Actually, that's what most non-English language European nations do... Right, but that's not where language is being used "naturally"
Sorry... ummm... are you saying that in Europe, language is not used naturally?!
I think perhaps you misunderstood me... I meant that for "natural spoken language", it is defined, not just "strictly a tool for communicating with outsiders" or even just "legal" cases.
The day to day German and Dutch that I speak both have a formal definition and I stick to it as best I can (although being a native speaker of neither, I do make mistakes here and there). Other people also stick to this definition as best they can. When the spelling in German was changed a few years back for example, it was a big adjustment for everyone, but anyone who spells things the old way even in an informal email between friends is going to get comments!
Sorry, language doesn't work like that. You can't nail down a fixed standard and expect people to actually adhere to it. The belief that you can represents some detachment from reality.
Actually, that's what most non-English language European nations do... There is a defined version of the language and if you speak it or write it differently, then you are definitively WRONG. It's so much easier that way! If something becomes commonly used, then it will be considered in the next formal revision of the language. There's nothing stopping you from using any words, grammar, phrases and so on that you like, and if people understand you, that's fine, but if there's a legal question raised about what you "meant", then the formal definition wins out and it's YOUR FAULT if you meant something else.
Not only does the old usage hardly exist anymore, but when you try to use it people have no idea what you are talking about.
The problem there is in which part of the English speaking world you happen to be. I have noticed over the last few years a sharp increase the differences between the different dialects of the English language (I'm not even going to say "US English" and "British English", since mine is neither, and I'm also WELL aware that different areas of both the US and UK have quite different English).
"Begs the question" may have lost its original meaning in your part of the English speaking world, but in mine, that's the only meaning that is understood (when it is understood at all - not being a common phrase, I'd expect that in reality the majority of people simply wouldn't know the phrase). If anyone wants to say that it "raises the question", then they will say "RAISES the question" (or "brings up the question", or "leads to the question" or whatever else, but not "begs the question").
Of course, not all drugs that the government says are bad really are...
There are BIG difference between Marijuana, LSD, and Heroin, just to name three. (personally, I'm not a fan of the first, but do think it should be legal; am very much a fan of the second, which I also think should be legal; and I think the third is far too dangerous to be legal)
We don't? I started learning to read when I was 3 and by 5 was reading short books on my own, and could do simple addition and subtraction
I was roughly the same as you, and I find my earliest coherent memories stem back to around that time. I've had this conversation with others, and almost everyone I talk to finds that their earliest coherent memories are around the time that they began reading or learning to read.
So, I think the GP's statement about "brain reorganizes around age five" may actually be an effect rather than a cause - at age 5, many people are just learning to read, and their brains reorganise accordingly. Those of us who learned earlier, underwent this reorganisation earlier. Seem reasonable?
but there are 10 times as many muslim countries now as there were 20 years ago, and the rate isn't slowing
And "Muslim" means "Terrorist" right?
Grow up!
Of course, you could reply to say that Muslims don't actually bother you, only Muslim extremists... but then, that would invalidate your point about the number of Muslim countries being a factor now wouldn't it?
You could probably counter that by saying that the Muslim faith is one that appears to lend itself to extremism, and thus the number of Muslim countries in the world does have a direct impact on the number of extremists... It's fairly easy to point out that Christianity is another religion which lends itself to extremism, and I personally am just as worried about those nutjobs trying to blow me up as I am nutjobs from any other religion.
I have friends that are Christians, and I have friends that are Muslims. I think they're all wrong in their beliefs, but as long as they're not trying to kill me, I really don't mind what they believe. (most of my friends are atheists though - probably simply because they represent the majority of people in the area I live in)
A lot of us simply can't be bothered to log in to reply to America-hating, Euro-trash douche-nozzles.
Okay, you're trolling here, but you do realise that most people in Europe don't hate what America SHOULD stand for? We think your Constitution is a great thing, and admire and respect what it stands for. What we hate is what your government is doing to destroy it, and what many people are doing (or NOT doing) to let this happen.
So, the label "America hating" may actually be fairly accurate at the moment, but it's not without cause, and it doesn't mean it's an irrational hate that can't be changed.
what about Finland invading the USa to overthrow the corrupt government they have there?
