Yep, 'tis true enough. FWIW I perceive far too many people making these decisions based on emotional or social needs rather than the "facts in evidence". That's where the delusion starts for many people, because then they want to pretend that wasn't what they did. They imagine they're rational and open-minded when they're exactly the opposite. Of course they're doing THAT for emotional reasons - preservation of ego - as well. And they slide further down the slope.
Political parties and their social influences and "platforms" actually harm rational debate rather than help it. People buy into party groupthink and become polarized and dogmatic. Forget having multiple parties and campaign finance reforms... if we really wanna fix what ails our political system, we'd abolish the "party system" and institute electoral lotteries to shut out the the Good Old Boys (and yes, that includes Obama).
I suspect what you meant to say is that your money is on self-delusional behaviors, such as religion, groupthink, dogmatism, fanaticism, etc. Cognitive dissonance is what then happens when reality comes knocking at the door of this fantasy world. Unfortunately, all too often the doorbell goes unanswered or ignored. That's pretty much to what these studies refer: people choosing to maintain a self-delusion rather than answer the door and be faced with uncertainties.
Europeans are also better represented as participants in the World Community Grid (computing) project, are more secular, less religious, and more we're-in-this-together socialistic, including better general health systems. I think Europeans might just be more highly evolved (socially) and less barbaric than Americans.
Could this article pander any more effectively to the aims and goals of the "personal" transportation industry, whether intentional or not? Couldn't the mobility afforded by an effective mass transit system be just as empowering? If the hand-eye coordination and mental exercise of driving is also a benefit, then it seems to me that "video" games and various forms of exercise and all sorts of other activities would be just as much or more productive in that regard.
(Note: I myself have never seen an effective mass transit system where I live in the United States, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible... far from it, if even half of the energy and manpower devoted to the auto industry was refocused.)
That's self-perceived rather than actual mental health reported by that poll, dude. Don't you think crazy people believe they're perfectly sane, reasonable, and healthy?
This distorted self-perception might have another name, one with a DSM tie-in: self-delusion. Maybe Republicans aren't mentally healthy at all, but rather better at chronic self-delusion? We already know the Evangelistas are right-wing Republicans....
It seems to me that both campaigns (McCain and Obama), judging from the daily barrage of FactCheck reports, are spending so much time slinging FUD at each other and the public that it's a miracle they have enough spare time to make any filing deadlines at all. THey should certainly be made to pay a price for their foolishly misplaced focus.
Perhaps we could just skip the election and lock them both in a cavern with a big warm geothermal mud pit?
What I'd like to see is an anti-trust suit against SoundExchange. We won't see one, of course, because it'd be political suicide to take on the RIAA when they own the political system.
Dennis Kucinich will do it, then. He's already committed political suicide in the last year, driving the sword in several times. He may not have much time left... better ask him quick.
Re:Has nothing to do with perceived laziness
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
Technocracy aside, they really do fear us more than hate us. We can DO stuff, and they can't.
Has nothing to do with perceived laziness
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 0
The reason business people hate technical people - engineers of all flavors - is because they are typically qualitative and their focus is on solving problems and making things work, NOT on advancing profit at the expense of everything else. In a sense, I think, engineers are far less greedy and much more egalitarian or socialistic than "business" types, who are inherently selfish. Engineers are focused on creation and maintenance and improvement.
I take that back: suits don't hate technical people, they're scared of them. Imagine what would happen to the world and the suits' place in it if we actually had our way and a Technocracy emerged?
Oh, really? With how many groups do you "identify", I wonder? I'll bet you're registered with a political party, aren't you? If so, you're a sucker for groupthink and the indoctrination that goes along with it. I detest such groups and want nothing to do with them. You have no idea how wasted that rebuttal was, though I can hardly "prove" it in this context. No one put this idea in my head, I've never even read anything supportive of it (at least until you linked to one), I simply reached the conclusion on my own, by analyzing the dynamic and consequences. The same independent reasoning led me to conclude that electoral lotteries are likely the only means to save our electoral process at this point, and I certainly didn't hear anyone promoting THAT idea, either.
We already know that you've been exposed to the contrary arguments, because they're pervasive. You don't get to claim much skepticism when you're mired in the status quo.
Lack of anonymity would certainly put an end to any concerns about paper trails and voter fraud, now wouldn't it? How much national time and energy has been wasted on THAT small matter? Your awful tales of woe could easily be handled within our existing legal system. Employers that unfairly discriminate are already considered outlaws.
