Sorry... I'm usually a calm rational person. I almost never become a grammar-nazi, spelling nazi, or troll. It's just that I see this so often I'm afraid one day Webster will just give up and switch the definitions of Lose and Loose.
It's a socially patterned form of mindlessness. I especially like to call it "an example of sheeple" because that word seems to really, really stick in some peoples' craw. Perhaps the whole sheep/shepherd analogy is too accurate for them to handle?
At any rate... five years ago I never saw anyone making that error. Then, one day, lots of people started doing it all at once. It's as though many tens of thousands of people all got together in a big smoky stadium and conspired to all do the same stupid thing.
While I seriously doubt there was an actual formal conspiracy, it definitely is an example of following the crowd without critical thought (the domain of individuals) and mindlessly imitating what is seen. When people can't even come up with their own mistakes anymore, you know individuality is in trouble. The funny thing is, each of these people would swear (and probably pass a polygraph) that they are individuals. The most sincere belief in the world is useless if it's inconsistent with observed reality.
So that's another item on the list of things people develop by means of monkey-see-monkey-do instead of observation and introspection. Previous entries on that list include personality, mannerisms, tastes/preferences, lack of situational awareness due to self-absorption, and the inability to drive a vehicle for five miles without repeatedly crossing over the double-yellow line.
AC, I wish I knew who you were so I could praise you properly. Instead, I can just say, "Fuck Yes."
I ended up using my mod points elsewhere, so I'm willing to identify myself.
That was me. I was actually wondering if the writing style was going to be a give-away, or perhaps the fact that the mentality he showed is the kind of thing I often speak against.
The unfortunate fact is that it's very important to many people to have some reason to look down their nose at another person and judge them as inferior in some way. This particularly happens to people who are noble and display virtue, or to people who accomplish things (like J. Wales), or who display advanced intellect and reasoning skills. Their unusual qualities make them stand out as targets for this kind of treatment. It makes them a special prize.
You can see easily how absurd this one was. If the guy seriously believes that Wales is running a scam, why hasn't he approached his local police department and demanded an investigation? Oh yeah, because the police want evidence, that's why. Since Wikipedia is not a scam, there is of course no evidence.
The world is full of immature, insecure little busybodies who remain that way because all of their energies are poured into various attempts to control others or to take them down a peg or two, even if only in their own small minds. When they start to occupy multiple key positions of power and people tolerate this (usually by making an excuse to cover it), your nation's viability is questionable to put it mildly. Fascists and Communists everywhere have always exploited this tendency of the small-minded, typically by providing a scapegoat or other form of national enemy to consolidate their power. That's the large-scale, fully developed form.
The small-scale personal form is someone with nothing to contribute so they try to tear down. They don't plan this deliberately and intentionally. Very little of what they do is deliberate and driven by reason or design. It's impulsive and driven by emotion; nonetheless there is a distinct pattern to it. I consider it a benchmark of our decadence that most people have become this way. It's the result of viewing virtue as an inconvenient list of rules and not as self-evident truth that is a joy to observe.
Some groups of a few people who care have changed the world. A far larger number of groups of a few people who cared have found the world unyielding to their efforts.
If you only ever do things that statistics favor, you're going to lead a most boring and undistinguished life. Life has always existed despite the odds, vibrant life doubly so. I choose to believe I am of consequence to the universe... and since you believe you are not of consequence to the universe, you are... of no consequence at all.
In an agape kind of spirit, I really wish you well, especially after reading what you wrote. In other words: fuck yeah. You're in that zone today where the important things are self-evident AND you can articulate them. What a wonderful state to represent!
Except I wouldn't say he's of no consequence at all. I would say he's not yet aware of his own significance, of just how much we're in all of this together. *
While I definitely believe it is going to work out, because that is inherently in the nature of the beauty that is unfolding from the Universe, the widespread ignorance is certainly distasteful. I don't know a single excellent soul who didn't have to endure extensive contact with it.
It really seems to make things harder than they would otherwise have to be. A few change the world from time to time because it never seems to be the majority who understand this. If that ever happened, I do believe it would be something like heaven on earth.
* Ever head much from Bill Hicks? "How are we gonna keep building nuclear weapons... if we realize we're all one?! It'd fuck up the economy!"
A right which is not enforced by men , is a non existing right. You can spout around that you have the right of free speech, but if the governement decide you do not have it, then *pouf* it is gone. There is not such a thing as "natural right"
What was unique about the Founding Fathers is that they didn't see what you point out and say "oh no, it's not a guarantee, we're so screwed!" No, they saw what you point out and responded with "then it's clearly up to us, and we'll do whatever it takes to have them". The rose to the occasion and gave their counter-answer to what you pose. To them it was a cyclical process in which liberty ebbs and flows. It's not terribly different from the water cycle, or the carbon cycle, or the nitrogen cycle. It's simply one of nature's patterns, patterns of which men are not entirely exempt.
A "right" which is not enforced by an entity is a right you lost or do not have. Only when an enforcing entity help applying that right you got it. There is not such a thing as natural right, as natural law is the law of the strongest, and the only right you got then is the one which you can enforce yourself.
Some entities are more just than others, and that tree is known by it fruit.
The fact is that every empire and every dictatorship which became decadent and tyrannical (that is, all of them) has collapsed. It is an inherently unstable form. It is self-defeating. No free nation would ever collapse. It has to become tyrannical first. Then and only then can it collapse.
It's not just a smorgasbord of equally valid options that happen to all be equally viable. No. Some are inherently stronger, more sustainable, and more virtuous and tend to do a better job of promoting prosperity and well-being. When it's the law of the jungle, the average life-span is much shorter and quality of life is lower. According to any human standard, they are not interchangable options. The lust for power is always short-term gain at the expense of sustainability. It always fails.
Cats and dogs aren't sentient. Neither is wildlife.
They aren't sapient. But they are definitely sentient. They have feeligs. They have likes and dislikes. If they are in pain they cry out, just like we do.
Reason is what we can do that they cannot. It's one of our very most human qualities. I wish it were more widely appreciated as such. Reason would never lead you to harm another or violate another's rights, at least not without some damned solid provocation.
