> For some reason it seems that adults are not adorning themselves by the thousand in clothing lineups endorsed by rappers and rock stars.
Flamebait, or are you genuinely this superficial?
There is a point in getting the "meat" into space. A lot of geeks focus on the present difficulty and ignore the potential for discovering other, better, approaches. This is a typical geek fail for those of us who lack imagination.
Thanks for the amusing response. Actually (and seriously), in the goth scene, a lot of people are bi with the usual spectrum of interest bias that this entails. My last serious boyfriend *was* (literally) a whiney goth fag-boy, and a genuinely cool *individual* human being. I'm actually lesbian-biased, and I find the complete inability of so many men to connect with women at an emotional level to be the big off-putting factor. I like men with a 'feminine' side and I'm perfectly aware this doesn't automatically associate with sexual orientation or gender quirks. I *would* say that it *tends* to...
I've read your arguments, and I have to say that I don't find them compelling. I *do* suspect that your thinking is founded in the socialist dogma that says 'everyone is equal, culture is everything'. Don't misunderstand me - I'm a socialist. However, to claim that everyone is equal is to be in profound denial of the facts, There's *no way* I could ever have been a long distance runner - I'm just not built that way - I'm a mesomorph, as is everyone in my family. Further, I grew up in exactly the same familial and cultural environment - anti-intellectual council estate, overwhelmingly beer, coarse jokes, and and rugby - as my brothers.
There is a 45 point IQ gap between my brothers and I.
People are not the same as each other, face that fact.
I do, however, earnestly believe that people should have equal opportunity for access to medication and healthcare. This is a point of principle. Another point of principle is that people should be treated as *individuals*, regardless of where they come from, what colour their skin is, and what point you assume they *should* occupy on the gender/sexuality spectrum. In an ideal world, everyone should have the chance to find the role in life which suits them best. Women should not be barred from being in the armed forces, in the frontline if they so choose, as an example. To place people in boxes is to wrong them, unless they themselves are a good fit for the box and *choose* to live in it.
Unfortunately, the idiotic dogma that came out of some corners of the socialist and/or feminist camps has done neither socialism nor feminism any favours, and has played a real part in allowing the neocons to gain ascendancy.
Recognise the dogma for what it is: it's not even wrong.
It's funny to see government PHAIL in relation to technology issues. The UK government basically ignored teh internets until it snuck up and surprise buttsecksed them. They're still very much in the WTF!?! stage right now. I have to wonder whether Machiavelli would have been so clueless.
Here's the bad news... a lot of women really appreciate whiney emogoth fag-boys. Emotional connection, eldritch and compelling androgyny, plus you can play dress-up with them. And 3somes ftw - without all the tedious 'aw man I thought you meant with another *girl*' shit (tho it's always an option).
Have you ever considered the possibility that the cultural difference may be predicated on a genetic/physiological base?
Say, culture states that girls do X therefore I, identifying as a girl, will also do X?
And, if physiology allows for obvious physical dimorphism, why should there be no behavioural dimophism? It's clear enough in animal studies and from farming. Check out the word 'freemartin' in relation to cattle sometime. Humans are fundamentally different why?
In the book, in the preface I think, he states explicitly that the idea was already current and trialled when he wrote the story. I can't remember whether he attributes it to Mark Roth, but I do remember searching for background information and confirming the idea. I totally love his books - I so want to be an Ultra.
I think the point he's reinforcing is that too many scientists are extremely unimaginative. Imagination minus a scientifically-trained critical faculty makes you an artist, conversely, a critical faculty lacking imagination makes you a technician. Yes, I'm generalising (omgwtf lol).
Yes,quite. We mustn't play God, must we? After all, that's God's prerogative.
In case you misinterpret the thrust of this comment - not inconceivable because this *is* Slashdot, you should know that I'm *English*.
> Not quantitative, no - qualitative, maybe... Eating well is about much more than just getting the right nutrients, for one thing. If you eat properly and get the right nutrients from your food, you'll almost certainly be helping your overall physical and mental wellbeing in various ways.
Well, sure. Eating properly might be reasonably argued to include enjoying the sun at your favourite Mediterranean cafe, gossiping with your friends, watching the world go by. If this is coupled with a correct diet which compensates for distortions in your intake due to age, genetics and the stresses imposed by your work then so much the better. However, this is the real world, and unless you're lucky enough to work for NASA and live in California, it's often not quite that good.
> Not so much opinion as logic - although possibly not well expressed. My point is that if absorption isn't optimum then taking supplements is just a workaround, without addressing the causes of sub-optimal absorption. It's generally much better to fix a problem than to work around it.
