The problem with 'creation science' is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. Sorry, but you can't reject evolution arbitrarily and keep the other fruits of science.
My exact thought when I read some of letxa2000's other posts. You know, the ones where they quote statistics and numbers and make scientific comments to back up their points. Interesting.
Still, the best argument with these twits is always the "Gravity" argument. When they spout out "but it's JUST a theory!" crap, you hit them over the head with "gravity is JUST a theory, too".
Just give it another five years and any crime against a creationist will be a hate crime and speaking about evolution will be hate speech.
But you forgot one important fact: Religion is only harmful if it's the kind practiced by brown foreign people and anyone living in a house that doesn't have a Maytag washer and dryer in it.
Another statement that will be labeled quickly as "troll" by some creationist git who can't make their point stand up and can only try to flame people pointing that out.
Dawkins is absolutely in the right. Why should you be anything but insulting and arrogant to a bunch of people who themselves are insulting and arrogant? Why should you be patient and kind and sympathetic with a bunch of throwbacks who can't understand the most fundamental scientific theories (or even understand the word "theory" itself)? It's not like you can have a logical discussion and productive argument with people who base their entire point of view around "well, that's just a THEORY. But my creationism stuff is FACT, because I feel it in my bones and am too ignorant and inside-the-box to comprehend such complex ideas as thouse espoused by heathens. If it ain't in the bible, my feable brain can't fathom it."
Typical religous nut / conservative / creationist response you have going there, idiot.
I do not agree with Seumas' point of view and do not want other people to agree with it either. So, because I have no legitimate argument on my own behalf that reliably backs up my own point of view, I will diffuse his comment by labeling him a troll.
It's an age old argument when you have no arguments.
And creationists don't have reservations about "one scientific theory". They simply want to push THEIR SINGLE ANSWER. "Baby jesus made it" is not a theory, you fucktard. But it's nice to see that you're more than eager to try to convince people that if science came up with another theory with just as much (or even more) evidence, you'd magically change your mind and buy into it.
See, that is where the dishonesty comes in on your part. Creationists try to make it out like "I believe god created everything a few thousand years ago, because the current scientific theory doesn't hold up to my highly scientifically educated mind". If that were true, you simply wouldn't believe in evolution. Why would you default to believing in another theological theory if you don't buy into the first scientific theory? Why does (supposed) lack of evidence in one mean you have to believe in another? Aren't you intelligent enough to just not believe in either, without what you believe to be proper proof? Or do you seriously think there is more convincing scientific evidence to support creation by baby jesus than there is evolution, you bible-belt hick?
What you are too chickenshit to admit is that YOU DO NOT CARE what scientific theory and evidence there is or ever will be. You believe in your theological / mythological creationist theory and you will always insist that it (despite any logical evidence or support of any kind - simply based on idiotic "faith" which isn't a scientific element of investigation and substantiation) trumps any other theory out there. Christ, you probably don't even fucking know the meaning of the word "theory".
You may be aware that Scott Adams actually had hundreds of letters from women saying, in effect, that they were either married to a Dilbert or would like to marry one. Marrying a jock is fine till he (a) just starts playing around (b) has his mid-life crisis (c) the boiler fails and he's helpless while the geek just gets in there, criticises the design of the controller and the user interface and fixes it in thirty minutes.
What you've just stated is what I've said one thousand times.
Women want the pretty bad boy while they're young. They go out and party and spread their legs like the red sea. They wouldn't give YOU (yes you, reading this, poindexters!) the time of day other than perhaps as a free meal before they go out on a booty call with the guy they really want to hook up with later that night.
However, when she's ready to settle down, be more of a prude, stop being as fun and needs someone to care for her and have children with her and be responsible, reliable and secury, she'll settle for you (yes you, you boring geeky poindexters!).