You say this in jest, but something that does worry me about the future is that unless the US changes drastically for the better, there are three possibilities:
1. The rest of the world slowly, but surely follows the US until the whole world is ruled by a tyrannical and oppressive set of governments that are all in reality just bowing to the might sitting in Washington.
2. A few countries wake up, see what's going on, and the situation you describe (except not Finland alone!) occurs. Most likely, a united European force, with assistance from Russia, parts of Africa (especially South Africa), New Zealand and some small parts of the Middle East, all FORCIBLY remove the US from its position of power in the world. (note that I included New Zealand in the list of countries, but not Australia, since they'd certainly ally with the US on anything these days)
3. The US effectively manages to destroy itself economically to the point that it's just another third world country that we all have to try and help and support. Other governments may partly "toe the line" in the beginning, but as the US loses power, they bounce back to their previous states of being.
I think the US is, in general, too large and powerful at present for the third possibility to be likely. With the military force available, the economy can be artificially controlled simply through the dominance of smaller places that have strategic economic value. So that really only leaves the first two possibilities...
I don't LIKE either of these options, but without serious reform in the direction that the US is headed, I think these are the only two realistic outcomes. And if it must happen, sad as it may be, I'd prefer the second option.
Can the US please wake up and see that if a country "oppressing it's people's rights and having WMDs" is a good enough reason to invade it, then they've just given carte blanche permission for they themselves to be invaded?
Ok, what riggers do children face coming in to Kindergarten?
They need to be prepped to understand nap-time is not laying down and playing dead?
Parents can not be relied upon to make sure that a child can count to one hundred?
What is the problem in this country? What is Obama smoking and why is he not sharing?
The problem is more that without pre-school education, the responsibility is on the schools to teach too much, and then they fail. If you take a survey of the smartest (note: "smartest", not "best educated") people in the world, I think you'll find the majority of them have a few things in common, such as a "love of learning" (instilled in the early pre-school years), very high literacy (and having been able to read BEFORE going to school), and so on.
The idea of children not being able to read before they go to school still shocks me. I vividly remember my first year of primary school in New Zealand - we weren't "taught to read", we were told to go and read some books (VERY simple books admittedly, but the assumption was there that everyone could already read)
Note that this isn't the case these days... most kids in New Zealand are ALMOST (but not quite) as dumb as the kids in the US. Very, very sad.
So, again, tell me how federalizing education is NOT fascist*?
Federalising it would be... but can you point to where anyone suggested doing that? All I see from TFA is funding for pre-school education... since the federal government already funds education in general (funding, but not control), I don't see how this is any different.
I do actually strongly disagree with this policy of Obama's, but on the balance, I still think he's a better choice than the other two. The "best of a bad bunch" basically.
No different than a town near me. They had a big problem with drugs and prostitution. So they closed the topless bars. Looks like you are doing something with out really doing anything useful.
I'm actually curious about the effects that this had... my GUESS is that it increased the amount of prostitution, which in turn worsened the drug problem, but "hid it from view" a bit more... would I be right?
That's the problem with prostitution being illegal... legalise it, regulate it, and if necessary unionise it, and then almost all the negative issues around it disappear (note: Most of the western world has legal prostitution, and it's simply a non-issue)
Ahh, but if the public isn't interested in NASA, then why should the public be forced (at gunpoint no less)* to pay for it?
*yes, I know this is melodramatic. But the fact is that tax authority comes either from the consent of the taxed or the threat of violence.
This brings up the very tricky concept of democracy not always being a good thing... Sometimes, just because everyone thinks/wants something, it doesn't mean it's not in their best interests to do it anyway. For example, I think if some kind of vote were held as to whether the government should give every citizen one million dollars, a very great deal of people would vote to take that money (which would both effectively destroy the economy, and make that million completely worthless). I really do believe that less than 50% of people would understand how stupid the idea really is, and vote against it.
Democracy requires an intelligent and educated populace, and since that's what's currently lacking, I think the government needs to do some things that are unpopular just to fix the damn situation.
I fully agree that it can be a slippery slope though and that there needs to be a definitive way to stop abuses of it, otherwise totalitarianism is only a stone's throw away.
and right now, I don't want our soldiers dying to preserve our reputation.
