Sure, ignorance is bliss. But...what if you find that you have been publicly humiliated as a result of a flame? And that as a result, no-one will take what you say seriously? And the flame was incorrect? Or the worse alternatives that I posed...that someone takes the flames *too* seriously. I am not saying that the flames alone are harmful (though it's hardly an untenable argument...I should imagine that if your boss sent you messages everyday telling you you were a worthless bag of shit then pretty soon you'd have a cast-iron case of harassment against them); but that doesn't mean that the flames aren't critical path. Sorry, but on this one I tend to go with the Hofetz Haim, whose most famous book was called "Guard thy tongue!"
In order to publicly humiliate someone the flame would have to be well written and point out many incorrect facts or inconsistent opinions that demonstrated that the person was an idiot. And if you're an idiot shouldn't you know that? If they flame you with incorrect information then they can be refuted. Since when does anyone take anything on someones word around here? Your argument just doesn't seem credible. If someone starts stalking and harassing you after flaming then you have a legal case and can call the cops. But then things have gone beyond flaming and entered meatspace.
A lot of this small-minded crap came out of the hideous feminism of the late 80's an early 90's. The wide-scale creation of a victimized woman culture was the main project of most of the popular women writers of the time (Camile Paglia is a notable exception). Most of this intellectual garbage was eaten up by the political correctness police rampant in university faculties and student bodies in the U.S. in the 80's/90's. They shoved it down everyone's throat and helped create a world of victims who could be "assulted" by an e-mail message. What crap.
This is also the same victim culture that relies on 'The Government' to protect them from everything. They always want someone else to protect them and have decided that they somehow deserve to be insulated from all criticism and anything that might possibly offend them. People need to learn to STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES! If someone flames you ignore them or flame them back. It just amazes me how helpless some people act.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree here. Both religious and secular law agree quite clearly that people *can* be harmed by just words--and the concept is obvious, once you stop to think about it. The most important thing is to remember that, especially on the web, messages are often public. So even if *I* choose not to read someone's flame about me, other people might--and go on to despise/ridicule/fire/assault me as a result. The power of words to affect people's behaviour is clear: adverts are a testament, as is propaganda, as are treaties, as is libel. All of these recognise that the way people act can indeed be influenced by what they read (or hear or see). And if we are open to the idea that there damage could be more than just material--that people's feelings of self-worth, their psychological well-being, are important--then the case becomes yet stronger.
Read my response to the other AC who posted under my thread. And add this to it:
Ignorance is bliss.
This is one of the few cases where that saying holds true. If you don't know that someone thinks you're and idiot then you don't care. But people DO think you're an idiot. It's only when one of them lets you know that it becomes a problem. Do you think that 75% of the population of this planet CARES that I think they are idiots? Nope. So why should one more?
Words can not harm unless backed up by action. A Treaty is only so much parchment unless someone has a military to enforce it. I violate the GPL? What are you gonna do, BLEED ON ME? Any spoken or written agreement is totally worthless unless there is a physical means of enforcing it.
Unfortunately, that is a typical attitude. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".
That just isn't true. While most males (including myself) consider their own emotions, somehow "unreal" and may be ignored if necessary, the same is *not* true of the majority of women I know. I don't have to _agree_ with assigning any importance to what I consider legacy emotional responses caused by biochemical interactions, but to pleny of other people, such feelings are the cornerstone of their worldview. People, male and female, who attach significance to emotional response, can be, and have been driven to suicide by taunts.
To recognise an e-mail as a flame, means that the person is potentially hurt emotionally by the mere knowledge of the flame's existence, even if he never reads it.
Even if you or I are not hurt at all by e-mail flames, it is necessary to recognise that others, who are emotionally-driven (i.e. most women), can be hurt by them.
I find that statement just a tiny bit sexist, but I will address it. Typed text will not pull your emotions the same way verbal contact will. You just can NOT put a menacing or threatening tone into an e-mail. 'Emotionally Driven' is not a 'most women' thing, it's a weak minded thing. Most PEOPLE are emotionally driven, but they almost NEVER have to deal with someone calling them an idiot, even if they are one. Especially in this day of political correctness, no one is allowed to crticisize because it might hurt someone's feelings. People are growing up not knowing that they are clueless morons, and if you don't know you are a clueless moron how can you start to change that? I would rather be flamed and corrected than told that I held an 'alternate by equally viable' opinion. I'm not going to spare someone's emotions if they are wrong. I have neither the need nor the desire to pad my posts or e-mails so as not to bruise some pansies tender ego. If you are wrong, you are wrong. If I think you are wrong I can tell you that. No one can force you to listen. And if just the fact that someone somewhere might find out that someone you don't know and will never meet things you are an idiot bothers you, then you might want to kill yourself now because I'm sure SOMEONE SOMEWHERE thinks you're an idiot.
I'm sorry but as much as you may like to make it out that way Flaming someone is not 'Assault', it's comepletely non-harmful. There is no way you can hurt someone by writing them a nasty e-mail, or posting a nasty note about them to a message board. If I recieve an e-mail full of swearing and misspelled invectives I'm just going to delete it after the third or fourth word. I can easily ignore a post that I find offensive. There is NO WAY someone can force you to read a flame. In person someone can scream at you, make you listen to them by using physical force, but there is no way to do anything even REMOTELY like that on the 'net. It takes no 'courage' or 'strength' to stand up to flames, you just have to use one finger on the mouse to delete, skip, or otherwise ignore them. It's NOT HARD.