So if you don't mind that the chick you're talking about above is only going for you because she's decided that Mr. Boring is okay in exchange for security, then go for it. If you don't mind that she was serving people like the golden arches for a decade while she was young and hot and only found you interesting after she put up the "one billion served" sign, go for it. If you don't mind being the runner up, go for it.
It again goes to prove my "geeks settle, because they don't know better and are desparate" theory.
Interesting. My observations show just the opposite.
Lame-brained socially popular good looking guys tend to want to keep getting laid and partying and hooking up with lots of attractive women, so they have an incentive not to reproduce.
The average geek, on the other hand, is so desparate and thankful that something with tits is paying attention to him that he'll fall in love with and marry the first chunkster to come along, then have a kid or two with her to make sure she'll stay with him and won't run off so easily.
Feel free to mod this troll/flamebait. The truth usually is around here.
By the way - what the fuck is a "baby card" and why would a dad be doing anything to do with a "baby card"? Next thing you're going to tell me is about "daddy baby showers". Jesus, men - grow some testicles why don't you...
Yet more "science" aiming to push baby jesus out of my fifteen childrens' school. This country was founded on gawd! Take your heathen "knowledge" to some other third-world country, you sick freaks!
Too much power? I don't know about that. As far as I understand it, corporations have the same rights and privileges as a human being / citizen of the united states.
Geeks rarely are assertive enough to capitalize on such a situation (even if the chance were there, which it usually isn't) and too stupid and desperate to realize that they're just being used and won't get anything except less sleep before class out of it.
Only a geek would have the idiotic comic-fan-boy fantasy that they'll come over, fix the girls computer and she'll bang him on the spot out of grattitude. Anyone else would recognize it for the waste of time it is.
Let me put it in another way: Unless she's calling you for a bootycall, she's just using you. If you're not going to get something out of it and aren't even going to try (don't be a passive pussy hoping that SHE'LL offer something), then don't waste your time helping. Tell her to call the bad boy on the motercycle she bangs on the weekends or the frat boy she bangs late at night and ask him to help her.
Seriously. Geeks have this completley misplaced and misguided sense of importance and value. Yet they always end up with these average chicks that they somehow believe are the hottest babes on the planet. I mean... seriously... guys... a little reality check?
I was a jock for most of my youth. You do not get the same quality of chick as a "geek" only as you do when you're a "jock only". Period. Don't fool yourself. There's nothing wrong with taking whatever you can get, but at least don't lie to yourself about the quality in comparison to everyone else.
Geeks are great for gold diggers. If you don't have looks or fame, money will do. Geeks are especially good, because they're usually more desperate and gullable, so a semi-hot chick could manipulate a well-off geek easier.
I don't see how that makes geeks "cool".
When it comes down to it, a geek is typically still the poindexter that you'd go get a free dinner from before hooking up with your less well-off but better lookingn (and "dangerous") bootycall later in the night.
But if geeks want to continue deluding themselves into some sort of false grandeur and popularity, I don't really care.
The reason metered doesn't work so well in the game industry is that developers and publishers need more stable revenue. It's easier to calculate how many people were playing last month, this month and how many will play next month. Then you can figure your revenue, expenses and so forth based on that. It would really throw a wrench into the works if you had to somehow figure out how to properly account for whether users were going to play more *minutes* this month than last month or next week than last week. Not impossible, but more difficult.
I think the current pay model is quite a bargain. Most games are around $15/mo for unlimited play. If you're one of those rare people that only plays the game 10 hours a month, you might prefer to spend only 50 cents per metered hour (you'd save $10). But how many of those people are there? I mean, if you're only playing 10 hours per month for an MMORPG style game, you probably aren't very into it and aren't going to make much progress with it anyway.
Still, it would be kind of interesting if they had the same kind of pay model old BBSes used to have. Systems like Major BBS / World Groups BBS let you set the price and you charged it on whatever you wanted (900 number, credit card, etc). Then it counted every second.
