the way to deal with this is to not place belief on a pedestal which is something that our culture teaches starting around age 5. The other is to get into the habit of questioning assumptions we make. the enoch-post is dead on. this needs to be taught in kindergarten through college.
The problem is that the long term outcomes can be wrong too, but the believer has an emotional reason for believing as he does and doesn't want to let go. it can also be that the believer sees the short term 'proof' while failing to see the long term fallacy. also, just because a belief proves true doesn't mean the reason for the occurrence is what the believer thinks it is. for example, a believer might pray to his god for rain, and it rains later in the day. this does not prove his belief that god exists or that praying brings rain. he just believes it does. since belief is worshiped in our culture, it makes a virtue out of refusing to rationalize conclusions. this id dangerous for any free society as it allows such minds to be manipulated by those in charge.
except when that dingly dangly does things, you the user don't realize, to the rest of the system, causing failure that is then blamed on IT, because corporate, being among the ignorant users, doesn't realize the cause-effect chain.
your post ignores the fact that competition, the desire to outdo those on a similar path, is a driving force behind 'alternatives.'
1. people need to quit buying junk and quality will go back up.
2. when playing a competitive game winning is supposed to matter. this neo-socialist everyone-should-be-friends-and-love-everyone-all-the-time routine stifles this basic human need to differentiate as individuals. for instance, some people are good at football, others are good at math, and some are somewhat good at both. occasionally you get someone who's a real overachiever. Yes, it is better that winners be held out for their outstanding performance. we can't survive as a society if losers are given the same rewards as winners just to shield their feelings, while winners who complain about that are given negative reenforcement, nanny style. feeling bad is ok! it's supposed to motivate you to do better! the parents of the losing kid should say "next time try harder kiddo, you know we'll support you". this is a fact of life that children are not being taught these days, and it shows in the culture now as histrionic disorder among young adults. they are incapable of dealing with situations where their feelings are not taken into account because of prevailing objective reality. A culture that denies reality and muffles its best and brightest so completely is doomed.
3. software patents are not competition. they're a propped up government monopoly. if the government wasn't involved here, it would be nearly impossible for any one entity to dominate eternally.
4. GPL does not prevent this.. look at sveasoft or dd-wrt. look at what redhat is doing now with its proprietary extensions.
5. ad hominem. sure war is competition, but so is a game of chess. your peace loving hippie mantra, while sounding nice initially, doesn't allow the society to be led forward by individuals with novel ideas. like everything else, competition serves a needed role. if anything we need to learn that holistically stamping out specific traits or behaviors does not create balance. it creates imbalance.
6. like competition, hostility is a component of existence for a reason. without it we'd still be single cell organisms, if that. crushing it completely under the guise of some badly thought out ideology of "if only everyone was $X" puts more stress on society, not less.
7. yes I agree. razor looks promising. competition is good.
sometimes working within the system doesn't work. the fact anonymous was spawned suggests we're heading to an era where it doesn't. they are a symptom. if you want the symptom to go away treat the cause.
You can board a train or bus without being searched, if YOU OWN the plane or bus in question. If someone else owns it, then you are going to follow their rules or be denied service, just like you as the owner of a vehicle can refuse to give anyone you want a ride for any reason. Nothing here has changed.
and i suppose that because someone's on/in/using my property I can rape them, rummage through their property, their person, and confiscate things I don't like? (or do like and want to steal from them). the problem of course is that it's not just privateers, but the government they fund, which can't be opted out of. as a result, these organizations can do just about whatever they want, twisting the law to justify their actions as they go. questioning these actions require exorbitant sums most cannot afford. You can preach black and white ideology all you want, but this is the pragmatic reality on the ground. It's what spawned Anonymous.
You can post a video on your own website that is critical of any company you want using whatever content you have legal right to publish. If it is youtubes website then you will follow youtubes rules or be denied service. If the criticism you post is baseless, you may be subject to lawsuits. Nothing here has changed.
yes and the law is just so black and white and fair all around right? it doesn't matter who has more money to throw at lawyers or bribe politicians. get your head out of your ass.
