: the last time the U.S. wasn't at the forefront of scientific research and innovation, people drove around in horse-drawn buggies and used candles for light. I think it's safe to say that the United States has had a vast impact on the development of technology in general.
My assertaion was that a country where only white, male landowners can vote is not a "modern liberal democracy". Modern democracy has been a gradual process, I think NZ was the first country to achieve it.
Let's let this one slide. I think I'm right; you think you're right, and without a more restrictive definition of "modern liberal democracy," it's clearly a matter of perspective. We can find more important things to argue about.
Aceptable discourse? Whatever dude - the fact is you made presumptions about the OP that criticism of America==support of China. That is stupid.
No, I made a presumption that someone living in China who chose a Chinese pseudonym and domain name might, somehow, support China. I hope this gets through to you, because I'm not going to say it a fourth time.
(As an aside, is it just me, or is calling someone "dude" in an argument a pretty clear sign of rhetorical capitulation? Just an observation.)
The difference between you & me is that I do not defend my government when they're in the wrong. You are (with your "US, still more human rights then China" argument)
I've made it very clear that I don't support most of the actions taken by the current administration. However, I still feel that it's inappropriate (and rude) to hold all Americans responsible for this. Such accusations, directed at certain other ethnic groups, would be labelled racism or bigotry.
You're misinterpreting the point of my original argument. It's not "still more human rights than China," but rather "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." And at this point in our global development, we all pretty much live in the same house.