Anyway, I just don't think the current play model allows for that sort of pay model. It wouldn't work for most gamers and it definitely wouldn't work for the developers and publishers. Maybe for a different type of game - but not MMORPGS. Not world of warcraft or Eve Online or ATITD.
Notice how you posted this at 10:03PM (CST) on a Friday:)
I have an excuse, the lady and I are both coughing up phlegm and virii, heh.
So do I. I work Friday nights, so I can have a four day weekend every week. I'm currently fighting some hotfix fires for a university that is a major customer of ours.
I'll take making money on a friday night over blowing it on drunk chicks on a friday night any day. Er.. any friday, at least.
You want to go out on a day other than Friday and saturday nights when there is less competition and more available choices
And for the record, I'm in MST - so it's only 9:30 (though I work for 3 more hours).
The article blurb completely misses the point. I'm not going to waste my time looking at a bunch of supposedly "geek" chicks in a calendar or whatever so I didn't bother following the links.
HOWEVER, it's idiotic to say "are geeks acceptable and mainstream now?" just because ther'es a poster full of HOT chicks calling themselves geeks. (Or go the other way where you have your typical fugly girl who is only hot compared to your average fugly girl, but geeks usually have lower standards so as long as you're not 400lbs, you're a "hot chick").
The point being being a geek isn't acceptable or mainstream. Being hot and attractive is. Being attractive makes everything acceptable. Why do you think it's socially acceptable to be a drunk, a junkie (heroine chic anyone?), a dropout, a braindead social butterfly or any other number of things? Because as long as you're ATTRACTIVE, they're all acceptable.
Addicted to meth, but you're handsome or beautiful? Then it's okay. Addicted to twinkies? Go away fatty, we don't want to see you. Alcoholic? That's okay. It's a disease. you're sexy and we love you anyway. Gameaholic? You're a fucking loser. Go rot in the corner.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Physical traits are beneficial to society and being attractive is more valuable than being smart. The only people who don't know or believe that are ugly people who think that brains are really as sexy as they are told.
Brains are sexy - in a sexy body. Be as smart as you want, but if you have fugly teeth or are fat or are goofy looking - you're still disgusting. And that's the way it should be.
And no, I'm not trolling. Don't mod me down just becuase you're afraid to confront the truth about the world.
Just a short time ago, I was sitting around having coffee with a few average (cute, smart-ish, normal) chicks I'm friends with and a couple random guy friends and a couple people most of us didn't know.
In the course of conversation, I said something to the effect of "well, what do you expect - I'm a geek!".
To which one of the cute girls said (as if the words that had just come out of my mouth were something like "I'm a fat disgusting stupid braindead loser")... "Oh no, you are not! Don't be so hard on yourself!".
Seriously. I mentioned completely unashamedly that I'm just your typical geek and the response I got was this sort of consoling "dont' say such terrible things about yourself" kind of comment. She (and she wasn't alone in this) actually thought I was berating myself with such a label.
Geeks have this fucked up notion that the world loves a geek and that everyone sits around and admires the prowess of nerds, dorks and geeks. Guess what? THEY DO NOT. The people out partying and drinking and having a good time with other good looking successful non-geeks see you as someone to do their homework and fix their computers. You are not someone to be in awe of anymore than they should be in awe of the Maytag man or their mechanic.
Hearing people prattle on about how acceptable it is seem pathetic, to me. It's like the biggest group of losers in highschool getting together and saying "hey, we're totally cool! honest!" and believing that because *they* think they're top shit - the whole world does, too.
If you don't believe it, look at the Vonage ad running on Drudgereport right now that says something like "No fees. No installation. No problems. NO NERDS".
I'll proclaim my geekdom around other geeks. People outside of the geek inner circle have no need to know this about me. I'm just a normal person.
Wow. I wear sweats, shoes without shoelaces and a tee-shirt to work. I usually don't even keep my shoes on. I'm aim for being comfortable. My job is stressful and people rely on my for the work I do and the knowledge I have. My compensation is being comfortable and not being a suit and tie monkey. I don't think I've worn a tie in my entire adult life and I've never worn a suit in my entire life.