Have people who sought and gained and wielded power ever cared what the bum in the street thinks ? No. The bum in the street brings nothing to the table, and odds are high he speaks from a position of ignorance and irresponsibility, not from a position of success and responsibility, and this is why the street bums voice is ignored. He can't manage his own life, let alone national policies. Nothing here has changed.
ad hominem fallacy. the correctness of an idea is what's important, not who said it.
Politics and governance are dirty businesses, and society and the individual are at odds. It has always been this way. Scandals are swept under the rug if possible. If not possible, damage control plans are executed. FYI... watergate was exposed, and Nixon did resign from office. Nothing here has changed.
so punish the dirty individual when he crosses the line, but when it's a dirty business or government..?
In summary, none of the things you claim are different now, are any different than they always have been. You haven't lost anything that someone else wasn't gifting you in the first place. It was theirs to take away.
lots has changed over the last 80 years or so. Most recently, all sorts of shortcuts around the bill of rights now in place are what's being discussed here. It's bad enough that if the feds just ditched the constitution entirely, it would be a comparatively fresh breath of honesty on their part.
actually, sometimes the best way to support these people is to say 'no.' in other cases, saying 'yes' creates problems down the line that you are blamed for, and these people don't want to hear how their demands caused them.
a sad state of affairs indeed. most americans will knee jerk to the woman's defense, twisting wahtever laws are needed to justify their emotional justification.
are women truly as good at math as men are? does prototypical gender biology have an effect on mental biases and skills? Most likely, but I wouldn't trust any studies like this for the details. There's just too much political contamination in the cultural environment for anyone who honestly wants to know to truly come to an objective conclusion. it reads like yet another 'study' pushing the gynocentric-yet-equal culture we apparently 'have' to have when men are now doing poorer than women in almost every aspect of life. this damage starts with what the 1980s institutionalized gynocentrism in elementary school is doing to boys and continues through college (and, recently, even beyond). When stats like this are depicted, it's 70/30 men/women and the women are assumed to be victims, but when it's 30/70, suddenly it's a victory for women and the men are left holding the bag. who cares about them right? the analyses in this so-called study aren't even capable of showing areas where men do worse. I suspect the reason why would be quite telling and is the main reason I have a problem with it. Also, the heavy contamination I mentioned makes me wonder about the authors' objectivity and intentions as well.
the males the feminists whine about are the last of the old guard. what's replacing their dominance isn't 'equal' in the slightest, but that's to be expected when broad ideological DC-biases are institutionalized into culture under the guise of 'rebalancing'. there is never anything 'equal' or equitable with politics like this. several generations of men were brought up with this claptrap, and the ubiquitous presence they help maintain is as repressive to them as the old culture and stereotypes were to women. just read the posts here and you'll see plenty of guys falling over themselves trying to out-feminist each other. meanwhile, the same stats trumpeted by the media when they want to prop up womens' issues often imply that men are the ones falling behind now. the recent fact these sidenotes are stated openly, (minus the shock'n'horror show they put on for women of course) suggests just how bad it's gotten for men. these men should realize that if feminists were truly after social justice, they'd be institutionalizing the right and desire of men to be themselves into the culture just as much as they do for women. They're not. They're pushing for redefinitions of maledom while they demand that men not define what women should be. In many cases, they're actively pushing for men to become as womanly as possible. The ones that don't comply are stereotyped as animals. A nice false dilemma don't you think? Evidence for this can be found in the recent male interest in traditionally female fashion behavior and choices. (straight) men are going for manicures/pedicures now, and marketers are pitching traditionally female grooming products at them. The men depicted in catalogs and commercials are highly feminized. Men's fashion itself has become incredibly effeminate.