The government can simply work with companies to get the info (whatever government isn't allowed to do can simply be passed off to companies). I don't expect that my actions be secret, but I do expect that I shouldn't need to walk around with a mask everywhere I go just because some idiots can't differentiate between mass surveillance and some bystander spotting you while walking down the street.
I agree with you 100% about the mass surveillance thing. I have no idea why people are so eager to portray it as a completely 100% harmless condition that could never, ever be used against them. Apparently they've never heard the saying by Cardinal Richelieu: "give me six lines penned by the most honest hand, and I will find something in them which will hang him". Now imagine that applied not only to whatever you write, but to everything you say, everything you do, everywhere you go, stored indefinitely, in a nation with so many tens of thousands of laws it's nearly impossible to never break at least one of them...
If you want to embrace a no-privacy world, I sure hope that every human being on earth, including criminals, including tyrants, thinks you're a great person and never wants to harm you, because that sure is easier to do when they know a lot about you.
Regarding the government cooperating with companies to get around restrictions placed on government, the restrictions against government merely need to be updated to include "nor shall this be done by proxy". That would make it consistent with every law telling real people what they may not do. For a couple of hypothetical examples, you are not allowed to rob someone, nor are you allowed to hire a thug to rob someone; in both cases you would be prosecuted. Hiring a hit-man won't keep you from being prosecuted for murder even though you didn't perform the act personally. Restrictions on government need to close this "by proxy" loophole. Then they will be harmonized with the kind of laws each of us are expected to obey.
I think that was a subtle nod. A little gesture acknowledging that there are, somewhere, female programmers out there. Probably.
Since we're obsessed with group identity these days, we can't just let that fact stand on its own (significant) merits.
In a truly unbiased society we wouldn't think of this as unusual or otherwise worthy of special mention. The attitude would be more like "of course women can be programmers, and water is wet, grass is green, the sky is blue..."
I asked him what he knew about 'The Cloud' the other day; his response?
"How the fuck should I know? I'm a biological engineer, not a goddamn weatherman!"
Okay, despite his confusion, at least he admitted he was ignorant about the subject. At least he didn't go and form a strong opinion and start arguing about a subject he knows nothing about.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'." -- Isaac Asimov
This Slashdot article may as well have said "average public school-educated Americans unable to distinguish their own (obese) ass from a hole in the ground."
Sure that may sound like I am being negative. But it's so hard not to be negative about this. Without even considering its finances, there is good reason to question the long-term viability of my nation. You just can't have this many adult people who hate thinking, who embrace anti-intellectualism, and expect to remain prosperous. It's not even just anti-intellectualism, as though that were not bad enough. Emotional intelligence is on the decline as well, and it manifests as a bunch of people who generally mean well, but are far too self-absorbed to understand things so basic as "needlessly blocking a doorway in a public place is rude".
They do mean well but they tend to be childish, indulgent, and haven't the maturity to overcome their own thoughts and their own worries. That's why when I say "self-absorbed" I don't mean it in terms of narcissism, I mean it in terms of having become so thoroughly alienated from their fellow humans that they are unable to consider how their actions affect others. Generally the USA is becoming decadent like every other great nation just before its collapse.
I am seriously wondering just how hard it is for an American to immigrate to a small Western European nation and become a naturalized citizen.
I understand the dislike, distrust and sometimes even hatred of things like facebook, but assuming that anyone with an active facebook account isn't aware of the issues seems to be a common mistake around here.
Thinking that you can play footsies with the Devil and never ever get burned is another very common mistake.
Or saying that you have a set of principles by which you recognize certain companies' behavior as evil, exploitative, maladaptive, undesirable, etc... and then participating in those companies' offerings anyway, well that's another all-too-common mistake. It always seems like your own individual contribution is a tiny drop in a big bucket, but then masses of people make this mistake and it really matters.
I still choose to use it, because it's a good way to keep in touch with my many friends around the world; post pictures of my daughter growing up for anyone who cares to see that; organise events with friends in an easy to manage interface; and so on. I do block pretty much every game, "application" and so on and it's almost beyond the pale to imagine I would ever consider using such a payment system as the one described; however that doesn't mean I have to get rid of using facebook altogether - just don't use what you don't want (and remember the thing about scrawling your information in public, as already mentioned).
What "I don't want" is to ever make more successful a company that does business this way. What "I don't want" is to ever feel like no one ever had any way to keep in touch before the advent of Facebook. What I especially "don't want" is to promote the kind of culture surrounding Facebook. Joining them would be the same as giving my silent consent. In most relationships of abuse and exploitation, what you describe above is called being an enabler. You see, it's not a matter of features.
There is no convenience Facebook could ever offer me that would convince me to overlook their attitude towards their users. It is definitely not an attitude of respect and appreciation. It's more like the attitude a farmer has towards his livestock. That's simply unacceptable to me under any terms. I don't care to make a game of being the cow or chicken and seeing how much feed I can get out of the farmer while trying to avoid the privacy slaughterhouse. I probably could win such a game, like you are doing, but then I can definitely get my own feed. I'd rather simply have nothing to do with Facebook, have never once had an account, never visited the site, block their "Like buttons" etc, and I have never once regretted that decision.
Imagine if every user who felt the way you do decided not to use Facebook. It would create demand for a more reasonable social network. Right now starting one would fail because everyone is already on Facebook, and much of the utility of such a site is the number of people you can reach with it. Even a giant like Google is having grave difficulty getting an alternative off the ground, and most startups wouldn't have Google's deep pockets and name recognition.
The goal here is to make payment so easy that you don't have the time to reconsider the purchase decision while, for instance, you're pulling out your wallet to get out your credit card.
Sure. They are encouraging impulsiveness and giving impulsive (undisciplined) people what they want.
These are people that firmly believe that the way to make the world a better place is to make it easier for them to buy stuff whether or not it is of any use to them whatsoever.
Then their relationship to the world is that of a parasite. They are feeding off a character weakness. Of course they think that's good. Ticks and fleas think sucking your blood is good, too.