I'm not a finance manager. I'm not CEO or an executive of any sort. I'm not a venture capitalist. I'm not an investment banker. I'm not a sales or marketing goon. My presentation does nothing to further our company's progress. Only my knowledge and work ethic does and that's what I focus on. The rest be damned.
I work in a cubicle, in front of a computer. I deal with people via jabber, telephone and email. I never deal with customers face to face. Hell, the coworkers I work with aren't even on my "team" or part of my "group". My office is about 1500 miles from my direct manager and other coworkers who actually are part of my group. The hours I keep, I wind up spending no more than eight hours per week actually physically around coworkers (and again, we're separated by our cubicles, facing opposite directions focusing on our computers working on whatever we're working on at the moment).
If I'm going to dress up, it's not going to be for a half-empty office full of nerds and dorks in a cubicle farm. I'm paid to get things done and solve problems - not put on a fashion show. And as long as I don't deal with higher management or customers, who the hell gives a rip?
This might have been interesting 20 years ago. I don't want to watch crappy choppy videos on my cellphone screen. *Maybe* on my Treo 650, but probably not there either. And I certainly don't want pre-programmed "music choice" crap from some lame network running over Cingular.
Hell, I don't really even need my Treo. It was just a good deal, so I went for it even though I don't use 95% of the features.
This isn't about making the internet more efficient or maintaining it on a "hardware/performance" level. They're talking about saving the internet on a political, fascist, dominant, posessive, controlling level.
I sincerely doubt discussion on protocols or anything that doesn't involve legislation itself and regulation came into play.
Then write it in a journal. Don't go downtown, take a can of paint and spray paint all of your mundane, boring, random thoughts and daily life notes on the sides of buildings for all the world to see.
Every thing you have doesn't have to end up on the internet. "Blogs" should not make people famous. Blogs should be interesting if the person is already known for something. For instance, I might enjoy reading the insights of a person with some notariety in their chosen medical profession. Becuase they're already interesting.
What little spat Felisha is having at school with her boyfriend and her ex boyfriend and her ex boyfriend'ss new girlfriend or her suicidal poetry and half-assed slutty pics posted to try and garner attention to her blog are not interesting and not worthy of being put on the internet.
Again - not every person needs a daily blog on the internet fo six billion people to read. If you need to work through your thoughts by writing them down - OPEN UP A TEXT EDITOR.
He's going to save the internet by assisting with getting all the regulators and governments to "cooperate" together on it? How is that a good thing? That's like asking if you want a shit sandwhich or a piss cola. How about NO regulation or governance like the last few decades (essentially)?
The only thing worse than 161 governments trying to fight each other for "control of the internet" is 161 governments cooperating to "control the internet".
But who says corporations would have to keep you into old age? If they run everything (think of each corporation as an arcopolis if it helps), they can just dispose of you when you are no longer productive and profitable for them. Kind of like how they dispose of waste materials.
Right now, products are worth what consumers are willing to spend. In the future, citizens could be worth whatever they contribute to their mother-corporation.
Freedom (of the individual) is highly overrated. Corporations should be free and while I don't believe that individuals should own slaves, I believe corporations should be allowed to.
Think of it as a sort of feudal system. You would be the property of the corporation you work for. They would provide for all of your needs and you would work for them as long as you live (or until another corporation paid your corporation to take you from them... or just took over your corporation).
Then there's no more conflict of government trying to balance representing their constituants (you and me) with lobbiests (CEO fat-cats).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with 'creation science' is that it wants to have its cake and eat it too. Sorry, but you can't reject evolution arbitrarily and keep the other fruits of science.
My exact thought when I read some of letxa2000's other posts. You know, the ones where they quote statistics and numbers and make scientific comments to back up their points. Interesting.