If you want more broad-spectrum evidence of the cultural bias, turn on the TV and watch a few commercials, sitcoms, or cop shows. When a scapegoat or character stereotype (especially a negative one) is needed, it's always male. When they have a woman in a bad light, there is almost always a man in the background supposedly pulling her strings while she flaps like a hapless puppet (I guess the ironic juxtapose with the 'hear me roar' mantra is lost on them). if the role is traditionally male, the directors go way out out of their way to 'prove' their feminism by always, always, always placing a woman in the role, often making her character out for 'retribution' against every male she interacts with. Even in situations where a man is in charge, he's gotta have a flock of females around him ridiculing at every turn. Meanwhile positive male roles are depicted as either soft and submissive to the women around them, like good lapdogs, or as captain-save-a-ho's. flip on the news and see what the differences in coverage are when men and women achieve/sacrifi
...and why are women suddenly doing better than men? shouldn't this be a concern as well? maybe it's the efforts building gynocentric culture in college that's causing the damage.
no.. refusing to accept ads filters out the people who want to make money vs the people who want to put something up because they want to and are willing to fund it. They pay for their bandwidth like I pay for mine. if you want to make money or not I don't care, but I'm not going to suffer though bs so you can get free internet.
unfortunately, this attitude of 'we must make it as simple as possible for new users' is quite prevalent today. this newage fisher price UI crap puts a cap on the user's potential with the machine by preventing the application from growing with his skill. While it might make things a tad easier initially, the user doesn't get a chance to learn more of the skills and processes needed to get more adept at getting what he wants. I think the society groupthink needs to relearn the old 'you get out of it what you put into it' adage...and we should accept that sometimes it's best to tell people to RTFM if they lack remedial skills. idiotproofing is a stupid race to the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
the way to deal with this is to not place belief on a pedestal which is something that our culture teaches starting around age 5. The other is to get into the habit of questioning assumptions we make. the enoch-post is dead on. this needs to be taught in kindergarten through college.
The problem is that the long term outcomes can be wrong too, but the believer has an emotional reason for believing as he does and doesn't want to let go. it can also be that the believer sees the short term 'proof' while failing to see the long term fallacy. also, just because a belief proves true doesn't mean the reason for the occurrence is what the believer thinks it is. for example, a believer might pray to his god for rain, and it rains later in the day. this does not prove his belief that god exists or that praying brings rain. he just believes it does. since belief is worshiped in our culture, it makes a virtue out of refusing to rationalize conclusions. this id dangerous for any free society as it allows such minds to be manipulated by those in charge.
except when that dingly dangly does things, you the user don't realize, to the rest of the system, causing failure that is then blamed on IT, because corporate, being among the ignorant users, doesn't realize the cause-effect chain.
your post ignores the fact that competition, the desire to outdo those on a similar path, is a driving force behind 'alternatives.'
1. people need to quit buying junk and quality will go back up.
2. when playing a competitive game winning is supposed to matter. this neo-socialist everyone-should-be-friends-and-love-everyone-all-the-time routine stifles this basic human need to differentiate as individuals. for instance, some people are good at football, others are good at math, and some are somewhat good at both. occasionally you get someone who's a real overachiever. Yes, it is better that winners be held out for their outstanding performance. we can't survive as a society if losers are given the same rewards as winners just to shield their feelings, while winners who complain about that are given negative reenforcement, nanny style. feeling bad is ok! it's supposed to motivate you to do better! the parents of the losing kid should say "next time try harder kiddo, you know we'll support you". this is a fact of life that children are not being taught these days, and it shows in the culture now as histrionic disorder among young adults. they are incapable of dealing with situations where their feelings are not taken into account because of prevailing objective reality. A culture that denies reality and muffles its best and brightest so completely is doomed.
3. software patents are not competition. they're a propped up government monopoly. if the government wasn't involved here, it would be nearly impossible for any one entity to dominate eternally.
4. GPL does not prevent this.. look at sveasoft or dd-wrt. look at what redhat is doing now with its proprietary extensions.
5. ad hominem. sure war is competition, but so is a game of chess. your peace loving hippie mantra, while sounding nice initially, doesn't allow the society to be led forward by individuals with novel ideas. like everything else, competition serves a needed role. if anything we need to learn that holistically stamping out specific traits or behaviors does not create balance. it creates imbalance.