It's just that the mainstream is not terribly thoughtful or insightful. So when it's something physical and obvious, like a tick sucking blood, they recoil and see that it's a nasty parasite. When it's something nonphysical requiring a bit of perspective, like encouraging a character weakness for profit, they mostly excuse and defend it, talking about how convenient it is. That is the only potential upside, so they have to play it up as much as possible.
I know, because I've attended one of the major conferences in the industry and met some of these folks and listened to their talks about this sort of technology.
To be among that many marketdroids... Did it resemble a robotics class?
And of course, what makes it easy for a legitimate business to take your money also makes it easy for a not-so-legitimate business or a thief to take your money.
Yes, those who are dumb/shallow enough to think this is a great idea, are likely dumb enough not to see that it represents extra risk. You're not surprised by that, are you? Seems like water seeking its own level to me. I see no injustice here. I notice people who flock to the latest bandwagon with great urgency tend to have more problems than the rest of us. I again see no injustice to it. They are merely making a value judgment, just as I do when I elect not to join them.
You don't NEED a special number for everyone, you just need to test mental/physical function, not blood alcohol. For example, I have seen portable machines that can measure reaction time. With proper studies, you can determine a reasonable reaction time threshold for what is not dangerous and use THAT instead.
What you would find is that many people - who are cold sober - should have never received a license in the first place.
Women complain that if men can't be held responsible, then they can just walk away. To them I say: "If he's the kind of guy who will walk away, what the hell were you doing getting pregnant in the first place? The responsibility works both ways, whether you like it or not."
I've said that myself. It's a good way to be branded "sexist" by the small-minded. Not that I care. The truth is the truth and it didn't ask for my approval (nor theirs) prior to becoming the truth. I mean, if a woman falls off a cliff does that make gravity sexist? It really gets that ridiculous. Lots of people really are that emotionally immature.
The small-minded have a strange neglect of irony. I expect a woman to be able to make adult decisions and be responsible for the decisions she makes. I think both men and women can handle that. I'm the one actually treating them as equal to a man.
The small-minded want to treat women like they're helpless damsels who need extra protection from men because they are less than equal, hence all these one-sided arrangements and extra privileges benefitting women at the expense of men. The truly hilarious/pathetic thing is that they do this in the name of equality! It's difficult for me to imagine being this blind. They have a strange notion of "equality" that includes "holding current men responsible for what their distant ancestors may have done, and punishing them for it with double standards".
That's the problem with all of the "social justice" forms of thought. They make no sense when scrutinized. They are about locating the perceived strong and taking them down a peg or two. They are never about locating the perceived weak and teaching them to be stronger. The result is that everyone's standard is lowered and there is nothing to aspire to, just spite and other emotion.
Here it comes. "B.. b... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...
You are. You are also responsible for the repercussions.
In some countries speaking out against the state religion can result in a death penalty (e.g. Yemen, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia).
You'll be held responsible for breaking that law in those countries. But hey, you ARE free to say it. I mean, it's not like they gaze into a crystal ball and gag you just before you were about to say it.
So what's the big deal, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the ability to say it is not in question - whether there SHOULD BE legal repercussions is. I know a lot of people say what you've just said lately. It's fashionable. You heard it and it sounded good. It's become a meme in its own right. But memes are mindless and they keep you from noticing one thing: you're missing the point.
Thank you, I do quite agree. On the flip side I'm a total asshole, to some people, so while his argument was incorrect (the kind of women I date clearly don't think I'm an asshole, nor do my friends), his general statement holds some validity as to the opinion of the community as a whole.
But then that's exactly what you are saying, that the community in general has a twisted image and thus those that live different lives, while accepted and well liked in their own contexts, become assholes in the big picture.
Well, either way, I'm an infertile asshole... and I didn't have to shrink my testes to do it.
I'll add as an afterthought: lots of people will brand you "asshole" simply for not taking shit from them that you shouldn't have to put up with, that they're wrong to try to burden you with in the first place. But then few "adults" these days who have problems seem to possess the character to look at how they have contributed to the problems they experience. Let them think what they will. Too many people think the ideal man is a perfect doormat who never stands up for himself and that's simply false.
The people who treat others with respect that you actually want to have in your life, they will know better.
Thank you, I do quite agree. On the flip side I'm a total asshole, to some people, so while his argument was incorrect (the kind of women I date clearly don't think I'm an asshole, nor do my friends), his general statement holds some validity as to the opinion of the community as a whole.
But then that's exactly what you are saying, that the community in general has a twisted image and thus those that live different lives, while accepted and well liked in their own contexts, become assholes in the big picture.
Well, either way, I'm an infertile asshole... and I didn't have to shrink my testes to do it.
Besides, those women who would lie about birth control (or whatever) to trick a guy into becoming a father are some of the most selfish being imaginable.
If they cared about the well-being of their children at all, they'd have learned that a father who is involved in their lives makes them much more likely to graduate school, to stay out of jail later in life, and a whole host of other factors. A court-ordered child-support provider who does not want to actually raise a child is no substitute for this. Those women are simply putting their own petty wants ahead of what we know is good for children.
Well, of course our experience would differ - we are very different people clearly, with very different search criteria. Let's say you look for girls of type U. Since girls of type T and V are similar, you'll dismiss all other girls, but you'll end up having to look closer at girls in the group TUV in order to find the ones that match best - the Us. Meanwhile I look for girls of type maybe I'm looking for type V, but since type U and W have similar characteristics, I dismiss all other girls and end up looking closer at girls in the group UVW. And thus there are girls I look at that you never meet, and girls you look at that I never meet. Because we dismiss them offhand due to other more immediate reasons.
Of course more likely you look for girls in the group ABC and I look in the group XYZ, but that's largely another story. Even in my subset these women are not the majority, but since they WILL lie and deceive to get their goals, they are over-represented in the girls that get past the first checks and balances.
So getting a vasectomy for me was a simple choice and an easy solution. I don't want to procreate, and telling girls that up front had no result. But telling them up front that I've had a vasectomy and CAN NOT procreate, well that is a new check that weeds out any of these crazies quickly, efficiently, and decisively.
And you can call me an ass-hole all you want, I still say Tacitus is overrated.:P
It's a typical double-standard like several we have regarding women. It's because we don't really want to think of them as equals, we want to think of them as more than equal to prove what a knight in shining armor we are.