As for you getting more flames in the forum than in e-mail, how about asking all of your e-mail supporters to actually post to the threads? Maybe some of us would like to have meaningful discussions with them...
Or what about that one guy in the group who was so freaking lucky. I had a mage play who was more effective in combat just due to the fact that he rolled 3 twenties in a row, then rolled an 18 and called it bad luck. Worst part was we had the 20s give you extra attacks rule *fear mages who kill dragons with thrown daggers* -Elendale (or if you can only roll 1s...)
LOL! Believe it or not my MOM was the one who always had that happen. She would do the same thing when we played RISK, rolling all sixes all the time... Drove us INSANE.
I also used to believe that there was nothing wrong with living an electronic based life. And I guess there isn't.
But, you ARE missing out on another side to life. This is the side that involves going to parties, nightclubs, pubs, meeting strangers, going outdoors, camping, exercising your body as well as your mind. Don't dismiss this lifestyle as inferior, give it a decent go, you may be surprised.
I don't LIKE parties, or nightclubs, or pubs. I don't enjoy meeting strangers, they always ask me for money. I spend plenty of time camping and outdoors, I grew up on 15 acrs of forest. But I don't need to socialize with people to go camping. I also keep up with my martial arts training in the comfort of my own home. I'm in better shape than most people I know. I just maintain the choice of 'Do I want to put up with these idiots at this store in order to purchase this widget, or do I want to just order it?' I don't HAVE to come into contact with anyone I don't want to. And I LOVE IT! But I still go places that I want to go, like JohnCon, a convetion at John Hopkins University where I will be involved in kicking serious ass at Soul Caliber on a 24 foot screen, playing D&D, Magic, Chess, and any number of other things, and socializing with people who have similar interests. I'm not isolated, I'm just isolated from people I don't want to talk to.>:)
I'm trying to keep an open mind about your views but something inside me is just screaming that this is wrong. I understand how computers can become addictive (I left a party one time just so I wouldn't miss my clan game of TF Quake.), but to actively shun people in the "outside world" is so bad for your soul and your health. To not communicate with people just because they aren't in your m:tg group is blatently juding people. You assume that you won't like them just because they don't play m:tg. I don't care what anyone says, if you can't communicate face-to-face with someone, there's a problem. You say that you don't have to deal with "losers" anymore, yet you deal with stupid people and spammers on IRC, email, etc. You haven't gotten rid of contact with them, they've just taken on new form. Can you honestly tell me that everyone you contact on IRC (or however you get your social contact), or even here on/. doesn't have some kind of faults, just like the people in the "real" world??
Please don't take this as a flame, I don't mean it so. It just bugs me when people tune out the outside world around them. To me it shows a lack of confidence in your ability to present yourself. Then again, I'm juding you before I know you, which I apologize for.
There are things you will NEVER (yes, never is pretty strong word. Let's just say "never in our time") be able to do on the net. Smell roses, go up the eiffel tower, drink a German beer in a german pub, etc.
Here's a broader question. Lots of people are tuning out the "real" world and focusing online. Is this a real social trend, or is this just a few people who have gone "astray", for lack of a better term.
Hmm, I never said I shunned people if they weren't in my M:TG group. I said that most of my personal contact is at things like M:TG tournaments and Conventions where I know people share my interests.
And no, I don't have to deal with spammers, or lamers on IRC. I have this neat little function called Ignore, in my IRC program, and a similar function of my e-mail prog called Delete. Which completely silences anything I don't want to bother with.
As for things you can't do online, I understand that. I love to walk around outside, alone or with my fiance, stroll through the woods, sit on a fallen tree over a stream. But I don't like to do those things with hordes of other people around me. I don't need a lot of people around me to enjoy those things. As for not being able to present myself in person, I did quite well in extemporaneous speaking a couple of years ago, and I get along with the people I do meet. But I prefer not to meet a lot of people at random. I like to meet people that I know have something in common with me. That's why even without the 'net I'd never go to a singles bar, or any kind of bar. I despise alcohol for one thing, and I tend to be easily irritated by drunk people.
The whole point of using the 'net for my main social contact is that I have more control over who I come into contact with. I don't have to put up with people begging for change while wearing leather coats and levis while I run around in my 3 year old lettermans jacket and some 8$ noname jeans. I just like being to control my social interaction.
Oh, and I find it hilarious and a bit odd that my original post was moderated Funny...
'...when an 18 on a 20d was all that saved you from a harsh, horrifying end.'