6. like competition, hostility is a component of existence for a reason. without it we'd still be single cell organisms, if that. crushing it completely under the guise of some badly thought out ideology of "if only everyone was $X" puts more stress on society, not less.
7. yes I agree. razor looks promising. competition is good.
sometimes working within the system doesn't work. the fact anonymous was spawned suggests we're heading to an era where it doesn't. they are a symptom. if you want the symptom to go away treat the cause.
you forgot the opposing point: minorities who claim any questioning that suggests hypocrisy on their part is racism.
You can board a train or bus without being searched, if YOU OWN the plane or bus in question. If someone else owns it, then you are going to follow their rules or be denied service, just like you as the owner of a vehicle can refuse to give anyone you want a ride for any reason. Nothing here has changed.
and i suppose that because someone's on/in/using my property I can rape them, rummage through their property, their person, and confiscate things I don't like? (or do like and want to steal from them). the problem of course is that it's not just privateers, but the government they fund, which can't be opted out of. as a result, these organizations can do just about whatever they want, twisting the law to justify their actions as they go. questioning these actions require exorbitant sums most cannot afford. You can preach black and white ideology all you want, but this is the pragmatic reality on the ground. It's what spawned Anonymous.
You can post a video on your own website that is critical of any company you want using whatever content you have legal right to publish. If it is youtubes website then you will follow youtubes rules or be denied service. If the criticism you post is baseless, you may be subject to lawsuits. Nothing here has changed.
yes and the law is just so black and white and fair all around right? it doesn't matter who has more money to throw at lawyers or bribe politicians. get your head out of your ass.
Have people who sought and gained and wielded power ever cared what the bum in the street thinks ? No. The bum in the street brings nothing to the table, and odds are high he speaks from a position of ignorance and irresponsibility, not from a position of success and responsibility, and this is why the street bums voice is ignored. He can't manage his own life, let alone national policies. Nothing here has changed.
ad hominem fallacy. the correctness of an idea is what's important, not who said it.
Politics and governance are dirty businesses, and society and the individual are at odds. It has always been this way. Scandals are swept under the rug if possible. If not possible, damage control plans are executed. FYI ... watergate was exposed, and Nixon did resign from office. Nothing here has changed.
so punish the dirty individual when he crosses the line, but when it's a dirty business or government..?
In summary, none of the things you claim are different now, are any different than they always have been. You haven't lost anything that someone else wasn't gifting you in the first place. It was theirs to take away.
lots has changed over the last 80 years or so. Most recently, all sorts of shortcuts around the bill of rights now in place are what's being discussed here. It's bad enough that if the feds just ditched the constitution entirely, it would be a comparatively fresh breath of honesty on their part.
you can't blame the criminal for the deplorable actions of authority.
the price of the item is a tiny part of the total cost of ownership.
actually, sometimes the best way to support these people is to say 'no.' in other cases, saying 'yes' creates problems down the line that you are blamed for, and these people don't want to hear how their demands caused them.
nevermind that.. fps sucks on a controller period.
good. you can save up for your walker.
actually no. it's sony that is. they think they should be entitled to post sale usage patterns. this attitude creates pirates
tell that to gun owners who've had their firearm ownership rights neutered so that government officials have an advantage..
the left is just as guilty.. in fact it takes both sides being highly polarized to get us into the situation we're in now.
only if argumentum ad populum is applied by misandric cunts like yourself to the situation.
all 5 of them?
a sad state of affairs indeed. most americans will knee jerk to the woman's defense, twisting wahtever laws are needed to justify their emotional justification.
dont worry so much.. if a woman ever does this you can be sure her free speech will be protected. that's all that matters..
huh? well I agree the target of the restraining order will always be assumed to be the asshole by the public. doubly so if the target's a man.
yay for mob mentality eh? ever heard of due process? the bill of rights?
you're about 30 years out of date.. now it's not just black people anymore.
