I'm suggesting that we *will* have far worse problems, and this aspect, deliberate or not, is an instance of the frog-boiling algorithm. Or to use another much-loved cliche now dimmed by the passage of time: thin end of the wedge...
Under this scenario, people would be questioned on their bandwidth usage, and with more political pressure from the media industry we'd start to see convictions based on the 'guilty until proven innocent' principle.
The link was between territoriality (and presumably and implicitly, aggression). It's a typical slashdot knee-jerk nitwit response to conflate behaviour X and IQ. Actions may be moderated by intelligence, but the motivations that give rise to them are often innate and impossible to change. Some people become violent when they drink red wine or eat cheese. Is that stupidity, or does the stupidity lie in missing the essentially mechanistic nature of mood and motivation? And then mouthing off about it?
I don't think it *is* that bad. The worst frequent offense is tailgating, which I deal with by slowly reducing my speed until people get tired of tailgating a sloth, and overtake. At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint.
The overall standard of driving in the UK is quite high, and I'm always rather impressed by the alacrity with which most people stop and semi-park to allow emergency vehicles past.
The average brit really doesn't suck that much:-)
(Okay, London's a special case)
I agree with much of what you say, but I should point out that I've had the dubious privilege of (directly) witnessing a friend's genuinely cutting edge research suffer at the hands of her PhD supervisor and his similarly politically aligned cronies, all of whom shared vested interests in burying her research. This isn't sour grapes - she tried again, ten years later, and succeeded. The contribution made by her original work was noted.
However, politics is a genuine issue in academia, particularly in high-status environments where a lot of research funding is available.
Another factor is that, if the research is genuinely original, your 'expert' peers may not, in fact, be so. It takes effort to understand any complex body of information, even when the system under scrutiny stays within mainstream boundaries.
If the system employs new ideas and has been crafted by someone who is comfortably more intelligent than the reviewer?
Printing may have been cheap for centuries but distribution is another matter. Information on the web is indexed by search engines and accessible to anyone with an uncensored net connection, ie, most of us. This is one rather large change.
Fair point. I tend to stay invisible on IM most of the time, and IM gives me more control over when and how to interact. Same with a gaming environment.
However, *like* face-to-face communications, I *will* limit my interactions. In random IM hits, I'll often given someone about 15 seconds in which to demonstrate that they have something interesting to say, and are interesting as people. If this turns out not to be the case, I tell them I'm not interested, and then I block them. I don't like being randomly approached by strangers IRL, either, and I'll often be extremely terse in response. A friend once characterised my conversational style as *efficient*.
I find it amazing that complete strangers try to contact me via skype - this is an unforgiveable intrusion on my privacy.
FWIW, I consistently register as an INTP on the Meyers Briggs test.
The timing's vital with that one. Especially if you can fake the sincerity in the lead-up...:)
Actually I love kids (and not in a creepy way), but I hate the anxiety culture horseshit that the media's forcing on us. Kids need to grow up. Getting hurt and making mistakes is a part of that.
'Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!'
I like that, but I'd prefer:
'Stuff the children!!!'
'Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!'
Children are so easy to make that it's not like we're going to run out of them anytime soon.
I totally understand, and believe me, it pisses me off too. I've met people who were witty, exceptionally smart, and in many ways perfect potential partners, and they did nothing at all for me. And, for the record, I've tried relationships where the chemistry wasn't there. It's an unlife. It's one of those 'getting a cat and learning to knit' scenarios. My friends (the female ones) pretty much echo my experiences.
However, it's worth remembering that this *isn't* a conscious choice.
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that my sexual interest is not under my conscious control. Would you rather have every woman you ever slept with *fake it* out of *sympathy*?
And, apologies for the non-existent formatting. I was awake all night, talking to a friend. The initial post, by the way, was a joke, but it did have a serious subtext.
> Quite seriously, being in a relationship is great, but I don't have the time and energy to play behaviourist whenever I get talked to, with zero latency.
I can imagine, but it's not a deliberate intent to mess with the guy's head. At least, not from where I'm standing. If you think about it from an evolutionary psychology stance, men and women will likely have rather different criteria when selecting partners. Women want emotional stability and a partner who can *help*. Men have some investment in the safety of their offspring, but they don't *have* to make the same physical investment. Pregnancy is costly to a woman, but less so to a man.
I don't intend to make any political statements in saying this. Rather, I'm just trying to offer some reasons as to why sexual intent in a woman *can* be misinterpreted by a man. It's *different*.
Speaking entirely subjectively, my own sexual intent, as a woman, is like a ratchet with a very large reset button, with a mischievous monkey in attendance. The monkey keeps on pressing the reset button at random intervals. A man can interest me, and things can go very well right up until he says or does entirely the wrong thing (and don't ask me to define 'the wrong thing'). At this point, I completely lose interest and go back to being a nun.
This is essentially why the man needs to spank the monkey.
This sounds like a tarted-up rendition of Uniformitarianism, which was a very popular theory up until the discovery that mass extinctions were relatively commonplace events in geological time. It's a more grandiose version of skimping on the brake maintenance because we trust in The Lord.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm suggesting that we *will* have far worse problems, and this aspect, deliberate or not, is an instance of the frog-boiling algorithm. Or to use another much-loved cliche now dimmed by the passage of time: thin end of the wedge...
Under this scenario, people would be questioned on their bandwidth usage, and with more political pressure from the media industry we'd start to see convictions based on the 'guilty until proven innocent' principle.