Still, the best argument with these twits is always the "Gravity" argument. When they spout out "but it's JUST a theory!" crap, you hit them over the head with "gravity is JUST a theory, too".
Just give it another five years and any crime against a creationist will be a hate crime and speaking about evolution will be hate speech.
But you forgot one important fact: Religion is only harmful if it's the kind practiced by brown foreign people and anyone living in a house that doesn't have a Maytag washer and dryer in it.
Another statement that will be labeled quickly as "troll" by some creationist git who can't make their point stand up and can only try to flame people pointing that out.
Dawkins is absolutely in the right. Why should you be anything but insulting and arrogant to a bunch of people who themselves are insulting and arrogant? Why should you be patient and kind and sympathetic with a bunch of throwbacks who can't understand the most fundamental scientific theories (or even understand the word "theory" itself)? It's not like you can have a logical discussion and productive argument with people who base their entire point of view around "well, that's just a THEORY. But my creationism stuff is FACT, because I feel it in my bones and am too ignorant and inside-the-box to comprehend such complex ideas as thouse espoused by heathens. If it ain't in the bible, my feable brain can't fathom it."
Typical religous nut / conservative / creationist response you have going there, idiot.
I do not agree with Seumas' point of view and do not want other people to agree with it either. So, because I have no legitimate argument on my own behalf that reliably backs up my own point of view, I will diffuse his comment by labeling him a troll.
It's an age old argument when you have no arguments.
And creationists don't have reservations about "one scientific theory". They simply want to push THEIR SINGLE ANSWER. "Baby jesus made it" is not a theory, you fucktard. But it's nice to see that you're more than eager to try to convince people that if science came up with another theory with just as much (or even more) evidence, you'd magically change your mind and buy into it.
See, that is where the dishonesty comes in on your part. Creationists try to make it out like "I believe god created everything a few thousand years ago, because the current scientific theory doesn't hold up to my highly scientifically educated mind". If that were true, you simply wouldn't believe in evolution. Why would you default to believing in another theological theory if you don't buy into the first scientific theory? Why does (supposed) lack of evidence in one mean you have to believe in another? Aren't you intelligent enough to just not believe in either, without what you believe to be proper proof? Or do you seriously think there is more convincing scientific evidence to support creation by baby jesus than there is evolution, you bible-belt hick?
What you are too chickenshit to admit is that YOU DO NOT CARE what scientific theory and evidence there is or ever will be. You believe in your theological / mythological creationist theory and you will always insist that it (despite any logical evidence or support of any kind - simply based on idiotic "faith" which isn't a scientific element of investigation and substantiation) trumps any other theory out there. Christ, you probably don't even fucking know the meaning of the word "theory".
Oh, by the way:
You may be aware that Scott Adams actually had hundreds of letters from women saying, in effect, that they were either married to a Dilbert or would like to marry one. Marrying a jock is fine till he (a) just starts playing around (b) has his mid-life crisis (c) the boiler fails and he's helpless while the geek just gets in there, criticises the design of the controller and the user interface and fixes it in thirty minutes.
What you've just stated is what I've said one thousand times.
Women want the pretty bad boy while they're young. They go out and party and spread their legs like the red sea. They wouldn't give YOU (yes you, reading this, poindexters!) the time of day other than perhaps as a free meal before they go out on a booty call with the guy they really want to hook up with later that night.
However, when she's ready to settle down, be more of a prude, stop being as fun and needs someone to care for her and have children with her and be responsible, reliable and secury, she'll settle for you (yes you, you boring geeky poindexters!).
So if you don't mind that the chick you're talking about above is only going for you because she's decided that Mr. Boring is okay in exchange for security, then go for it. If you don't mind that she was serving people like the golden arches for a decade while she was young and hot and only found you interesting after she put up the "one billion served" sign, go for it. If you don't mind being the runner up, go for it.
It again goes to prove my "geeks settle, because they don't know better and are desparate" theory.