I fully agree with the sentiment of your post, but feel I must comment on this little snippet...
The problem as it stands is that the US has already LOST its reputation, so there's nothing there to preserve. The reputation needs to be regained.
40 to 60 years ago, the US was viewed by the world as a "shining light" - the "land of the free", where "the streets are paved with gold" and anyone who wants to start a new life there can do so and prosper.
5 to 20 years ago, the US was viewed by the world as a joke - we'd turn on the news, and laugh at all the silly things the US was doing, shake our heads and get on with our lives.
As of around the last 5 years, it's even worse though. We now no longer laugh at the silly things - you're starting to worry us. Everyone knows that the US is a great and powerful country, and what that means is that you have a great and powerful military. Recent events have shown terrible uses of that military, inciting violence and terrorism throughout the world. It worries some of us... and scares yet more. Unless you elect a president that will RADICALLY turn the government around, promote rationality, fix your economy and stop you falling in to a state of "dark ages mixed with Third Reich", the rest of the world WILL eventually react against you... and honestly, we really don't want to have to.
I may disagree with the policy Obama is in favour of in the article, I still think he's by far the ONLY sensible choice for BEGINNING the process of turning the country around (I think it will take longer than the time he is in power though, so after him, you need at least one more sensible choice).
"But for psychopaths, the word 'cancer' and the word 'table' had the same emotional connotations - which is to say, not very many. It's as if they're emotionally color-blind."
This certainly applies to me. I have no emotional attachment to either of those words. I don't understand why there should be an emotional attachment to them either...
Nevertheless, research also suggests that a sizable number of psychopaths may be walking among us in everyday life.
And, surprise surprise, I am, apparently, a psychopath according to that pseudo-scientific test.
However, I'd argue that it's a fairly weak test - I believe I do have a "moral compass", and consider myself a relatively ethical and moral person. However, many of the questions asked in that test apply equally well to the anti-social geek types that frequent places such as slashdot. How many of us here wouldn't be at least "moderately psychopathic"? - look at the items like "Easily bored, in need of constant stimulation" for example. (I should note that had I answered only one other item as "somewhat" rather than "yes", I'd be "moderately" rather than "pyschopath").
... or the reverse in which your brain simply could not fire the neurons to tell you that you need food or you're going to starve to death.
Interestingly, I think you've just described me fairly well there... I get a vague feeling of discomfort if I don't eat for a couple of days, and if I go beyond that, I feel weak and headachy, but I certainly don't feel "hunger" as other people have described it to me. I don't know exactly what it feels like, having never experienced it, so the "discomfort" may be related, but from the descriptions I've had from others, if it is, it's VERY minor compared to actual hunger.
Thankfully, I enjoy eating (probably too much judging from my weight), so it's never been a real problem, and can actually be fairly beneficial if I'm busy at work and need to skip lunch (meaning not having eaten since the previous night, as I never have breakfast either).
Closer to being on topic...
Now a sociopath might be able to live in a normal society through other emotions (fear, greed) but they simply will never have any emotional incentive to not be bad towards others.
Actually, this is something that often scares me - based on this definition of a sociopath (which is, I think, quite accurate), there are indeed a very great deal of sociopaths in our world. I am often told by people that the "only" reason that don't rape, murder, steal etc is fear of punishment (be it by God in the case of religious people, or the law in the case of most others (be they religious or otherwise)). I do hope it's not true, but if even 10% of the people that say it, do actually mean it, then the world is in for some serious trouble if the controls of law and religion break down.
You can't blame a video games, guns, movies, hell even drugs, for people being idiots.
Depends on the drugs unfortunately. A good ten years back, I tried a LOT of different drugs as a sort of self-experiment to better understand their effects. I must say that some drugs (specifically things like PCP and cocaine in high quantities) do cause what feels like an unnatural aggressiveness in me.
Most drugs though - you're quite right... someone could near destroy themselves with most drugs and still retain enough of "themselves" to avoid random psychopathic rampages.
As a side note, if everyone took a lot more LSD, I really think there'd be a lot LESS psychopathic rampages in the world (maybe a few more accidental deaths, but statistically it'd probably be worth it!)
Look, the *majority* of people use "cow" to mean either. It's the accepted non-technical use of the word.