Reciting the status quo is not a useful rebuttal. Just because something is or has been is not justification of its veracity.
Democracy does not require anonymity. You, however, have been indoctrinated to believe that it does by a nation full of paranoid selfish survivalist people who would rather treat each other as competition rather than cohorts. Bad people dearly want anonymity, too, and it protects them far better than the rest of us. They are the ones that maneuvered us into this misconception in the first place. Your complete lack of skepticism is evidence how well they succeeded.
They're well past the point of that decision, aren't they? They've approved applications for so many moronic patents at this point that no one can keep track, not even them. I say we send them our "advice" purely on the reasonable assumption that they still haven't learned how to do a competent job of it.
Yes, I actually do disagree with the Supreme Court, IF it now truly upholds a right to anonymity; the Supreme Court also happens to sometimes even disagree with itself and other courts, and its opinions on such matters have changed over the decades and are also influenced by popular culture, so what of it?
Second, you strike out on two of the three sources you try to cite as supporting evidence. The case you cite did not have the court affirming a right to anonymity at all; rather what the court decreed was that the anonymity of the author had no bearing on the value or relevance of the written materials. Further, the Yale Law Journal article you cite actually argues AGAINST any implied right of anonymity; didn't you even read the damned thing? The article also references the Supreme Court's apparent support of anonymity by saying, "The Supreme Court has developed this right as a derivative..., meaning that the Supreme Court has chosen to pretend that the Constitution actually declares such a right and that the Founders intended such. It's not actually in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Again, I disagree with the Court pretending such things.
Finally, Jefferson had no hand in writing any of what was published as the Federalist Papers, and Madison, Hamilton, and Jay are all dead, so I can't ask them why they didn't sign their names, and neither can you. You can't infer from their failure to take direct credit for the works that they in fact valued anonymity as a right.
You've said and quoted nothing that refutes what I said.
Your guarantee essentially means nothing, coming from an anonymous coward. That you would resort to ad hominem so readily doesn't say much for your ethics. I'll wager my ethics are far more robust than yours, and my penis is probably far longer and greater in girth, too.
I never said anything about that specific instance; if I had, I would have said much the same (agreed with you). That lack of anonymity must extend to all levels of the food chain.
It's been a longstanding chronic misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to conclude that anything in those documents attempts to define anonymity as a "right". No one has a right to be anonymous. You might get away with remaining somewhat anonymous in this or that context - say, the Internet - for a period of time, but it's not a right. "No man is an island"... ever heard that cliche? What it means is that what you do has an effect on others around you, unless you actually live alone on an island Crusoe-like. You don't, do you? As a consequence, those other people have a right to know who the hell you are and what the hell you're up to, because your actions might very well involve or affect them.
This is exactly why so many people hate(d) small towns: the small-town paradigm, where everybody knows everyone else and what they're up to, is exactly the sort of ethical underpinning that is required. Yank people out of those small towns and drop them into a big impersonal metropolis, where people can often get away with a considerable degree of anonymity, and they tend to behave in ways they wouldn't have dared in the small town.
We need the small-town paradigm and its absence of anonymity, if we hope to preserve any shred of our ethical heritage. Jefferson and the Founders never had this in mind. Britain is actually attempting to solve this problem, amidst all the whining about Big Brother. Personally I think they could easily deflect that criticism by making all the cameras available via feeds on the 'Net, so that any citizen can watch them and report on what they see... a sort of Neighborhood Watch, rather than Big Brother.
The pricing of text messaging from cellphones has always been disproportionate and egregious, right from the beginning. It got that way and stayed that way because too many ignorant and/or impatient consumers were foolish enough to conclude it was a fair price. It was never a fair price. The bandwidth consumed by even a full A2 page of text pales in comparison to that consumed by even just one minute of voice data stream. SOME PEOPLE have always known this, and/or been bothered enough enough by the greed of it to say no, but those people are apparently an extremely small minority.
Text messaging is to cellular providers what fries-and-a-coke are to fast food joints: pure profit. You can't change it or people's perception of that now, any more than you can educate people to conscientiously say no to those fries and coke. The concentrators of wealth won this battle "fair and square".
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto for me. There's a reason that I chose the pronouns that I did. ;-)
(Truly. My VMPC is underdeveloped, so I can't make those kinds of choices. I just don't feel the need.)