Interesting. My observations show just the opposite.
Lame-brained socially popular good looking guys tend to want to keep getting laid and partying and hooking up with lots of attractive women, so they have an incentive not to reproduce.
The average geek, on the other hand, is so desparate and thankful that something with tits is paying attention to him that he'll fall in love with and marry the first chunkster to come along, then have a kid or two with her to make sure she'll stay with him and won't run off so easily.
Feel free to mod this troll/flamebait. The truth usually is around here.
By the way - what the fuck is a "baby card" and why would a dad be doing anything to do with a "baby card"? Next thing you're going to tell me is about "daddy baby showers". Jesus, men - grow some testicles why don't you...
Yet more "science" aiming to push baby jesus out of my fifteen childrens' school. This country was founded on gawd! Take your heathen "knowledge" to some other third-world country, you sick freaks!
Too much power? I don't know about that. As far as I understand it, corporations have the same rights and privileges as a human being / citizen of the united states.
GNU/DNA
Geeks rarely are assertive enough to capitalize on such a situation (even if the chance were there, which it usually isn't) and too stupid and desperate to realize that they're just being used and won't get anything except less sleep before class out of it.
Only a geek would have the idiotic comic-fan-boy fantasy that they'll come over, fix the girls computer and she'll bang him on the spot out of grattitude. Anyone else would recognize it for the waste of time it is.
Let me put it in another way: Unless she's calling you for a bootycall, she's just using you. If you're not going to get something out of it and aren't even going to try (don't be a passive pussy hoping that SHE'LL offer something), then don't waste your time helping. Tell her to call the bad boy on the motercycle she bangs on the weekends or the frat boy she bangs late at night and ask him to help her.
Seriously. Geeks have this completley misplaced and misguided sense of importance and value. Yet they always end up with these average chicks that they somehow believe are the hottest babes on the planet. I mean... seriously... guys... a little reality check?
I was a jock for most of my youth. You do not get the same quality of chick as a "geek" only as you do when you're a "jock only". Period. Don't fool yourself. There's nothing wrong with taking whatever you can get, but at least don't lie to yourself about the quality in comparison to everyone else.
Geeks are great for gold diggers. If you don't have looks or fame, money will do. Geeks are especially good, because they're usually more desperate and gullable, so a semi-hot chick could manipulate a well-off geek easier.
I don't see how that makes geeks "cool".
When it comes down to it, a geek is typically still the poindexter that you'd go get a free dinner from before hooking up with your less well-off but better lookingn (and "dangerous") bootycall later in the night.
But if geeks want to continue deluding themselves into some sort of false grandeur and popularity, I don't really care.
That isn't exactly "metered" as you acknowledge.
The reason metered doesn't work so well in the game industry is that developers and publishers need more stable revenue. It's easier to calculate how many people were playing last month, this month and how many will play next month. Then you can figure your revenue, expenses and so forth based on that. It would really throw a wrench into the works if you had to somehow figure out how to properly account for whether users were going to play more *minutes* this month than last month or next week than last week. Not impossible, but more difficult.
I think the current pay model is quite a bargain. Most games are around $15/mo for unlimited play. If you're one of those rare people that only plays the game 10 hours a month, you might prefer to spend only 50 cents per metered hour (you'd save $10). But how many of those people are there? I mean, if you're only playing 10 hours per month for an MMORPG style game, you probably aren't very into it and aren't going to make much progress with it anyway.
Still, it would be kind of interesting if they had the same kind of pay model old BBSes used to have. Systems like Major BBS / World Groups BBS let you set the price and you charged it on whatever you wanted (900 number, credit card, etc). Then it counted every second.
Anyway, I just don't think the current play model allows for that sort of pay model. It wouldn't work for most gamers and it definitely wouldn't work for the developers and publishers. Maybe for a different type of game - but not MMORPGS. Not world of warcraft or Eve Online or ATITD.