The link was between territoriality (and presumably and implicitly, aggression). It's a typical slashdot knee-jerk nitwit response to conflate behaviour X and IQ. Actions may be moderated by intelligence, but the motivations that give rise to them are often innate and impossible to change. Some people become violent when they drink red wine or eat cheese. Is that stupidity, or does the stupidity lie in missing the essentially mechanistic nature of mood and motivation? And then mouthing off about it?
I don't think it *is* that bad. The worst frequent offense is tailgating, which I deal with by slowly reducing my speed until people get tired of tailgating a sloth, and overtake. At which point I accelerate, overtake *them*, and put some reasonable distance between our cars. I occasionally have to rinse and repeat, but the majority of people get the hint. The overall standard of driving in the UK is quite high, and I'm always rather impressed by the alacrity with which most people stop and semi-park to allow emergency vehicles past. The average brit really doesn't suck that much :-)
(Okay, London's a special case)
You can buy a cracked copy of Maple from a prosaic Moscow market stall for the princely sum of odin rubl.
Mmm...
Let me think...
The best way I can think of to reduce your risk from inhaled nano-particles is to stop breathing. Right now.
I agree with much of what you say, but I should point out that I've had the dubious privilege of (directly) witnessing a friend's genuinely cutting edge research suffer at the hands of her PhD supervisor and his similarly politically aligned cronies, all of whom shared vested interests in burying her research. This isn't sour grapes - she tried again, ten years later, and succeeded. The contribution made by her original work was noted.
However, politics is a genuine issue in academia, particularly in high-status environments where a lot of research funding is available.
Another factor is that, if the research is genuinely original, your 'expert' peers may not, in fact, be so. It takes effort to understand any complex body of information, even when the system under scrutiny stays within mainstream boundaries.
If the system employs new ideas and has been crafted by someone who is comfortably more intelligent than the reviewer?
Printing may have been cheap for centuries but distribution is another matter. Information on the web is indexed by search engines and accessible to anyone with an uncensored net connection, ie, most of us. This is one rather large change.
Why in God's name would they sign a contract prohibiting auditing? That's retarded.
Seriously, that guy is a Sex God. I get all warm and fuzzy every time I think about him.
Fair point. I tend to stay invisible on IM most of the time, and IM gives me more control over when and how to interact. Same with a gaming environment.
However, *like* face-to-face communications, I *will* limit my interactions. In random IM hits, I'll often given someone about 15 seconds in which to demonstrate that they have something interesting to say, and are interesting as people. If this turns out not to be the case, I tell them I'm not interested, and then I block them. I don't like being randomly approached by strangers IRL, either, and I'll often be extremely terse in response. A friend once characterised my conversational style as *efficient*.
I find it amazing that complete strangers try to contact me via skype - this is an unforgiveable intrusion on my privacy.
FWIW, I consistently register as an INTP on the Meyers Briggs test.
The timing's vital with that one. Especially if you can fake the sincerity in the lead-up... :)
Actually I love kids (and not in a creepy way), but I hate the anxiety culture horseshit that the media's forcing on us. Kids need to grow up. Getting hurt and making mistakes is a part of that.
'Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!' I like that, but I'd prefer: 'Stuff the children!!!' 'Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!' Children are so easy to make that it's not like we're going to run out of them anytime soon.
Yeah, I'd have modded this post +5 'insightful', too...
Kudos.
It gets worse. Women are multi-threading.
I totally understand, and believe me, it pisses me off too. I've met people who were witty, exceptionally smart, and in many ways perfect potential partners, and they did nothing at all for me. And, for the record, I've tried relationships where the chemistry wasn't there. It's an unlife. It's one of those 'getting a cat and learning to knit' scenarios. My friends (the female ones) pretty much echo my experiences. However, it's worth remembering that this *isn't* a conscious choice.
Mmm... if you *really* understood women that well, you'd have stuck to WIN32 function calls...
Well, I *was*, up until I found that your Transformer collection lacked a Devil Gigatron. What *were* you thinking?
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that my sexual interest is not under my conscious control. Would you rather have every woman you ever slept with *fake it* out of *sympathy*?
Mmm... I'm with the 'putting men on Mars' camp. Maybe it's the atavistic paleo-anthropological symbolism, she said, looking everywhere but at you...
And, apologies for the non-existent formatting. I was awake all night, talking to a friend. The initial post, by the way, was a joke, but it did have a serious subtext.
> Quite seriously, being in a relationship is great, but I don't have the time and energy to play behaviourist whenever I get talked to, with zero latency. I can imagine, but it's not a deliberate intent to mess with the guy's head. At least, not from where I'm standing. If you think about it from an evolutionary psychology stance, men and women will likely have rather different criteria when selecting partners. Women want emotional stability and a partner who can *help*. Men have some investment in the safety of their offspring, but they don't *have* to make the same physical investment. Pregnancy is costly to a woman, but less so to a man. I don't intend to make any political statements in saying this. Rather, I'm just trying to offer some reasons as to why sexual intent in a woman *can* be misinterpreted by a man. It's *different*.
Nice one, guys.
Speaking entirely subjectively, my own sexual intent, as a woman, is like a ratchet with a very large reset button, with a mischievous monkey in attendance. The monkey keeps on pressing the reset button at random intervals. A man can interest me, and things can go very well right up until he says or does entirely the wrong thing (and don't ask me to define 'the wrong thing'). At this point, I completely lose interest and go back to being a nun. This is essentially why the man needs to spank the monkey.
This sounds like a tarted-up rendition of Uniformitarianism, which was a very popular theory up until the discovery that mass extinctions were relatively commonplace events in geological time. It's a more grandiose version of skimping on the brake maintenance because we trust in The Lord.