Or if you have the 'Extremely Odd Luck' syndrome that my little brother always played with that 18 causes the crossbow bolt fired at you to ricochet off of a passing sparrow, off of a tree, off of a rock, off of the guy that shot it, and HIT ME IN THE LEG! That was the funniest session we ever had... So much weird shit happened...
however, i would categorize spending 16-18 hours a day using a computer as potentially harmful behaviour. just physically, it's not healthy to be in a sitting position for that many hours, as well as using a keyboard/mouse for that long, as well as being exposed to a high-frequency CRT for that long, etc, etc. psychologically, we really don't know at this point what kind of effect living an internet-based social life can have on a person - and to me that's reason enough to avoid doing it (excessively).
you might feel that i'm nit-picking, but many,many people will attest that the above problems are all too real.
and that's not even mentioning that the internet is a great big trap for people who are prone to addictive behaviour.
does that satisfy your question?:)
Only partially. In that yes remaining in one position for long periods of time is physically harmful, but as far as that goes watching TV involves less movement than SLEEPING for cryin' out loud. So that in itself need not be harmful, especially in a proper environment. My home computer area will soon be the extreme end of comfort, hopefully meaning I will only leave it to eat, piss, sleep, and have sex. OF course, I will probably continue my martial arts studies simply because I enjoy them as well as everything else I do. But I'm doing my best to eliminate all of the physically harmful aspects of my computer usage. Especially since I like to keep my wrists operational.>:) I do understand your point about addiction, but that problem isn't strictly limited to the net, nor is it the worst in reference to the net.
The thing that Windows has, which Linux doesn't, is MS Word 2000. To those that get Word attachments, the fact that there may be some vaguely similar software packages for Linux does not, regrettably, cut it. Having a faster/cheaper CPU does not establish anything about superiority of OS platforms.
There are any number of pieces of Win32-only software that people have, unwittingly, married themselves to, where it would take a messy divorce to extricate themselves. This list might include:
Visio ERWin MS Access AutoCAD Microsoft Project Word PowerPoint Excel Outlook Lotus Notes Client There may exist vaguely analagous software on Linux, and more and better in progress. That doesn't mitigate the messiness of the "divorce."
If Transmeta were producing a chip that provided support for things like:
Segmentation in the style of Multics Hardware-supported garbage collection, useful for either JVMs or for Lisp variants Something otherwise better than merely expanding chips from 32 bit addressing to 64 bit addressing I'd agree that there could be something fundamental here to, in the long run, change computing. When all that it seems to bring is power consumption reduction, space reduction, hopefully faster performance, and perhaps less damage to the wallet, that's not really news. Every generation of CPUs since the 8008 has provided some mixture of those improvements.
Unless "Crusoe" offers more than that, I can't get overly excited.
Can we say 'Translation' boys and girls? I'd say that a PRIME possibility will be the ability for this processor to execute code from a multitude of different architectures and win32 probably isn't that hard to emulate very near flawlessly. So you got the stability of running the linux kernel, the application set of Win32 and the speed of the G4, all in one cute little penguin shaped box. Wouldn't that be just TOOO SWEET!? >:)
is it just me, or is it not at least mildly disturbing that someone's college life can be _defined_ by the bandwidth of their network connections?
i'm in college, and while the high bandwidth is great, all it means to me is that slashdot and the 5 other sites i visit regularly load up faster. sometimes it also means that downloading that > 10 meg file isn't that big a deal.
those people whose lives are being defined by this "bandwidth glut" should perhaps re-evaluate how they're spending their free time:)
Why? Is there something inherently wrong with spending a large amount of time playing and socializing through the net? What if someones college experience is defined by the # of sports available to them? Or the number of Artistic clubs? Or the number of resteraunts? Is there anything more or less wrong with that than if their experience is defined by their bandwidth? Some of us do spend 16-18 hours a day on the net, because that's what we do at work, and at home for fun. If it isn't physically damaging to us then what's wrong with that that we should be re-evaluating our free time?
studies are beginning to point towards a relationship between time spent on the 'net and a loss of mental or physical well being... from experience, I can attest that high speed access in a college environment is like a drug -- you've got your gamers, your chatters, your pr0nners, etc. etc. etc. and the newfound freedom of college seems to encourage abuse of this access... is society as a whole headed for trouble, or, worst case scenario, a disaster, when the day comes that people prefer electronic contact over personal/physical... ?
Many of us despise day to day contact with most of humanity in any case. I recently closed my brick and morter bank account because I can't stand dealing with the tellers. I hate having to talk to people on the phone if I don't know them already, and I have no desire for personal contact with random strangers. I've met quite a lot of friends on the net who I later met (two of whom now live with me and my GF in our new house) and liked. I find it easier to communicate through this medium than through the telephone, I can communicate adequately in person but I don't prefer it. And yet I have a fairly healthy social life, it's just that I have time to focus on doing ONLY what I want to do and with whom I want to do it. I don't have to deal with the stupidity of clerks or the inane questions asked by losers I run into on the street. The few mass social contacts I have are at things like conventions or M:TG tournaments where I know the people all have at least one interest in common with me. I really don't think there is anything wrong with preferring electronic contact to personal/physical....
C'mon anyone who has a bit of a scientific mind knows this article is a big load of crap.
Just try to imagine it. You are Bart the Bacteria, you live on Mars. One day while you're walkin' around, a big meteor hits (It had to be quite a big one, or a very fast one... it was to launch pieces of debris into space.) It hits next to where you're standing, but you're lucky you can deal with the heat and the impact, and while you cling hard to the rock on wich you stand you are hurled into space.
Now in space it gets real tough. Luckily you need no air and radiation can't hurt you... Clinging to the rock you notice you are lucky, you're apparently heading toward that little blue planet over there.