Notice how you posted this at 10:03PM (CST) on a Friday :)
I have an excuse, the lady and I are both coughing up phlegm and virii, heh.
So do I. I work Friday nights, so I can have a four day weekend every week. I'm currently fighting some hotfix fires for a university that is a major customer of ours.
I'll take making money on a friday night over blowing it on drunk chicks on a friday night any day. Er.. any friday, at least.
You want to go out on a day other than Friday and saturday nights when there is less competition and more available choices
And for the record, I'm in MST - so it's only 9:30 (though I work for 3 more hours).
The article blurb completely misses the point. I'm not going to waste my time looking at a bunch of supposedly "geek" chicks in a calendar or whatever so I didn't bother following the links.
HOWEVER, it's idiotic to say "are geeks acceptable and mainstream now?" just because ther'es a poster full of HOT chicks calling themselves geeks. (Or go the other way where you have your typical fugly girl who is only hot compared to your average fugly girl, but geeks usually have lower standards so as long as you're not 400lbs, you're a "hot chick").
The point being being a geek isn't acceptable or mainstream. Being hot and attractive is. Being attractive makes everything acceptable. Why do you think it's socially acceptable to be a drunk, a junkie (heroine chic anyone?), a dropout, a braindead social butterfly or any other number of things? Because as long as you're ATTRACTIVE, they're all acceptable.
Addicted to meth, but you're handsome or beautiful? Then it's okay. Addicted to twinkies? Go away fatty, we don't want to see you. Alcoholic? That's okay. It's a disease. you're sexy and we love you anyway. Gameaholic? You're a fucking loser. Go rot in the corner.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Physical traits are beneficial to society and being attractive is more valuable than being smart. The only people who don't know or believe that are ugly people who think that brains are really as sexy as they are told.
Brains are sexy - in a sexy body. Be as smart as you want, but if you have fugly teeth or are fat or are goofy looking - you're still disgusting. And that's the way it should be.
And no, I'm not trolling. Don't mod me down just becuase you're afraid to confront the truth about the world.
Stupid question but what the hell is a "pedro" shirt?
I saw someone wearing one around town the other day that said "vote for pedro". WTF?
No, they are not enamoured with geekdom.
Just a short time ago, I was sitting around having coffee with a few average (cute, smart-ish, normal) chicks I'm friends with and a couple random guy friends and a couple people most of us didn't know.
In the course of conversation, I said something to the effect of "well, what do you expect - I'm a geek!".
To which one of the cute girls said (as if the words that had just come out of my mouth were something like "I'm a fat disgusting stupid braindead loser")... "Oh no, you are not! Don't be so hard on yourself!".
Seriously. I mentioned completely unashamedly that I'm just your typical geek and the response I got was this sort of consoling "dont' say such terrible things about yourself" kind of comment. She (and she wasn't alone in this) actually thought I was berating myself with such a label.
Geeks have this fucked up notion that the world loves a geek and that everyone sits around and admires the prowess of nerds, dorks and geeks. Guess what? THEY DO NOT. The people out partying and drinking and having a good time with other good looking successful non-geeks see you as someone to do their homework and fix their computers. You are not someone to be in awe of anymore than they should be in awe of the Maytag man or their mechanic.
Hearing people prattle on about how acceptable it is seem pathetic, to me. It's like the biggest group of losers in highschool getting together and saying "hey, we're totally cool! honest!" and believing that because *they* think they're top shit - the whole world does, too.
If you don't believe it, look at the Vonage ad running on Drudgereport right now that says something like "No fees. No installation. No problems. NO NERDS".
I'll proclaim my geekdom around other geeks. People outside of the geek inner circle have no need to know this about me. I'm just a normal person.
Wow. I wear sweats, shoes without shoelaces and a tee-shirt to work. I usually don't even keep my shoes on. I'm aim for being comfortable. My job is stressful and people rely on my for the work I do and the knowledge I have. My compensation is being comfortable and not being a suit and tie monkey. I don't think I've worn a tie in my entire adult life and I've never worn a suit in my entire life.