Yep, 'tis true enough. FWIW I perceive far too many people making these decisions based on emotional or social needs rather than the "facts in evidence". That's where the delusion starts for many people, because then they want to pretend that wasn't what they did. They imagine they're rational and open-minded when they're exactly the opposite. Of course they're doing THAT for emotional reasons - preservation of ego - as well. And they slide further down the slope.
Political parties and their social influences and "platforms" actually harm rational debate rather than help it. People buy into party groupthink and become polarized and dogmatic. Forget having multiple parties and campaign finance reforms... if we really wanna fix what ails our political system, we'd abolish the "party system" and institute electoral lotteries to shut out the the Good Old Boys (and yes, that includes Obama).
I suspect what you meant to say is that your money is on self-delusional behaviors, such as religion, groupthink, dogmatism, fanaticism, etc. Cognitive dissonance is what then happens when reality comes knocking at the door of this fantasy world. Unfortunately, all too often the doorbell goes unanswered or ignored. That's pretty much to what these studies refer: people choosing to maintain a self-delusion rather than answer the door and be faced with uncertainties.
Europeans are also better represented as participants in the World Community Grid (computing) project, are more secular, less religious, and more we're-in-this-together socialistic, including better general health systems. I think Europeans might just be more highly evolved (socially) and less barbaric than Americans.
Has McCain visited Uranus yet? If so, what did he find and did he enjoy the trip?
Could this article pander any more effectively to the aims and goals of the "personal" transportation industry, whether intentional or not? Couldn't the mobility afforded by an effective mass transit system be just as empowering? If the hand-eye coordination and mental exercise of driving is also a benefit, then it seems to me that "video" games and various forms of exercise and all sorts of other activities would be just as much or more productive in that regard.
(Note: I myself have never seen an effective mass transit system where I live in the United States, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible... far from it, if even half of the energy and manpower devoted to the auto industry was refocused.)
That's self-perceived rather than actual mental health reported by that poll, dude. Don't you think crazy people believe they're perfectly sane, reasonable, and healthy?
This distorted self-perception might have another name, one with a DSM tie-in: self-delusion. Maybe Republicans aren't mentally healthy at all, but rather better at chronic self-delusion? We already know the Evangelistas are right-wing Republicans....
It seems to me that both campaigns (McCain and Obama), judging from the daily barrage of FactCheck reports, are spending so much time slinging FUD at each other and the public that it's a miracle they have enough spare time to make any filing deadlines at all. THey should certainly be made to pay a price for their foolishly misplaced focus.
Perhaps we could just skip the election and lock them both in a cavern with a big warm geothermal mud pit?
What I'd like to see is an anti-trust suit against SoundExchange. We won't see one, of course, because it'd be political suicide to take on the RIAA when they own the political system.
Dennis Kucinich will do it, then. He's already committed political suicide in the last year, driving the sword in several times. He may not have much time left... better ask him quick.
Technocracy aside, they really do fear us more than hate us. We can DO stuff, and they can't.
No, *I* have the last word!
The reason business people hate technical people - engineers of all flavors - is because they are typically qualitative and their focus is on solving problems and making things work, NOT on advancing profit at the expense of everything else. In a sense, I think, engineers are far less greedy and much more egalitarian or socialistic than "business" types, who are inherently selfish. Engineers are focused on creation and maintenance and improvement.
I take that back: suits don't hate technical people, they're scared of them. Imagine what would happen to the world and the suits' place in it if we actually had our way and a Technocracy emerged?
Oh, really? With how many groups do you "identify", I wonder? I'll bet you're registered with a political party, aren't you? If so, you're a sucker for groupthink and the indoctrination that goes along with it. I detest such groups and want nothing to do with them. You have no idea how wasted that rebuttal was, though I can hardly "prove" it in this context. No one put this idea in my head, I've never even read anything supportive of it (at least until you linked to one), I simply reached the conclusion on my own, by analyzing the dynamic and consequences. The same independent reasoning led me to conclude that electoral lotteries are likely the only means to save our electoral process at this point, and I certainly didn't hear anyone promoting THAT idea, either.
We already know that you've been exposed to the contrary arguments, because they're pervasive. You don't get to claim much skepticism when you're mired in the status quo.
Lack of anonymity would certainly put an end to any concerns about paper trails and voter fraud, now wouldn't it? How much national time and energy has been wasted on THAT small matter? Your awful tales of woe could easily be handled within our existing legal system. Employers that unfairly discriminate are already considered outlaws.
Reciting the status quo is not a useful rebuttal. Just because something is or has been is not justification of its veracity.