When entering earths atmosphere you thank father nature (remember you're from Mars, mother nature is from earth) that he's blessed you with this heat shield that saved you life once and is now saving it again. You als thank him that not only you are equiped to survive in near vacuum, but you can also survive the highly corrosive oxygen (you, also being known as smart Bart, know that this is not so common as one might think, because most life forms need "oxygen (XOR) nooxygen" in order to survive. ) that surrounds your new home planet.
Now the landing was easy... You're a tough guy and the G-forces from the impact mean nothing to you. (if you land on solid ground) If you were to land in water your rusty and trusty heat-shield is going to protect you from the hot steam...
"Well", you think, "here I am, the toughest living being ever. I will do good for this planet..."
I can just see the microscopic little guy standing there yelling 'I AM the baddest mutha fucka on the planet!'
-OR-
As he tries to crawl out of his little rock Will Smith punches him in the head and drags him to Area 51.
Makes a nice counter image to the invading space fleet that gets eaten by a dog...
I was not saying in this situation that I would not steal to feed my family. I would personally rather beg myself a peice of bread and stay an upright man than take a chance on bringing more grief to my family by being imprisioned while the courts sorted out wether I should have stolen or not. Of course if it were a matter of being morally upright, chances are karma or the fates or God (whatever you percieve Him to be) would provide in those times as recompense for not submitting to the desire.
Now I have another quandry: What if I inadvertantly killed someone in the process of stealing the bread. Say perhaps I carried a gun to intimidate the owner into giving me the bread with no intention of firing and the gun went off?
Not trying to beat a dead horse (or maybe I am), I've just now gotten in the mood to have a good solid apologetics discussion;)
I propose that instead of stealing bread you walk into one of the many many soup kitches or missions or churches and request a meal. They will be happy to oblige. And even happier if you don't smell like you bathed in a bottle of vodka.
Re:GOOD ARTICLE! (Score:1) by ooky on 04:59 PM January 12th, 2000 EST (#207) (User Info) Warning- totally off topic by now... Kintanon, could you flame that person if their moral stance was that black people are evil and dirty, that animal mutilation is a beautiful thing, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Besides, I don't think that the previous person was even trying to flame, just asking the original poster to clarify their comment or at least think more about what they really did mean. I am not gay, but I think that if you considered the response a flame, than I could consider the original comment a flame, because I found it offensive, as much as I would have found a casual statement to the effect that raising a child in a Jewish family is not a proper environment offensive. And almost as much as the idea behind it, I guess, was the casual manner in which it was put forth, which I feel the alleged flamer was sort of trying to comment on.
Oh well, you guys all have kids and you are entitled to teach them what you'd like, and I do not, I admit. Whatever, because as another poster said, most kids will learn what they think is right for themselves anyway.
I was not implying that the response was a flame, just pointing at that someones morality isn't a good reason to flame them. No, you could NOT flame them if their moral stance was that black people are evil and dirty etc... You can certainly try to convince them otherwise, but once you start flaming them you've gone over into the realm of bigotry just as they might have.
I'm a co-admin at that site; we moderate all content.
If we are informed that a skin is an unathorized port (not the case w/ winaqua, it isn't a port; inspired by, yes; byte-for-byte copy, no) or a rip (staking a claim on someone else's work) we delete the offending skin posthaste.
So it isn't an admission of guilt; it's compliance with policy.
Of course, IANAL, so we may be doing this bass-ackwords.
According to the lawyer I just spoke with as long as you say you took it down to review it, found it to be completely free of any infringement and so put it back, You're ok.
I steal your car. (I wouldn't do this but Devil's advocate dictates otherwise.) You are probably a tad bit upset over this. I go to court. Now,in line with the the thought that "everything is okay as long as it doesn't step on someone else's right, my legal argument says that it was not morally wrong for me to steal that car. I needed one. You argue that I violated you by stealing that car and it goes against your morals to steal from someone else. Who's morals win out? Who is to say that your morals are better or worse than mine? Don't hand me that crap about society saying that theft is wrong. If society were made up of theives, social conscience would be in my favor. People are naturally biased and thus an UNBIASED outside force has to lay down rules for right and wrong. Maybe I'm having a seminary morality apolegetics flashback but to this day the argument that "it's ok as long as it doesn't step on my morals" doesn't hold water with me.
Ok, the scenario is thus: I have a Car. You do not have a Car. You take my Car. Now I do not have a Car. You have a Car.
I have demonstrably lost something which was mine. Morality doesn't enter the picture at all. You deprived me of my property, your ass is grass.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, ignorance is bliss. But...what if you find that you have been publicly humiliated as a result of a flame? And that as a result, no-one will take what you say seriously? And the flame was incorrect? Or the worse alternatives that I posed...that someone takes the flames *too* seriously. I am not saying that the flames alone are harmful (though it's hardly an untenable argument...I should imagine that if your boss sent you messages everyday telling you you were a worthless bag of shit then pretty soon you'd have a cast-iron case of harassment against them); but that doesn't mean that the flames aren't critical path. Sorry, but on this one I tend to go with the Hofetz Haim, whose most famous book was called "Guard thy tongue!"