Here's some more logic: absorption becomes less than optimal with age. If you bring this problem up with an average doctor he will laugh at you or regard you as a hypochodriac. There isn't a whole lot of focus at the consumer end of gerontology on fixing the problem. Work-arounds may be the best option given less than Hughes-like resources to throw at the issues.
You can do things with a digital signal that you can't easily do with analogue. You can, for example, include forward error correction codes in the bitstream, so if bits become corrupted at the far end, you have a chance of fixing them. Using hash functions like the CRC family or MD5, you have a very good chance of knowing that corruption has occured, and you can include a rettransmission request in your digital protocol (if it's 2-way).
But, like you said (with fewer words), digital isn't magic.
Someone tried to con me over the chat (initially via OKStupid) a while back. It wasn't the usual brand of 419 scam (email full of hilarious malapropisms, bizarrely pompous status claims, heavily reliance on affiliation with God, et cetera).
It was personal.
The person put time into it. I'll use 'she' because she presented as a woman, a Dutch woman in her mid 50s. I can usually tell when a guy is trying to pass as a woman in chat as the conversation devolves to sex within about two minutes and thirty seconds; there's zero emotional content.
She was dying of cancer. She was straight. I'm not, but in any case, and in all truth, she wasn't the kind of person I'd choose as a partner. No matter, she seemed like a sweet and decent person. Not overly smart, not stupid. Good at connecting; she liked talking about emotions and the people in her life. So do I. She told me about her husband and how much she'd loved and missed him (he'd died not long before). We talked about all sorts of inconsequential trivia. She talked, off and on, for about three months. She told me about her faith. How sweet - I'm an atheist, but I honestly find the nicer Christians to be good and sincere company (not *you*, you dribbling neocon fuckwits). About half-way through the three months, she said she wanted to arrange a will, and that she had no-one left that she could trust to act as executor. She wanted *me* to play that role. I was surprised and flattered, and not so certain of my own moral compass (I was really down on cash and a student at the time) that I felt comfortable with the idea. I told her I was an atheist (I hadn't brought it up until then - I don't tend to preach). She said it didn't matter; she said that she trusted me. I told her I'd think about it.
She didn't press the issue, until about six weeks later. This time ostensibly from her hospital bed in London (she'd been mobile and functional up until that point).
She underlined her desperation. She talked about practical mechanisms by means of which I could accomplish my role. She made one mistake: she asked for my bank account details. I asked her why she couldn't open a new account on which I would have signing powers. After all, it would keep the finances clean and separate and allow for proof that I'd fulfilled my duties correctly, should need arise. She didn't give a satisfactory answer, and at *that* point, the penny dropped. I felt hurt and stupid. I voiced my feelings. I stopped talking to her.
There was still the nagging doubt that she might have been for-real, so I did nothing beyond this. I continued to feel guilty about the possibility that her story was true until time, and continual analysis of the event, satisfied me that she was full of shit.
Why, though, did she target *me*? I was a *poor* physics student at the time. And why did she spend so much time on it? We probably chatted a total of maybe 16-20 hours. In that time she could have made more money working at McDonalds than she'd have made out of *my* account...
Unless there are other identity-theft related uses for a genuine bank account belonging to a real human. With history.
Totally. And without the said 'shortcuts' our interactions with society would be completely dysfunctional - too slow and bogged down in bureaucratic information cross-checks to work at at all. There's the clothing effect, for example. I know someone who cosplayed a (very convincing) FBI man. He was old enough to carry the look off. At the convention he was widely ignored by other cosplayers and routinely treated by staff as a member of the security infrastructure.
It makes *us* individually vulnerable, but it makes our society stronger, overall.
But yes, your point about kindness, selflessness and so on... agreed.
Actually, in programming jobs in the past, I've noticed that employers tend to frown on thinking time. UNless you *look* like you're working, they bitch. They should really equip cubicles with treadmills. They can recoup the cost of powering your IT gear, ensure that you're at the optimum level of fitness (until you're too old to be useful and/or fuckable, ie, 45), and more to the point you can *look* like you're working.
Hooray for the shiny capitalist gulags of tomorrow! Free market FTW!
Slashdot Mirror
> For some reason it seems that adults are not adorning themselves by the thousand in clothing lineups endorsed by rappers and rock stars. Flamebait, or are you genuinely this superficial?
There is a point in getting the "meat" into space. A lot of geeks focus on the present difficulty and ignore the potential for discovering other, better, approaches. This is a typical geek fail for those of us who lack imagination.
Thanks for the amusing response. Actually (and seriously), in the goth scene, a lot of people are bi with the usual spectrum of interest bias that this entails. My last serious boyfriend *was* (literally) a whiney goth fag-boy, and a genuinely cool *individual* human being. I'm actually lesbian-biased, and I find the complete inability of so many men to connect with women at an emotional level to be the big off-putting factor. I like men with a 'feminine' side and I'm perfectly aware this doesn't automatically associate with sexual orientation or gender quirks. I *would* say that it *tends* to...