Democracy does not require anonymity. You, however, have been indoctrinated to believe that it does by a nation full of paranoid selfish survivalist people who would rather treat each other as competition rather than cohorts. Bad people dearly want anonymity, too, and it protects them far better than the rest of us. They are the ones that maneuvered us into this misconception in the first place. Your complete lack of skepticism is evidence how well they succeeded.
They're well past the point of that decision, aren't they? They've approved applications for so many moronic patents at this point that no one can keep track, not even them. I say we send them our "advice" purely on the reasonable assumption that they still haven't learned how to do a competent job of it.
How about somebody give the dust time to settle on this thread and then send it to the USPTO for their enlightenment?
And wouldn't ya know Mr. Clarke isn't around to warn us! Is this Rama I, or did we miss the first one?
Yes, I actually do disagree with the Supreme Court, IF it now truly upholds a right to anonymity; the Supreme Court also happens to sometimes even disagree with itself and other courts, and its opinions on such matters have changed over the decades and are also influenced by popular culture, so what of it?
Second, you strike out on two of the three sources you try to cite as supporting evidence. The case you cite did not have the court affirming a right to anonymity at all; rather what the court decreed was that the anonymity of the author had no bearing on the value or relevance of the written materials. Further, the Yale Law Journal article you cite actually argues AGAINST any implied right of anonymity; didn't you even read the damned thing? The article also references the Supreme Court's apparent support of anonymity by saying, "The Supreme Court has developed this right as a derivative..., meaning that the Supreme Court has chosen to pretend that the Constitution actually declares such a right and that the Founders intended such. It's not actually in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Again, I disagree with the Court pretending such things.
Finally, Jefferson had no hand in writing any of what was published as the Federalist Papers, and Madison, Hamilton, and Jay are all dead, so I can't ask them why they didn't sign their names, and neither can you. You can't infer from their failure to take direct credit for the works that they in fact valued anonymity as a right.
You've said and quoted nothing that refutes what I said.
Your guarantee essentially means nothing, coming from an anonymous coward. That you would resort to ad hominem so readily doesn't say much for your ethics. I'll wager my ethics are far more robust than yours, and my penis is probably far longer and greater in girth, too.
Are we done now? Thanks much.
I never said anything about that specific instance; if I had, I would have said much the same (agreed with you). That lack of anonymity must extend to all levels of the food chain.
My view isn't strange; yours is perverted.
It's been a longstanding chronic misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to conclude that anything in those documents attempts to define anonymity as a "right". No one has a right to be anonymous. You might get away with remaining somewhat anonymous in this or that context - say, the Internet - for a period of time, but it's not a right. "No man is an island"... ever heard that cliche? What it means is that what you do has an effect on others around you, unless you actually live alone on an island Crusoe-like. You don't, do you? As a consequence, those other people have a right to know who the hell you are and what the hell you're up to, because your actions might very well involve or affect them.
This is exactly why so many people hate(d) small towns: the small-town paradigm, where everybody knows everyone else and what they're up to, is exactly the sort of ethical underpinning that is required. Yank people out of those small towns and drop them into a big impersonal metropolis, where people can often get away with a considerable degree of anonymity, and they tend to behave in ways they wouldn't have dared in the small town.
We need the small-town paradigm and its absence of anonymity, if we hope to preserve any shred of our ethical heritage. Jefferson and the Founders never had this in mind. Britain is actually attempting to solve this problem, amidst all the whining about Big Brother. Personally I think they could easily deflect that criticism by making all the cameras available via feeds on the 'Net, so that any citizen can watch them and report on what they see... a sort of Neighborhood Watch, rather than Big Brother.
The pricing of text messaging from cellphones has always been disproportionate and egregious, right from the beginning. It got that way and stayed that way because too many ignorant and/or impatient consumers were foolish enough to conclude it was a fair price. It was never a fair price. The bandwidth consumed by even a full A2 page of text pales in comparison to that consumed by even just one minute of voice data stream. SOME PEOPLE have always known this, and/or been bothered enough enough by the greed of it to say no, but those people are apparently an extremely small minority.
Text messaging is to cellular providers what fries-and-a-coke are to fast food joints: pure profit. You can't change it or people's perception of that now, any more than you can educate people to conscientiously say no to those fries and coke. The concentrators of wealth won this battle "fair and square".
How about outlawing speculation altogether? Then a news gaff like that wouldn't matter!
*ducks*
Ummm... and its "design and user interface" aren't part of its technology?