A woman who plans for her future, protects herself from risks she does not want to take, and won't let a man take advantage of her is a strong woman.
A man who plans for his future, protects himself from risks he does not want to take, and won't let a woman take advantage of him.. well that guy's an asshole.
That's the double standard. I say let them call you an asshole. No man should be tricked into being a father. It should be an equal, bilateral decision.
I'm actually trying to speak to a much larger and broader range of social problems and inconsistency from which such behavior stems.
Whatever the topic, that's a great way to be misunderstood by people who assume they know where you're coming from.
We're a symptom-driven society. We don't care so much about underlying causes. We tend to overlook those because they're uncomfortable. They tend to suggest that we should change, and change is always for other people. Really appreciating principle is "too hard" or "too much work" if you're unaccustomed to it. We can even convince ourselves that it's too abstract and unrelated to the immediate matter. There's always an excuse for taking the easy route of being shallow, for not having the courage of a deeper appreciation of life.
The price for this is that we always have some issues to address or problems to fix or little fires to put out. We stay so busy, fretting about this and that. We can even pat ourselves on the back for how busy we are. The problem is that it eventually becomes unsustainable, on both personal and national levels.
This is hand-waving. I wasn't "spouting" any psychology, in fact. If you want that, please visit a psychologist. Simple enough. Although, I will tell you, if psychology as a science had any real merit, the number of mentally unhealthy people would be decreasing. It's increasing. In my personal opinion it's little more than a marketing wing of the pharmaceutical companies.
Anyway, this is like I am telling you that I saw a few deer in the woods and then you complain that I haven't fully explained in rigorous terms the processes of evolution and biology which produced them. Therefore, I seriously doubt anything I say is going to satisfy you.
You see it in politics all the time: Candidate A disagrees that a given proposal is an effective way to reduce pollution, so Candidate B declares he wants us all to breathe dirty air. That's what you're doing. If Candidate B were a reasonable person, he'd consider that maybe the other guy just wants something with a higher chance of success, but he can't do that. After all, Candidate A is "the enemy" so he must be wrong! Besides, giving benefit of doubt would mean "aiding and abetting the enemy".
If you really want to do this, I am not the lightweight you were looking for. If you really want to fit the pattern, then at this point your prime concern will be saving face, so you'll either decide not to reply anymore or you'll try to make me angry with invective.
The relationship between drugs and psychosis is complex and not completely understood... but your point-of-view is hopelessly outdated. Drug-related psychosis has little to do with the "dissolution of inhibition".
It's a simple fact that there are lots of people who do not steal, rape, assault, or even murder simply because they are afraid of getting caught. The laws on the books are for people who cannot control themselves, and therefore must be threatened with force. They will not do the right thing on their own because they are outwardly motivated. Aristotle said it best: "I do because of my philosophy what others do only from fear of the law."
So what happens to these people when their fear of consequence and ability to plan ahead is suddenly and artificially reduced? This is controversial to you? I am an "armchair psychologist" because I can see this for myself?
That's all. If you think I am positing a "theory of inhibition" as an explanation for all human behavior, you have grossly misinterpreted me by reading into my words meaning that was not there. Really now, if I meant it that way I am more than capable of stating this explicitly. I bet that didn't cross your mind, Candidate B. I mention inhibition only as an example. Becoming fixated on that in order to miss the greater point being made was your decision. It's a classic failure to see the forest because of all the trees.
If you thought I was trying to give in a few paragraphs the Ultimate Complete Scientific Theory of All Things Psychological then naturally you will be disappointed. That again was your choice. Have the decency to take responsibility for that and you'll suddenly find yourself less condescending and more constructive. And don't worry. If I am offering a formal, scientific, rigorous, psychological theory I will remember to label it as such.
Some drugs do cause people to behave monstrously. And alcohol even more so.
No drug, not even alcohol, can bring out of a person something that was not already in that person. A lot of people have unresolved emotional baggage, insecurities, and unhealthy tendencies that they barely keep in check, mostly through fear of consequence. This is not real character or real strength and the dissolution of inhibition can cause it to break down.
What drugs can do is break down the illusion of being normal that many fucked-up people try so hard to project. There are a lot of fucked up people trying hard to appear normal "like everybody else".
The real tragedy is that we live in such a shallow and unenlightened society that a) people blame the drug for this, b) we generally like to blame drugs, guns, and other inanimate objects for what people do, and c) the shallow, exclusive focus on external behavior and appearances means that many people don't know what real character actually is.
People who have real character don't become "a different person" when drunk or high. They don't do things while intoxicated that they wouldn't do while sober. They weren't faking it while sober. They don't need inhibitions and they don't need fear of consequence to stop them from doing stupid and harmful things. They simply have no such desires. They can get very drunk and the only observable changes are that their speech slurs, they are wobbly or stumble while walking, and they become more loquacious.
I'll reiterate, we live in a truly shallow and unenlightened society where the most ignorant and emotionally immature are the most comfortable. I sincerely believe that future historians will regard this as a Dark Age, technology notwithstanding. Drugs are simply one of those things where stupidity has a price and cannot simply be glossed over or made into a burden that someone else must bear. That's the only reason they've become such a big deal.
Guess what, your computers boots right into 16-color text mode (used by the BIOS and sometimes by Windows as part of the boot sequence) using EGA colors. Not sure if that's relevant but it might be. Linux might also use something similar for its boot process and for Ctrl+Alt+Fn terminals.
Yes. When it does that, the OS has not yet loaded. Hell, the boot loader (GRUB in my case) has not yet loaded.
It's obviously implemented in hardware. That means it has nothing to do with the nVidia driver that my OS loads up and whether that nVidia driver supports EGA.
So okay, I'll rephrase my previous comment from "nobody uses it" to "no one needs the nVidia driver to provide it".
Slashdot Mirror
LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE! YOU WILL LOSE DATA!
Sorry... I'm usually a calm rational person. I almost never become a grammar-nazi, spelling nazi, or troll. It's just that I see this so often I'm afraid one day Webster will just give up and switch the definitions of Lose and Loose.