are women truly as good at math as men are? does prototypical gender biology have an effect on mental biases and skills? Most likely, but I wouldn't trust any studies like this for the details. There's just too much political contamination in the cultural environment for anyone who honestly wants to know to truly come to an objective conclusion. it reads like yet another 'study' pushing the gynocentric-yet-equal culture we apparently 'have' to have when men are now doing poorer than women in almost every aspect of life. this damage starts with what the 1980s institutionalized gynocentrism in elementary school is doing to boys and continues through college (and, recently, even beyond). When stats like this are depicted, it's 70/30 men/women and the women are assumed to be victims, but when it's 30/70, suddenly it's a victory for women and the men are left holding the bag. who cares about them right? the analyses in this so-called study aren't even capable of showing areas where men do worse. I suspect the reason why would be quite telling and is the main reason I have a problem with it. Also, the heavy contamination I mentioned makes me wonder about the authors' objectivity and intentions as well.
the males the feminists whine about are the last of the old guard. what's replacing their dominance isn't 'equal' in the slightest, but that's to be expected when broad ideological DC-biases are institutionalized into culture under the guise of 'rebalancing'. there is never anything 'equal' or equitable with politics like this. several generations of men were brought up with this claptrap, and the ubiquitous presence they help maintain is as repressive to them as the old culture and stereotypes were to women. just read the posts here and you'll see plenty of guys falling over themselves trying to out-feminist each other. meanwhile, the same stats trumpeted by the media when they want to prop up womens' issues often imply that men are the ones falling behind now. the recent fact these sidenotes are stated openly, (minus the shock'n'horror show they put on for women of course) suggests just how bad it's gotten for men. these men should realize that if feminists were truly after social justice, they'd be institutionalizing the right and desire of men to be themselves into the culture just as much as they do for women. They're not. They're pushing for redefinitions of maledom while they demand that men not define what women should be. In many cases, they're actively pushing for men to become as womanly as possible. The ones that don't comply are stereotyped as animals. A nice false dilemma don't you think? Evidence for this can be found in the recent male interest in traditionally female fashion behavior and choices. (straight) men are going for manicures/pedicures now, and marketers are pitching traditionally female grooming products at them. The men depicted in catalogs and commercials are highly feminized. Men's fashion itself has become incredibly effeminate.
If you want more broad-spectrum evidence of the cultural bias, turn on the TV and watch a few commercials, sitcoms, or cop shows. When a scapegoat or character stereotype (especially a negative one) is needed, it's always male. When they have a woman in a bad light, there is almost always a man in the background supposedly pulling her strings while she flaps like a hapless puppet (I guess the ironic juxtapose with the 'hear me roar' mantra is lost on them). if the role is traditionally male, the directors go way out out of their way to 'prove' their feminism by always, always, always placing a woman in the role, often making her character out for 'retribution' against every male she interacts with. Even in situations where a man is in charge, he's gotta have a flock of females around him ridiculing at every turn. Meanwhile positive male roles are depicted as either soft and submissive to the women around them, like good lapdogs, or as captain-save-a-ho's. flip on the news and see what the differences in coverage are when men and women achieve/sacrifi
this is blatant bullshit. nature is all about making the cut.. some do, and some don't.
...and why are women suddenly doing better than men? shouldn't this be a concern as well? maybe it's the efforts building gynocentric culture in college that's causing the damage.
no.. refusing to accept ads filters out the people who want to make money vs the people who want to put something up because they want to and are willing to fund it. They pay for their bandwidth like I pay for mine. if you want to make money or not I don't care, but I'm not going to suffer though bs so you can get free internet.
unfortunately, this attitude of 'we must make it as simple as possible for new users' is quite prevalent today. this newage fisher price UI crap puts a cap on the user's potential with the machine by preventing the application from growing with his skill. While it might make things a tad easier initially, the user doesn't get a chance to learn more of the skills and processes needed to get more adept at getting what he wants. I think the society groupthink needs to relearn the old 'you get out of it what you put into it' adage...and we should accept that sometimes it's best to tell people to RTFM if they lack remedial skills. idiotproofing is a stupid race to the bottom.