In order to publicly humiliate someone the flame would have to be well written and point out many incorrect facts or inconsistent opinions that demonstrated that the person was an idiot. And if you're an idiot shouldn't you know that? If they flame you with incorrect information then they can be refuted. Since when does anyone take anything on someones word around here? Your argument just doesn't seem credible. If someone starts stalking and harassing you after flaming then you have a legal case and can call the cops. But then things have gone beyond flaming and entered meatspace.
Kintanon
A lot of this small-minded crap came out of the hideous feminism of the late 80's an early 90's. The wide-scale creation of a victimized woman culture was the main project of most of the popular women writers of the time (Camile Paglia is a notable exception). Most of this intellectual garbage was eaten up by the political correctness police rampant in university faculties and student bodies in the U.S. in the 80's/90's. They shoved it down everyone's throat and helped create a world of victims who could be "assulted" by an e-mail message. What crap.
This is also the same victim culture that relies on 'The Government' to protect them from everything. They always want someone else to protect them and have decided that they somehow deserve to be insulated from all criticism and anything that might possibly offend them. People need to learn to STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES! If someone flames you ignore them or flame them back. It just amazes me how helpless some people act.
Kintanon
Sorry, but I've got to disagree here. Both religious and secular law agree quite clearly that people *can* be harmed by just words--and the concept is obvious, once you stop to think about it. The most important thing is to remember that, especially on the web, messages are often public. So even if *I* choose not to read someone's flame about me, other people might--and go on to despise/ridicule/fire/assault me as a result. The power of words to affect people's behaviour is clear: adverts are a testament, as is propaganda, as are treaties, as is libel. All of these recognise that the way people act can indeed be influenced by what they read (or hear or see). And if we are open to the idea that there damage could be more than just material--that people's feelings of self-worth, their psychological well-being, are important--then the case becomes yet stronger.
Read my response to the other AC who posted under my thread.
And add this to it:
Ignorance is bliss.
This is one of the few cases where that saying holds true. If you don't know that someone thinks you're and idiot then you don't care.
But people DO think you're an idiot. It's only when one of them lets you know that it becomes a problem. Do you think that 75% of the population of this planet CARES that I think they are idiots? Nope. So why should one more?
Words can not harm unless backed up by action. A Treaty is only so much parchment unless someone has a military to enforce it.
I violate the GPL? What are you gonna do, BLEED ON ME? Any spoken or written agreement is totally worthless unless there is a physical means of enforcing it.
Kintanon
Unfortunately, that is a typical attitude.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".
That just isn't true. While most males (including myself) consider their own emotions, somehow "unreal" and may be ignored if necessary, the same is *not* true of the majority of women I know. I don't have to _agree_ with assigning any importance to what I consider legacy emotional responses caused by biochemical interactions, but to pleny of other people, such feelings are the cornerstone of their worldview. People, male and female, who attach significance to emotional response, can be, and have been driven to suicide by taunts.
To recognise an e-mail as a flame, means that the person is potentially hurt emotionally by the mere knowledge of the flame's existence, even if he never reads it.
Even if you or I are not hurt at all by e-mail flames, it is necessary to recognise that others, who are emotionally-driven (i.e. most women), can be hurt by them.
I find that statement just a tiny bit sexist, but I will address it.
Typed text will not pull your emotions the same way verbal contact will. You just can NOT put a menacing or threatening tone into an e-mail. 'Emotionally Driven' is not a 'most women' thing, it's a weak minded thing. Most PEOPLE are emotionally driven, but they almost NEVER have to deal with someone calling them an idiot, even if they are one. Especially in this day of political correctness, no one is allowed to crticisize because it might hurt someone's feelings. People are growing up not knowing that they are clueless morons, and if you don't know you are a clueless moron how can you start to change that? I would rather be flamed and corrected than told that I held an 'alternate by equally viable' opinion.
I'm not going to spare someone's emotions if they are wrong. I have neither the need nor the desire to pad my posts or e-mails so as not to bruise some pansies tender ego. If you are wrong, you are wrong. If I think you are wrong I can tell you that. No one can force you to listen. And if just the fact that someone somewhere might find out that someone you don't know and will never meet things you are an idiot bothers you, then you might want to kill yourself now because I'm sure SOMEONE SOMEWHERE thinks you're an idiot.
Kintanon
I'm sorry but as much as you may like to make it out that way Flaming someone is not 'Assault', it's comepletely non-harmful. There is no way you can hurt someone by writing them a nasty e-mail, or posting a nasty note about them to a message board. If I recieve an e-mail full of swearing and misspelled invectives I'm just going to delete it after the third or fourth word. I can easily ignore a post that I find offensive. There is NO WAY someone can force you to read a flame. In person someone can scream at you, make you listen to them by using physical force, but there is no way to do anything even REMOTELY like that on the 'net. It takes no 'courage' or 'strength' to stand up to flames, you just have to use one finger on the mouse to delete, skip, or otherwise ignore them. It's NOT HARD.
As for you getting more flames in the forum than in e-mail, how about asking all of your e-mail supporters to actually post to the threads? Maybe some of us would like to have meaningful discussions with them...
Or maybe we'd like to flame them.
Kintanon
Or what about that one guy in the group who was so freaking lucky. I had a mage play who was more effective in combat just due to the fact that he rolled 3 twenties in a row, then rolled an 18 and called it bad luck. Worst part was we had the 20s give you extra attacks rule *fear mages who kill dragons with thrown daggers*
-Elendale (or if you can only roll 1s...)