It's a socially patterned form of mindlessness. I especially like to call it "an example of sheeple" because that word seems to really, really stick in some peoples' craw. Perhaps the whole sheep/shepherd analogy is too accurate for them to handle?
... five years ago I never saw anyone making that error. Then, one day, lots of people started doing it all at once. It's as though many tens of thousands of people all got together in a big smoky stadium and conspired to all do the same stupid thing.
At any rate
While I seriously doubt there was an actual formal conspiracy, it definitely is an example of following the crowd without critical thought (the domain of individuals) and mindlessly imitating what is seen. When people can't even come up with their own mistakes anymore, you know individuality is in trouble. The funny thing is, each of these people would swear (and probably pass a polygraph) that they are individuals. The most sincere belief in the world is useless if it's inconsistent with observed reality.
So that's another item on the list of things people develop by means of monkey-see-monkey-do instead of observation and introspection. Previous entries on that list include personality, mannerisms, tastes/preferences, lack of situational awareness due to self-absorption, and the inability to drive a vehicle for five miles without repeatedly crossing over the double-yellow line.
On the whole we certainly are a "fine" species.
AC, I wish I knew who you were so I could praise you properly. Instead, I can just say, "Fuck Yes."
I ended up using my mod points elsewhere, so I'm willing to identify myself.
That was me. I was actually wondering if the writing style was going to be a give-away, or perhaps the fact that the mentality he showed is the kind of thing I often speak against.
The unfortunate fact is that it's very important to many people to have some reason to look down their nose at another person and judge them as inferior in some way. This particularly happens to people who are noble and display virtue, or to people who accomplish things (like J. Wales), or who display advanced intellect and reasoning skills. Their unusual qualities make them stand out as targets for this kind of treatment. It makes them a special prize.
You can see easily how absurd this one was. If the guy seriously believes that Wales is running a scam, why hasn't he approached his local police department and demanded an investigation? Oh yeah, because the police want evidence, that's why. Since Wikipedia is not a scam, there is of course no evidence.
The world is full of immature, insecure little busybodies who remain that way because all of their energies are poured into various attempts to control others or to take them down a peg or two, even if only in their own small minds. When they start to occupy multiple key positions of power and people tolerate this (usually by making an excuse to cover it), your nation's viability is questionable to put it mildly. Fascists and Communists everywhere have always exploited this tendency of the small-minded, typically by providing a scapegoat or other form of national enemy to consolidate their power. That's the large-scale, fully developed form.
The small-scale personal form is someone with nothing to contribute so they try to tear down. They don't plan this deliberately and intentionally. Very little of what they do is deliberate and driven by reason or design. It's impulsive and driven by emotion; nonetheless there is a distinct pattern to it. I consider it a benchmark of our decadence that most people have become this way. It's the result of viewing virtue as an inconvenient list of rules and not as self-evident truth that is a joy to observe.
The process you describe could just as easily be that tyranny is the end stage of all free societies.
Sure, just as death could be called the end-stage of all living things. That doesn't mean all living things should kill themselves.
Some groups of a few people who care have changed the world. A far larger number of groups of a few people who cared have found the world unyielding to their efforts.
If you only ever do things that statistics favor, you're going to lead a most boring and undistinguished life. Life has always existed despite the odds, vibrant life doubly so. I choose to believe I am of consequence to the universe... and since you believe you are not of consequence to the universe, you are... of no consequence at all.
In an agape kind of spirit, I really wish you well, especially after reading what you wrote. In other words: fuck yeah. You're in that zone today where the important things are self-evident AND you can articulate them. What a wonderful state to represent!
... if we realize we're all one?! It'd fuck up the economy!"
Except I wouldn't say he's of no consequence at all. I would say he's not yet aware of his own significance, of just how much we're in all of this together. *
While I definitely believe it is going to work out, because that is inherently in the nature of the beauty that is unfolding from the Universe, the widespread ignorance is certainly distasteful. I don't know a single excellent soul who didn't have to endure extensive contact with it.
It really seems to make things harder than they would otherwise have to be. A few change the world from time to time because it never seems to be the majority who understand this. If that ever happened, I do believe it would be something like heaven on earth.
* Ever head much from Bill Hicks? "How are we gonna keep building nuclear weapons
A right which is not enforced by men , is a non existing right. You can spout around that you have the right of free speech, but if the governement decide you do not have it, then *pouf* it is gone. There is not such a thing as "natural right"
What was unique about the Founding Fathers is that they didn't see what you point out and say "oh no, it's not a guarantee, we're so screwed!" No, they saw what you point out and responded with "then it's clearly up to us, and we'll do whatever it takes to have them". The rose to the occasion and gave their counter-answer to what you pose. To them it was a cyclical process in which liberty ebbs and flows. It's not terribly different from the water cycle, or the carbon cycle, or the nitrogen cycle. It's simply one of nature's patterns, patterns of which men are not entirely exempt.
A "right" which is not enforced by an entity is a right you lost or do not have. Only when an enforcing entity help applying that right you got it. There is not such a thing as natural right, as natural law is the law of the strongest, and the only right you got then is the one which you can enforce yourself.
Some entities are more just than others, and that tree is known by it fruit.
The fact is that every empire and every dictatorship which became decadent and tyrannical (that is, all of them) has collapsed. It is an inherently unstable form. It is self-defeating. No free nation would ever collapse. It has to become tyrannical first. Then and only then can it collapse.
It's not just a smorgasbord of equally valid options that happen to all be equally viable. No. Some are inherently stronger, more sustainable, and more virtuous and tend to do a better job of promoting prosperity and well-being. When it's the law of the jungle, the average life-span is much shorter and quality of life is lower. According to any human standard, they are not interchangable options. The lust for power is always short-term gain at the expense of sustainability. It always fails.
Cats and dogs aren't sentient. Neither is wildlife.
They aren't sapient. But they are definitely sentient. They have feeligs. They have likes and dislikes. If they are in pain they cry out, just like we do.
Reason is what we can do that they cannot. It's one of our very most human qualities. I wish it were more widely appreciated as such. Reason would never lead you to harm another or violate another's rights, at least not without some damned solid provocation.