I'm not a finance manager. I'm not CEO or an executive of any sort. I'm not a venture capitalist. I'm not an investment banker. I'm not a sales or marketing goon. My presentation does nothing to further our company's progress. Only my knowledge and work ethic does and that's what I focus on. The rest be damned.
Why would I dress up nice for work?
I work in a cubicle, in front of a computer. I deal with people via jabber, telephone and email. I never deal with customers face to face. Hell, the coworkers I work with aren't even on my "team" or part of my "group". My office is about 1500 miles from my direct manager and other coworkers who actually are part of my group. The hours I keep, I wind up spending no more than eight hours per week actually physically around coworkers (and again, we're separated by our cubicles, facing opposite directions focusing on our computers working on whatever we're working on at the moment).
If I'm going to dress up, it's not going to be for a half-empty office full of nerds and dorks in a cubicle farm. I'm paid to get things done and solve problems - not put on a fashion show. And as long as I don't deal with higher management or customers, who the hell gives a rip?
Guess what - so does religion.
This might have been interesting 20 years ago. I don't want to watch crappy choppy videos on my cellphone screen. *Maybe* on my Treo 650, but probably not there either. And I certainly don't want pre-programmed "music choice" crap from some lame network running over Cingular.
Hell, I don't really even need my Treo. It was just a good deal, so I went for it even though I don't use 95% of the features.
Let's quit with the iPod+Cell thing already, eh?
Yeah, but what's that got to do with anything?
This isn't about making the internet more efficient or maintaining it on a "hardware/performance" level. They're talking about saving the internet on a political, fascist, dominant, posessive, controlling level.
I sincerely doubt discussion on protocols or anything that doesn't involve legislation itself and regulation came into play.
Then write it in a journal. Don't go downtown, take a can of paint and spray paint all of your mundane, boring, random thoughts and daily life notes on the sides of buildings for all the world to see.
Every thing you have doesn't have to end up on the internet. "Blogs" should not make people famous. Blogs should be interesting if the person is already known for something. For instance, I might enjoy reading the insights of a person with some notariety in their chosen medical profession. Becuase they're already interesting.
What little spat Felisha is having at school with her boyfriend and her ex boyfriend and her ex boyfriend'ss new girlfriend or her suicidal poetry and half-assed slutty pics posted to try and garner attention to her blog are not interesting and not worthy of being put on the internet.
Again - not every person needs a daily blog on the internet fo six billion people to read. If you need to work through your thoughts by writing them down - OPEN UP A TEXT EDITOR.
He's going to save the internet by assisting with getting all the regulators and governments to "cooperate" together on it? How is that a good thing? That's like asking if you want a shit sandwhich or a piss cola. How about NO regulation or governance like the last few decades (essentially)?
The only thing worse than 161 governments trying to fight each other for "control of the internet" is 161 governments cooperating to "control the internet".
The CDC? Wow, it seems like we haven't heard much from those guys since they released Back Oriface back in 1998/1999.
But who says corporations would have to keep you into old age? If they run everything (think of each corporation as an arcopolis if it helps), they can just dispose of you when you are no longer productive and profitable for them. Kind of like how they dispose of waste materials.
Right now, products are worth what consumers are willing to spend. In the future, citizens could be worth whatever they contribute to their mother-corporation.
Freedom (of the individual) is highly overrated. Corporations should be free and while I don't believe that individuals should own slaves, I believe corporations should be allowed to.
Think of it as a sort of feudal system. You would be the property of the corporation you work for. They would provide for all of your needs and you would work for them as long as you live (or until another corporation paid your corporation to take you from them... or just took over your corporation).
Then there's no more conflict of government trying to balance representing their constituants (you and me) with lobbiests (CEO fat-cats).