LOL! Believe it or not my MOM was the one who always had that happen. She would do the same thing when we played RISK, rolling all sixes all the time... Drove us INSANE.
Kintanon
I also used to believe that there was nothing wrong with living an electronic based life. And I guess there isn't.
But, you ARE missing out on another side to life. This is the side that involves going to parties, nightclubs, pubs, meeting strangers, going outdoors, camping, exercising your body as well as your mind. Don't dismiss this lifestyle as inferior, give it a decent go, you may be surprised.
I don't LIKE parties, or nightclubs, or pubs. I don't enjoy meeting strangers, they always ask me for money. I spend plenty of time camping and outdoors, I grew up on 15 acrs of forest. But I don't need to socialize with people to go camping. I also keep up with my martial arts training in the comfort of my own home. I'm in better shape than most people I know. I just maintain the choice of 'Do I want to put up with these idiots at this store in order to purchase this widget, or do I want to just order it?' I don't HAVE to come into contact with anyone I don't want to. And I LOVE IT!
But I still go places that I want to go, like JohnCon, a convetion at John Hopkins University where I will be involved in kicking serious ass at Soul Caliber on a 24 foot screen, playing D&D, Magic, Chess, and any number of other things, and socializing with people who have similar interests. I'm not isolated, I'm just isolated from people I don't want to talk to.>:)
Kintanon
I'm trying to keep an open mind about your views but something inside me is just screaming that this is wrong. I understand how computers can become addictive (I left a party one time just so I wouldn't miss my clan game of TF Quake.), but to actively shun people in the "outside world" is so bad for your soul and your health. To not communicate with people just because they aren't in your m:tg group is blatently juding people. You assume that you won't like them just because they don't play m:tg. I don't care what anyone says, if you can't communicate face-to-face with someone, there's a problem. You say that you don't have to deal with "losers" anymore, yet you deal with stupid people and spammers on IRC, email, etc. You haven't gotten rid of contact with them, they've just taken on new form. Can you honestly tell me that everyone you contact on IRC (or however you get your social contact), or even here on /. doesn't have some kind of faults, just like the people in the "real" world??
Please don't take this as a flame, I don't mean it so. It just bugs me when people tune out the outside world around them. To me it shows a lack of confidence in your ability to present yourself. Then again, I'm juding you before I know you, which I apologize for.
There are things you will NEVER (yes, never is pretty strong word. Let's just say "never in our time") be able to do on the net. Smell roses, go up the eiffel tower, drink a German beer in a german pub, etc.
Here's a broader question. Lots of people are tuning out the "real" world and focusing online. Is this a real social trend, or is this just a few people who have gone "astray", for lack of a better term.
Hmm, I never said I shunned people if they weren't in my M:TG group. I said that most of my personal contact is at things like M:TG tournaments and Conventions where I know people share my interests.
And no, I don't have to deal with spammers, or lamers on IRC. I have this neat little function called Ignore, in my IRC program, and a similar function of my e-mail prog called Delete. Which completely silences anything I don't want to bother with.
As for things you can't do online, I understand that. I love to walk around outside, alone or with my fiance, stroll through the woods, sit on a fallen tree over a stream. But I don't like to do those things with hordes of other people around me. I don't need a lot of people around me to enjoy those things.
As for not being able to present myself in person, I did quite well in extemporaneous speaking a couple of years ago, and I get along with the people I do meet. But I prefer not to meet a lot of people at random. I like to meet people that I know have something in common with me. That's why even without the 'net I'd never go to a singles bar, or any kind of bar. I despise alcohol for one thing, and I tend to be easily irritated by drunk people.
The whole point of using the 'net for my main social contact is that I have more control over who I come into contact with. I don't have to put up with people begging for change while wearing leather coats and levis while I run around in my 3 year old lettermans jacket and some 8$ noname jeans. I just like being to control my social interaction.
Oh, and I find it hilarious and a bit odd that my original post was moderated Funny...
Kintanon
'...when an 18 on a 20d was all that saved you from a harsh, horrifying end.'
Or if you have the 'Extremely Odd Luck' syndrome that my little brother always played with that 18 causes the crossbow bolt fired at you to ricochet off of a passing sparrow, off of a tree, off of a rock, off of the guy that shot it, and HIT ME IN THE LEG! That was the funniest session we ever had... So much weird shit happened...
Kintanon
however, i would categorize spending 16-18 hours a day using a computer as potentially harmful behaviour. just physically, it's not healthy to be in a sitting position for that many hours, as well as using a keyboard/mouse for that long, as well as being exposed to a high-frequency CRT for that long, etc, etc. psychologically, we really don't know at this point what kind of effect living an internet-based social life can have on a person - and to me that's reason enough to avoid doing it (excessively).
:)
you might feel that i'm nit-picking, but many,many people will attest that the above problems are all too real.
and that's not even mentioning that the internet is a great big trap for people who are prone to addictive behaviour.
does that satisfy your question?