The government can simply work with companies to get the info (whatever government isn't allowed to do can simply be passed off to companies). I don't expect that my actions be secret, but I do expect that I shouldn't need to walk around with a mask everywhere I go just because some idiots can't differentiate between mass surveillance and some bystander spotting you while walking down the street.
I agree with you 100% about the mass surveillance thing. I have no idea why people are so eager to portray it as a completely 100% harmless condition that could never, ever be used against them. Apparently they've never heard the saying by Cardinal Richelieu: "give me six lines penned by the most honest hand, and I will find something in them which will hang him". Now imagine that applied not only to whatever you write, but to everything you say, everything you do, everywhere you go, stored indefinitely, in a nation with so many tens of thousands of laws it's nearly impossible to never break at least one of them...
If you want to embrace a no-privacy world, I sure hope that every human being on earth, including criminals, including tyrants, thinks you're a great person and never wants to harm you, because that sure is easier to do when they know a lot about you.
Regarding the government cooperating with companies to get around restrictions placed on government, the restrictions against government merely need to be updated to include "nor shall this be done by proxy". That would make it consistent with every law telling real people what they may not do. For a couple of hypothetical examples, you are not allowed to rob someone, nor are you allowed to hire a thug to rob someone; in both cases you would be prosecuted. Hiring a hit-man won't keep you from being prosecuted for murder even though you didn't perform the act personally. Restrictions on government need to close this "by proxy" loophole. Then they will be harmonized with the kind of laws each of us are expected to obey.
I think that was a subtle nod. A little gesture acknowledging that there are, somewhere, female programmers out there. Probably.
Since we're obsessed with group identity these days, we can't just let that fact stand on its own (significant) merits.
In a truly unbiased society we wouldn't think of this as unusual or otherwise worthy of special mention. The attitude would be more like "of course women can be programmers, and water is wet, grass is green, the sky is blue..."
I asked him what he knew about 'The Cloud' the other day; his response?
"How the fuck should I know? I'm a biological engineer, not a goddamn weatherman!"
Okay, despite his confusion, at least he admitted he was ignorant about the subject. At least he didn't go and form a strong opinion and start arguing about a subject he knows nothing about.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'." -- Isaac Asimov
This Slashdot article may as well have said "average public school-educated Americans unable to distinguish their own (obese) ass from a hole in the ground."
Sure that may sound like I am being negative. But it's so hard not to be negative about this. Without even considering its finances, there is good reason to question the long-term viability of my nation. You just can't have this many adult people who hate thinking, who embrace anti-intellectualism, and expect to remain prosperous. It's not even just anti-intellectualism, as though that were not bad enough. Emotional intelligence is on the decline as well, and it manifests as a bunch of people who generally mean well, but are far too self-absorbed to understand things so basic as "needlessly blocking a doorway in a public place is rude".
They do mean well but they tend to be childish, indulgent, and haven't the maturity to overcome their own thoughts and their own worries. That's why when I say "self-absorbed" I don't mean it in terms of narcissism, I mean it in terms of having become so thoroughly alienated from their fellow humans that they are unable to consider how their actions affect others. Generally the USA is becoming decadent like every other great nation just before its collapse.
I am seriously wondering just how hard it is for an American to immigrate to a small Western European nation and become a naturalized citizen.
I understand the dislike, distrust and sometimes even hatred of things like facebook, but assuming that anyone with an active facebook account isn't aware of the issues seems to be a common mistake around here.
Thinking that you can play footsies with the Devil and never ever get burned is another very common mistake.
... and then participating in those companies' offerings anyway, well that's another all-too-common mistake. It always seems like your own individual contribution is a tiny drop in a big bucket, but then masses of people make this mistake and it really matters.
Or saying that you have a set of principles by which you recognize certain companies' behavior as evil, exploitative, maladaptive, undesirable, etc
I still choose to use it, because it's a good way to keep in touch with my many friends around the world; post pictures of my daughter growing up for anyone who cares to see that; organise events with friends in an easy to manage interface; and so on. I do block pretty much every game, "application" and so on and it's almost beyond the pale to imagine I would ever consider using such a payment system as the one described; however that doesn't mean I have to get rid of using facebook altogether - just don't use what you don't want (and remember the thing about scrawling your information in public, as already mentioned).
What "I don't want" is to ever make more successful a company that does business this way. What "I don't want" is to ever feel like no one ever had any way to keep in touch before the advent of Facebook. What I especially "don't want" is to promote the kind of culture surrounding Facebook. Joining them would be the same as giving my silent consent. In most relationships of abuse and exploitation, what you describe above is called being an enabler. You see, it's not a matter of features.
There is no convenience Facebook could ever offer me that would convince me to overlook their attitude towards their users. It is definitely not an attitude of respect and appreciation. It's more like the attitude a farmer has towards his livestock. That's simply unacceptable to me under any terms. I don't care to make a game of being the cow or chicken and seeing how much feed I can get out of the farmer while trying to avoid the privacy slaughterhouse. I probably could win such a game, like you are doing, but then I can definitely get my own feed. I'd rather simply have nothing to do with Facebook, have never once had an account, never visited the site, block their "Like buttons" etc, and I have never once regretted that decision.
Imagine if every user who felt the way you do decided not to use Facebook. It would create demand for a more reasonable social network. Right now starting one would fail because everyone is already on Facebook, and much of the utility of such a site is the number of people you can reach with it. Even a giant like Google is having grave difficulty getting an alternative off the ground, and most startups wouldn't have Google's deep pockets and name recognition.
The goal here is to make payment so easy that you don't have the time to reconsider the purchase decision while, for instance, you're pulling out your wallet to get out your credit card.
Sure. They are encouraging impulsiveness and giving impulsive (undisciplined) people what they want.
These are people that firmly believe that the way to make the world a better place is to make it easier for them to buy stuff whether or not it is of any use to them whatsoever.
Then their relationship to the world is that of a parasite. They are feeding off a character weakness. Of course they think that's good. Ticks and fleas think sucking your blood is good, too.
It's just that the mainstream is not terribly thoughtful or insightful. So when it's something physical and obvious, like a tick sucking blood, they recoil and see that it's a nasty parasite. When it's something nonphysical requiring a bit of perspective, like encouraging a character weakness for profit, they mostly excuse and defend it, talking about how convenient it is. That is the only potential upside, so they have to play it up as much as possible.