Regards,
S --- neurotic middle-aged carpet-munching hag
I've read your arguments, and I have to say that I don't find them compelling. I *do* suspect that your thinking is founded in the socialist dogma that says 'everyone is equal, culture is everything'. Don't misunderstand me - I'm a socialist. However, to claim that everyone is equal is to be in profound denial of the facts, There's *no way* I could ever have been a long distance runner - I'm just not built that way - I'm a mesomorph, as is everyone in my family. Further, I grew up in exactly the same familial and cultural environment - anti-intellectual council estate, overwhelmingly beer, coarse jokes, and and rugby - as my brothers.
There is a 45 point IQ gap between my brothers and I.
People are not the same as each other, face that fact.
I do, however, earnestly believe that people should have equal opportunity for access to medication and healthcare. This is a point of principle. Another point of principle is that people should be treated as *individuals*, regardless of where they come from, what colour their skin is, and what point you assume they *should* occupy on the gender/sexuality spectrum. In an ideal world, everyone should have the chance to find the role in life which suits them best. Women should not be barred from being in the armed forces, in the frontline if they so choose, as an example. To place people in boxes is to wrong them, unless they themselves are a good fit for the box and *choose* to live in it.
Unfortunately, the idiotic dogma that came out of some corners of the socialist and/or feminist camps has done neither socialism nor feminism any favours, and has played a real part in allowing the neocons to gain ascendancy.
Recognise the dogma for what it is: it's not even wrong.
It's funny to see government PHAIL in relation to technology issues. The UK government basically ignored teh internets until it snuck up and surprise buttsecksed them. They're still very much in the WTF!?! stage right now. I have to wonder whether Machiavelli would have been so clueless.
Here's the bad news... a lot of women really appreciate whiney emogoth fag-boys. Emotional connection, eldritch and compelling androgyny, plus you can play dress-up with them. And 3somes ftw - without all the tedious 'aw man I thought you meant with another *girl*' shit (tho it's always an option).
Love em to death, personally.
Your wife is a lucky woman. :-)
Have you ever considered the possibility that the cultural difference may be predicated on a genetic/physiological base? Say, culture states that girls do X therefore I, identifying as a girl, will also do X? And, if physiology allows for obvious physical dimorphism, why should there be no behavioural dimophism? It's clear enough in animal studies and from farming. Check out the word 'freemartin' in relation to cattle sometime. Humans are fundamentally different why?
I thought it flowed quite well. It was a pure entertainment piece, intended for a particular market, which shouldn't detract from Roth's work.
In the book, in the preface I think, he states explicitly that the idea was already current and trialled when he wrote the story. I can't remember whether he attributes it to Mark Roth, but I do remember searching for background information and confirming the idea. I totally love his books - I so want to be an Ultra.
I think the point he's reinforcing is that too many scientists are extremely unimaginative. Imagination minus a scientifically-trained critical faculty makes you an artist, conversely, a critical faculty lacking imagination makes you a technician. Yes, I'm generalising (omgwtf lol).
Schrodinger's cat says hi. Or maybe he doesn't.
Schrodinger's cat sez hai lolz r maibe he duznted.
Fixed.
Yes,quite. We mustn't play God, must we? After all, that's God's prerogative. In case you misinterpret the thrust of this comment - not inconceivable because this *is* Slashdot, you should know that I'm *English*.
> Not quantitative, no - qualitative, maybe... Eating well is about much more than just getting the right nutrients, for one thing. If you eat properly and get the right nutrients from your food, you'll almost certainly be helping your overall physical and mental wellbeing in various ways.
Well, sure. Eating properly might be reasonably argued to include enjoying the sun at your favourite Mediterranean cafe, gossiping with your friends, watching the world go by. If this is coupled with a correct diet which compensates for distortions in your intake due to age, genetics and the stresses imposed by your work then so much the better. However, this is the real world, and unless you're lucky enough to work for NASA and live in California, it's often not quite that good.
> Not so much opinion as logic - although possibly not well expressed. My point is that if absorption isn't optimum then taking supplements is just a workaround, without addressing the causes of sub-optimal absorption. It's generally much better to fix a problem than to work around it.
Here's some more logic: absorption becomes less than optimal with age. If you bring this problem up with an average doctor he will laugh at you or regard you as a hypochodriac. There isn't a whole lot of focus at the consumer end of gerontology on fixing the problem. Work-arounds may be the best option given less than Hughes-like resources to throw at the issues.