Only partially. In that yes remaining in one position for long periods of time is physically harmful, but as far as that goes watching TV involves less movement than SLEEPING for cryin' out loud. So that in itself need not be harmful, especially in a proper environment. My home computer area will soon be the extreme end of comfort, hopefully meaning I will only leave it to eat, piss, sleep, and have sex. OF course, I will probably continue my martial arts studies simply because I enjoy them as well as everything else I do. But I'm doing my best to eliminate all of the physically harmful aspects of my computer usage. Especially since I like to keep my wrists operational.>:)
I do understand your point about addiction, but that problem isn't strictly limited to the net, nor is it the worst in reference to the net.
Kintanon
Umm... The scanner reads 'NO SALE' when Maggie is Scanned. Everyone knows that....
Kintanon
The thing that Windows has, which Linux doesn't, is MS Word 2000. To those that get Word attachments, the fact that there may be some vaguely similar software packages for Linux does not, regrettably, cut it.
Having a faster/cheaper CPU does not establish anything about superiority of OS platforms.
There are any number of pieces of Win32-only software that people have, unwittingly, married themselves to, where it would take a messy divorce to extricate themselves. This list might include:
Visio
ERWin
MS Access
AutoCAD
Microsoft Project
Word
PowerPoint
Excel
Outlook
Lotus Notes Client
There may exist vaguely analagous software on Linux, and more and better in progress. That doesn't mitigate the messiness of the "divorce."
If Transmeta were producing a chip that provided support for things like:
Segmentation in the style of Multics
Hardware-supported garbage collection, useful for either JVMs or for Lisp variants
Something otherwise better than merely expanding chips from 32 bit addressing to 64 bit addressing
I'd agree that there could be something fundamental here to, in the long run, change computing.
When all that it seems to bring is power consumption reduction, space reduction, hopefully faster performance, and perhaps less damage to the wallet, that's not really news. Every generation of CPUs since the 8008 has provided some mixture of those improvements.
Unless "Crusoe" offers more than that, I can't get overly excited.
Can we say 'Translation' boys and girls? I'd say that a PRIME possibility will be the ability for this processor to execute code from a multitude of different architectures and win32 probably isn't that hard to emulate very near flawlessly. So you got the stability of running the linux kernel, the application set of Win32 and the speed of the G4, all in one cute little penguin shaped box. Wouldn't that be just TOOO SWEET!? >:)
Kintanon
is it just me, or is it not at least mildly disturbing that someone's college life can be _defined_ by the bandwidth of their network connections?
:)
i'm in college, and while the high bandwidth is great, all it means to me is that slashdot and the 5 other sites i visit regularly load up faster. sometimes it also means that downloading that > 10 meg file isn't that big a deal.
those people whose lives are being defined by this "bandwidth glut" should perhaps re-evaluate how they're spending their free time
Why?
Is there something inherently wrong with spending a large amount of time playing and socializing through the net? What if someones college experience is defined by the # of sports available to them? Or the number of Artistic clubs? Or the number of resteraunts? Is there anything more or less wrong with that than if their experience is defined by their bandwidth? Some of us do spend 16-18 hours a day on the net, because that's what we do at work, and at home for fun. If it isn't physically damaging to us then what's wrong with that that we should be re-evaluating our free time?
Kintanon
studies are beginning to point towards a relationship between time spent on the 'net and a loss of mental or physical well being ... from experience, I can attest that high speed access in a college environment is like a drug -- you've got your gamers, your chatters, your pr0nners, etc. etc. etc. and the newfound freedom of college seems to encourage abuse of this access ... is society as a whole headed for trouble, or, worst case scenario, a disaster, when the day comes that people prefer electronic contact over personal/physical ... ?
Many of us despise day to day contact with most of humanity in any case. I recently closed my brick and morter bank account because I can't stand dealing with the tellers. I hate having to talk to people on the phone if I don't know them already, and I have no desire for personal contact with random strangers. I've met quite a lot of friends on the net who I later met (two of whom now live with me and my GF in our new house) and liked. I find it easier to communicate through this medium than through the telephone, I can communicate adequately in person but I don't prefer it. And yet I have a fairly healthy social life, it's just that I have time to focus on doing ONLY what I want to do and with whom I want to do it. I don't have to deal with the stupidity of clerks or the inane questions asked by losers I run into on the street. The few mass social contacts I have are at things like conventions or M:TG tournaments where I know the people all have at least one interest in common with me.
I really don't think there is anything wrong with preferring electronic contact to personal/physical....
Kintanon
And now there really is a secret message on the web site! Check the HTML source. It was the first thing I did...
And it's not what you think!
If you transpose every 3rd letter, and rot13 it, then transpose every 3rd letter again you get....
'Well done, now apply for a job!'
>:)
For anyone who doesn't get the joke check out he whole spy thing that was on the front page earlier.
Kintanon
I've counted it 3 times and I still get 25 characters...
Youfo
undit
nowap
plyfo
rajob!
Oh damn, I was leaving out the second P! LOL!!!
*slaps himself around*
Sorry about that guys, moderate my other post down as 'Just plain wrong!'
Kintanon
Umm, yeah 5 sets of 5....
I can't find the place where everyone keeps saying the found 'welld'...
Kintanon
The answer is 'You found it now apply for a job!'
Slashdot them.
Kintanon
C'mon anyone who has a bit of a scientific mind
knows this article is a big load of crap.
Just try to imagine it. You are Bart the
Bacteria, you live on Mars. One day while
you're walkin' around, a big meteor hits (It
had to be quite a big one, or a very fast one...
it was to launch pieces of debris into space.)