I know, because I've attended one of the major conferences in the industry and met some of these folks and listened to their talks about this sort of technology.
To be among that many marketdroids... Did it resemble a robotics class?
And of course, what makes it easy for a legitimate business to take your money also makes it easy for a not-so-legitimate business or a thief to take your money.
Yes, those who are dumb/shallow enough to think this is a great idea, are likely dumb enough not to see that it represents extra risk. You're not surprised by that, are you? Seems like water seeking its own level to me. I see no injustice here. I notice people who flock to the latest bandwagon with great urgency tend to have more problems than the rest of us. I again see no injustice to it. They are merely making a value judgment, just as I do when I elect not to join them.
You don't NEED a special number for everyone, you just need to test mental/physical function, not blood alcohol. For example, I have seen portable machines that can measure reaction time. With proper studies, you can determine a reasonable reaction time threshold for what is not dangerous and use THAT instead.
What you would find is that many people - who are cold sober - should have never received a license in the first place.
Women complain that if men can't be held responsible, then they can just walk away. To them I say: "If he's the kind of guy who will walk away, what the hell were you doing getting pregnant in the first place? The responsibility works both ways, whether you like it or not."
I've said that myself. It's a good way to be branded "sexist" by the small-minded. Not that I care. The truth is the truth and it didn't ask for my approval (nor theirs) prior to becoming the truth. I mean, if a woman falls off a cliff does that make gravity sexist? It really gets that ridiculous. Lots of people really are that emotionally immature.
The small-minded have a strange neglect of irony. I expect a woman to be able to make adult decisions and be responsible for the decisions she makes. I think both men and women can handle that. I'm the one actually treating them as equal to a man.
The small-minded want to treat women like they're helpless damsels who need extra protection from men because they are less than equal, hence all these one-sided arrangements and extra privileges benefitting women at the expense of men. The truly hilarious/pathetic thing is that they do this in the name of equality! It's difficult for me to imagine being this blind. They have a strange notion of "equality" that includes "holding current men responsible for what their distant ancestors may have done, and punishing them for it with double standards".
That's the problem with all of the "social justice" forms of thought. They make no sense when scrutinized. They are about locating the perceived strong and taking them down a peg or two. They are never about locating the perceived weak and teaching them to be stronger. The result is that everyone's standard is lowered and there is nothing to aspire to, just spite and other emotion.
Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...
You are. You are also responsible for the repercussions.
In some countries speaking out against the state religion can result in a death penalty (e.g. Yemen, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia).
You'll be held responsible for breaking that law in those countries. But hey, you ARE free to say it. I mean, it's not like they gaze into a crystal ball and gag you just before you were about to say it.
So what's the big deal, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the ability to say it is not in question - whether there SHOULD BE legal repercussions is. I know a lot of people say what you've just said lately. It's fashionable. You heard it and it sounded good. It's become a meme in its own right. But memes are mindless and they keep you from noticing one thing: you're missing the point.
and just jump straight to discussing which side has more money rather than which side has valid points?
There was a pretense?
Thank you, I do quite agree. On the flip side I'm a total asshole, to some people, so while his argument was incorrect (the kind of women I date clearly don't think I'm an asshole, nor do my friends), his general statement holds some validity as to the opinion of the community as a whole.
But then that's exactly what you are saying, that the community in general has a twisted image and thus those that live different lives, while accepted and well liked in their own contexts, become assholes in the big picture.
Well, either way, I'm an infertile asshole... and I didn't have to shrink my testes to do it.
I'll add as an afterthought: lots of people will brand you "asshole" simply for not taking shit from them that you shouldn't have to put up with, that they're wrong to try to burden you with in the first place. But then few "adults" these days who have problems seem to possess the character to look at how they have contributed to the problems they experience. Let them think what they will. Too many people think the ideal man is a perfect doormat who never stands up for himself and that's simply false.
The people who treat others with respect that you actually want to have in your life, they will know better.
Thank you, I do quite agree. On the flip side I'm a total asshole, to some people, so while his argument was incorrect (the kind of women I date clearly don't think I'm an asshole, nor do my friends), his general statement holds some validity as to the opinion of the community as a whole.
But then that's exactly what you are saying, that the community in general has a twisted image and thus those that live different lives, while accepted and well liked in their own contexts, become assholes in the big picture.
Well, either way, I'm an infertile asshole... and I didn't have to shrink my testes to do it.
Besides, those women who would lie about birth control (or whatever) to trick a guy into becoming a father are some of the most selfish being imaginable.
If they cared about the well-being of their children at all, they'd have learned that a father who is involved in their lives makes them much more likely to graduate school, to stay out of jail later in life, and a whole host of other factors. A court-ordered child-support provider who does not want to actually raise a child is no substitute for this. Those women are simply putting their own petty wants ahead of what we know is good for children.
Well, of course our experience would differ - we are very different people clearly, with very different search criteria. Let's say you look for girls of type U. Since girls of type T and V are similar, you'll dismiss all other girls, but you'll end up having to look closer at girls in the group TUV in order to find the ones that match best - the Us. Meanwhile I look for girls of type maybe I'm looking for type V, but since type U and W have similar characteristics, I dismiss all other girls and end up looking closer at girls in the group UVW. And thus there are girls I look at that you never meet, and girls you look at that I never meet. Because we dismiss them offhand due to other more immediate reasons.
Of course more likely you look for girls in the group ABC and I look in the group XYZ, but that's largely another story. Even in my subset these women are not the majority, but since they WILL lie and deceive to get their goals, they are over-represented in the girls that get past the first checks and balances.
So getting a vasectomy for me was a simple choice and an easy solution. I don't want to procreate, and telling girls that up front had no result. But telling them up front that I've had a vasectomy and CAN NOT procreate, well that is a new check that weeds out any of these crazies quickly, efficiently, and decisively.
And you can call me an ass-hole all you want, I still say Tacitus is overrated. :P
It's a typical double-standard like several we have regarding women. It's because we don't really want to think of them as equals, we want to think of them as more than equal to prove what a knight in shining armor we are.
.. well that guy's an asshole.