> But if it is true then it's time to fix your diet so you're eating better food with more absorbable forms of the relevant nutrients
Can you provide a quanititative argument/evidence as to why this is necessarily better than taking well-chose vitamin supplements?
> taking supplements doesn't help your body deal with absorption difficulties.
And is this just opinion, or is it based in any kind of study? If so, links, plz.
Hey! so if I run all the time and eat nothing but lentils, I'm gonna be immortal!
> but it isn't particularly well suited for algorithms and other maths oriented stuff.
STL? Discrete math up the wazooo? Well, maybe not up the *wazoo*...
72%... I'm not American either, though I *did* start to care about politics when the Neocons started to ping my asshat radar.
> Also, the creators of Cheers have also cited the Python humor as being an influence.
I don't see it either. Cheers always struck me as wallpaper sitcom.
Hahaha, yeah.
You can do things with a digital signal that you can't easily do with analogue. You can, for example, include forward error correction codes in the bitstream, so if bits become corrupted at the far end, you have a chance of fixing them. Using hash functions like the CRC family or MD5, you have a very good chance of knowing that corruption has occured, and you can include a rettransmission request in your digital protocol (if it's 2-way).
But, like you said (with fewer words), digital isn't magic.
Someone tried to con me over the chat (initially via OKStupid) a while back. It wasn't the usual brand of 419 scam (email full of hilarious malapropisms, bizarrely pompous status claims, heavily reliance on affiliation with God, et cetera).
It was personal.
The person put time into it. I'll use 'she' because she presented as a woman, a Dutch woman in her mid 50s. I can usually tell when a guy is trying to pass as a woman in chat as the conversation devolves to sex within about two minutes and thirty seconds; there's zero emotional content.
She was dying of cancer. She was straight. I'm not, but in any case, and in all truth, she wasn't the kind of person I'd choose as a partner. No matter, she seemed like a sweet and decent person. Not overly smart, not stupid. Good at connecting; she liked talking about emotions and the people in her life. So do I. She told me about her husband and how much she'd loved and missed him (he'd died not long before). We talked about all sorts of inconsequential trivia. She talked, off and on, for about three months. She told me about her faith. How sweet - I'm an atheist, but I honestly find the nicer Christians to be good and sincere company (not *you*, you dribbling neocon fuckwits). About half-way through the three months, she said she wanted to arrange a will, and that she had no-one left that she could trust to act as executor. She wanted *me* to play that role. I was surprised and flattered, and not so certain of my own moral compass (I was really down on cash and a student at the time) that I felt comfortable with the idea. I told her I was an atheist (I hadn't brought it up until then - I don't tend to preach). She said it didn't matter; she said that she trusted me. I told her I'd think about it.
She didn't press the issue, until about six weeks later. This time ostensibly from her hospital bed in London (she'd been mobile and functional up until that point).
She underlined her desperation. She talked about practical mechanisms by means of which I could accomplish my role. She made one mistake: she asked for my bank account details. I asked her why she couldn't open a new account on which I would have signing powers. After all, it would keep the finances clean and separate and allow for proof that I'd fulfilled my duties correctly, should need arise. She didn't give a satisfactory answer, and at *that* point, the penny dropped. I felt hurt and stupid. I voiced my feelings. I stopped talking to her.
There was still the nagging doubt that she might have been for-real, so I did nothing beyond this. I continued to feel guilty about the possibility that her story was true until time, and continual analysis of the event, satisfied me that she was full of shit.
Why, though, did she target *me*? I was a *poor* physics student at the time. And why did she spend so much time on it? We probably chatted a total of maybe 16-20 hours. In that time she could have made more money working at McDonalds than she'd have made out of *my* account...
Unless there are other identity-theft related uses for a genuine bank account belonging to a real human. With history.
Totally. And without the said 'shortcuts' our interactions with society would be completely dysfunctional - too slow and bogged down in bureaucratic information cross-checks to work at at all. There's the clothing effect, for example. I know someone who cosplayed a (very convincing) FBI man. He was old enough to carry the look off. At the convention he was widely ignored by other cosplayers and routinely treated by staff as a member of the security infrastructure.
It makes *us* individually vulnerable, but it makes our society stronger, overall.
But yes, your point about kindness, selflessness and so on... agreed.
Actually, in programming jobs in the past, I've noticed that employers tend to frown on thinking time. UNless you *look* like you're working, they bitch. They should really equip cubicles with treadmills. They can recoup the cost of powering your IT gear, ensure that you're at the optimum level of fitness (until you're too old to be useful and/or fuckable, ie, 45), and more to the point you can *look* like you're working.
Hooray for the shiny capitalist gulags of tomorrow! Free market FTW!
Sure... got any sardines?
Can I have your babies? Or vice versa? Either would be cool.