It hits next to where you're standing, but you're
lucky you can deal with the heat and the impact,
and while you cling hard to the rock on wich you
stand you are hurled into space.
Now in space it gets real tough. Luckily you need
no air and radiation can't hurt you...
Clinging to the rock you notice you are lucky,
you're apparently heading toward that little blue
planet over there.
When entering earths atmosphere you thank father
nature (remember you're from Mars, mother nature
is from earth) that he's blessed you with this
heat shield that saved you life once and is now
saving it again. You als thank him that not only
you are equiped to survive in near vacuum, but you
can also survive the highly corrosive oxygen (you,
also being known as smart Bart, know that this is
not so common as one might think, because most
life forms need "oxygen (XOR) nooxygen" in order
to survive. ) that surrounds your new home planet.
Now the landing was easy... You're a tough guy
and the G-forces from the impact mean nothing to
you. (if you land on solid ground) If you were
to land in water your rusty and trusty heat-shield
is going to protect you from the hot steam...
"Well", you think, "here I am, the toughest living
being ever. I will do good for this planet..."
I can just see the microscopic little guy standing there yelling 'I AM the baddest mutha fucka on the planet!'
-OR-
As he tries to crawl out of his little rock Will Smith punches him in the head and drags him to Area 51.
Makes a nice counter image to the invading space fleet that gets eaten by a dog...
Ok, why are ALL of DAVEO's posts getting automatically Flaimbaited? That looks like some kind of stupidity to me...
Kintanon
I was not saying in this situation that I would not steal to feed my family. I would personally rather beg myself a peice of bread and stay an upright man than take a chance on bringing more grief to my family by being imprisioned while the courts sorted out wether I should have stolen or not. Of course if it were a matter of being morally upright, chances are karma or the fates or God (whatever you percieve Him to be) would provide in those times as recompense for not submitting to the desire.
;)
Now I have another quandry: What if I inadvertantly killed someone in the process of stealing the bread. Say perhaps I carried a gun to intimidate the owner into giving me the bread with no intention of firing and the gun went off?
Not trying to beat a dead horse (or maybe I am), I've just now gotten in the mood to have a good solid apologetics discussion
I propose that instead of stealing bread you walk into one of the many many soup kitches or missions or churches and request a meal. They will be happy to oblige. And even happier if you don't smell like you bathed in a bottle of vodka.
Kintanon >:)
In that case I apologize for misinterpreting your stance on the subject.
Kintanon
Re:GOOD ARTICLE! (Score:1)
by ooky on 04:59 PM January 12th, 2000 EST (#207)
(User Info)
Warning- totally off topic by now...
Kintanon, could you flame that person if their moral stance was that black people are evil and dirty, that animal mutilation is a beautiful thing, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Besides, I don't think that the previous person was even trying to flame, just asking the original poster to clarify their comment or at least think more about what they really did mean. I am not gay, but I think that if you considered the response a flame, than I could consider the original comment a flame, because I found it offensive, as much as I would have found a casual statement to the effect that raising a child in a Jewish family is not a proper environment offensive. And almost as much as the idea behind it, I guess, was the casual manner in which it was put forth, which I feel the alleged flamer was sort of trying to comment on.
Oh well, you guys all have kids and you are entitled to teach them what you'd like, and I do not, I admit. Whatever, because as another poster said, most kids will learn what they think is right for themselves anyway.
I was not implying that the response was a flame, just pointing at that someones morality isn't a good reason to flame them.
No, you could NOT flame them if their moral stance was that black people are evil and dirty etc... You can certainly try to convince them otherwise, but once you start flaming them you've gone over into the realm of bigotry just as they might have.
Kintanon
I'm a co-admin at that site; we moderate all content.
If we are informed that a skin is an unathorized port (not the case w/ winaqua, it isn't a port; inspired by, yes; byte-for-byte copy, no) or a rip (staking a claim on someone else's work) we delete the offending skin posthaste.
So it isn't an admission of guilt; it's compliance with policy.
Of course, IANAL, so we may be doing this bass-ackwords.
According to the lawyer I just spoke with as long as you say you took it down to review it, found it to be completely free of any infringement and so put it back, You're ok.
Kintanon
I steal your car. (I wouldn't do this but Devil's advocate dictates otherwise.) ,in line with the the thought that "everything is okay as long as it doesn't step on someone else's right, my legal argument says that it was not morally wrong for me to steal that car. I needed one. You argue that I violated you by stealing that car and it goes against your morals to steal from someone else. Who's morals win out? Who is to say that your morals are better or worse than mine? Don't hand me that crap about society saying that theft is wrong. If society were made up of theives, social conscience would be in my favor. People are naturally biased and thus an UNBIASED outside force has to lay down rules for right and wrong.
You are probably a tad bit upset over this. I go to court. Now
Maybe I'm having a seminary morality apolegetics flashback but to this day the argument that "it's ok as long as it doesn't step on my morals" doesn't hold water with me.
Ok, the scenario is thus:
I have a Car.
You do not have a Car.
You take my Car.
Now I do not have a Car.
You have a Car.
I have demonstrably lost something which was mine. Morality doesn't enter the picture at all. You deprived me of my property, your ass is grass.
Kintanon