A woman who plans for her future, protects herself from risks she does not want to take, and won't let a man take advantage of her is a strong woman.
A man who plans for his future, protects himself from risks he does not want to take, and won't let a woman take advantage of him
That's the double standard. I say let them call you an asshole. No man should be tricked into being a father. It should be an equal, bilateral decision.
Find me a reasonable person, I dare you!
Just be glad that the law reads "reasonable person" and not "average person".
I'm actually trying to speak to a much larger and broader range of social problems and inconsistency from which such behavior stems.
Whatever the topic, that's a great way to be misunderstood by people who assume they know where you're coming from.
We're a symptom-driven society. We don't care so much about underlying causes. We tend to overlook those because they're uncomfortable. They tend to suggest that we should change, and change is always for other people. Really appreciating principle is "too hard" or "too much work" if you're unaccustomed to it. We can even convince ourselves that it's too abstract and unrelated to the immediate matter. There's always an excuse for taking the easy route of being shallow, for not having the courage of a deeper appreciation of life.
The price for this is that we always have some issues to address or problems to fix or little fires to put out. We stay so busy, fretting about this and that. We can even pat ourselves on the back for how busy we are. The problem is that it eventually becomes unsustainable, on both personal and national levels.
Please stop spouting armchair psychology.
This is hand-waving. I wasn't "spouting" any psychology, in fact. If you want that, please visit a psychologist. Simple enough. Although, I will tell you, if psychology as a science had any real merit, the number of mentally unhealthy people would be decreasing. It's increasing. In my personal opinion it's little more than a marketing wing of the pharmaceutical companies.
Anyway, this is like I am telling you that I saw a few deer in the woods and then you complain that I haven't fully explained in rigorous terms the processes of evolution and biology which produced them. Therefore, I seriously doubt anything I say is going to satisfy you.
You see it in politics all the time: Candidate A disagrees that a given proposal is an effective way to reduce pollution, so Candidate B declares he wants us all to breathe dirty air. That's what you're doing. If Candidate B were a reasonable person, he'd consider that maybe the other guy just wants something with a higher chance of success, but he can't do that. After all, Candidate A is "the enemy" so he must be wrong! Besides, giving benefit of doubt would mean "aiding and abetting the enemy".
If you really want to do this, I am not the lightweight you were looking for. If you really want to fit the pattern, then at this point your prime concern will be saving face, so you'll either decide not to reply anymore or you'll try to make me angry with invective.
The relationship between drugs and psychosis is complex and not completely understood... but your point-of-view is hopelessly outdated. Drug-related psychosis has little to do with the "dissolution of inhibition".
It's a simple fact that there are lots of people who do not steal, rape, assault, or even murder simply because they are afraid of getting caught. The laws on the books are for people who cannot control themselves, and therefore must be threatened with force. They will not do the right thing on their own because they are outwardly motivated. Aristotle said it best: "I do because of my philosophy what others do only from fear of the law."
So what happens to these people when their fear of consequence and ability to plan ahead is suddenly and artificially reduced? This is controversial to you? I am an "armchair psychologist" because I can see this for myself?
That's all. If you think I am positing a "theory of inhibition" as an explanation for all human behavior, you have grossly misinterpreted me by reading into my words meaning that was not there. Really now, if I meant it that way I am more than capable of stating this explicitly. I bet that didn't cross your mind, Candidate B. I mention inhibition only as an example. Becoming fixated on that in order to miss the greater point being made was your decision. It's a classic failure to see the forest because of all the trees.
If you thought I was trying to give in a few paragraphs the Ultimate Complete Scientific Theory of All Things Psychological then naturally you will be disappointed. That again was your choice. Have the decency to take responsibility for that and you'll suddenly find yourself less condescending and more constructive. And don't worry. If I am offering a formal, scientific, rigorous, psychological theory I will remember to label it as such.
Some drugs do cause people to behave monstrously. And alcohol even more so.
No drug, not even alcohol, can bring out of a person something that was not already in that person. A lot of people have unresolved emotional baggage, insecurities, and unhealthy tendencies that they barely keep in check, mostly through fear of consequence. This is not real character or real strength and the dissolution of inhibition can cause it to break down.
What drugs can do is break down the illusion of being normal that many fucked-up people try so hard to project. There are a lot of fucked up people trying hard to appear normal "like everybody else".
The real tragedy is that we live in such a shallow and unenlightened society that a) people blame the drug for this, b) we generally like to blame drugs, guns, and other inanimate objects for what people do, and c) the shallow, exclusive focus on external behavior and appearances means that many people don't know what real character actually is.
People who have real character don't become "a different person" when drunk or high. They don't do things while intoxicated that they wouldn't do while sober. They weren't faking it while sober. They don't need inhibitions and they don't need fear of consequence to stop them from doing stupid and harmful things. They simply have no such desires. They can get very drunk and the only observable changes are that their speech slurs, they are wobbly or stumble while walking, and they become more loquacious.
I'll reiterate, we live in a truly shallow and unenlightened society where the most ignorant and emotionally immature are the most comfortable. I sincerely believe that future historians will regard this as a Dark Age, technology notwithstanding. Drugs are simply one of those things where stupidity has a price and cannot simply be glossed over or made into a burden that someone else must bear. That's the only reason they've become such a big deal.
Life? What do you mean life? I ain't gotta life!
Megadeth, "Captive Honor", from the album Countdown to Extinction.
Nice reference.
Guess what, your computers boots right into 16-color text mode (used by the BIOS and sometimes by Windows as part of the boot sequence) using EGA colors. Not sure if that's relevant but it might be. Linux might also use something similar for its boot process and for Ctrl+Alt+Fn terminals.
Yes. When it does that, the OS has not yet loaded. Hell, the boot loader (GRUB in my case) has not yet loaded.
It's obviously implemented in hardware. That means it has nothing to do with the nVidia driver that my OS loads up and whether that nVidia driver supports EGA.
So okay, I'll rephrase my previous comment from "nobody uses it" to "no one needs the nVidia driver to provide it".
Removing that is further complicated by waiting to retain compatibility with older video standards (CGA, EGA).
... that nobody uses anymore, at least not with PC hardware.