I have NEVER heard anyone use the word "cow" to refer to cattle in general (both cows and bulls). Maybe it's just a regional dialect thing?
Certainly in New Zealand English, Australian English and the small amount of British English, Scottish English and New England region US English that I've been exposed to, I don't think it's common at all.
Your point of view is identical to that of several other people I know. As an atheist, I disagree, but at least respect your way of thinking in general (as opposed to the "earth is 6000 years old, man lived side-by-side with dinosaurs" crowd).
However, none of the other people I know that subscribe to the same belief that you do have been able to answer me about the basis/rationale/need for their belief. To put it simply: Given that God created the universe with these set rules, and then as time progressed the universe came to shape itself in pretty much the way that it is (based on the rules God had placed), then how is this idea any different from an atheists viewpoint other than what started it all (which atheists generally have no viewpoint on)? What relevance does God have now that he's set the rules of the universe (physics et al) in place? Does God ever interfere with the universe (changes the rules, even on a local or minute scale) for his own purposes (e.g. Jesus walking on water, Moses parting the sea, other misc miracles)? If so, why? And does this have any effect on how one should live their life? If not, is there ANYTHING about your belief structure that changes how you should live your life? If so, what, why and how?
Lots of questions, I know... but I think you probably get where I'm aiming at with these?
Also, honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything - I'm genuinely interested (my step-father is both an extra-ordinarily brilliant man of science and an ordained minister - I've never been able to quite reconcile that in my head, so your answers may help)
Parent is sadly at -1 currently and may be missed by many... mods - please mod up!
He makes a very valid point. Personally, I don't use IM services very often, and like the author of TFA, I'm generally "signed in, but unavailable". If someone messages while I'm busy, I ignore it until I'm not busy, or about to take a coffee break, or cigarette break or whatever.
Email, I use almost exclusively. If someone wants something from me that will take more than 10 seconds of my time to do, the ONLY way I'll accept it is via email.
Blogging - well, actually, there's something else. I view blogging more like I view emails - I can spend time to think about them before I write them, and am under no pressure for "instant" communication. My blog posts are infrequent (around once a month or so on average) and only of a personal nature (I have friends all over the world due to having moved country many times, and I use it to keep my friends up to date with my life (stops them asking!)).
And finally, to agree with the parent - phones are EVIL. If my phone rings and I don't answer it, whoever was calling will be personally offended by me - which is ridiculous, but seems to be the way of the world. I am almost forced to be interrupted, and there's little I can do about it. Because my phone is used for both work and private calls, I do not have the luxury of switching it off.
(note: English IS my native language, but I haven't been using it so much recently and I'm very tired right now, so please excuse any grammar/spelling/phrasing errors in this post)
Anyone that CAN'T read at age 3 has parents that obviously have their priorities screwed up. Come on... at that age, you learn FAST - and reading isn't exactly complex.
I have no problem believing the GP's claim, as I was the same. (and got my first computer at 5, and was then programming in BASIC at 6 (mostly text adventures involving piles of PRINT, INPUT and GOTO statements, but it was a start!))
Actually, in the company I work for, software is built to help our hardware sales (no, I don't work for Apple)... so I'm strongly pushing internally for more Open Source efforts (we have some, but I'd like to see more). And yes, I get paid to write code - which I would be more than happy to share with the world and let the world share back.
PLEASE tell me you're joking! Literacy is not just about the ability to learn new information by reading things, it's a basic requirement for a normal life in western society (and most others for that matter). An illiterate person can't get a job beyond the most basic of labour, can't function in matters of democracy, and can't even decide which restroom to use in a restaurant if there aren't pictures on the door. Literacy is about a LOT more than just learning and education (although it of course plays a very large role in those as well). From the fact that you're posting to slashdot, I assume you are in fact quite literate, despite your anecdote about how you studied for your college level courses. Have you stopped to realise how much reading you actually do from day to day? Parking signs when you're driving (with the hours you're allowed to park etc), phone books, labels on food... the list goes on.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry... ummm... are you saying that in Europe, language is not used naturally?!
I think perhaps you misunderstood me... I meant that for "natural spoken language", it is defined, not just "strictly a tool for communicating with outsiders" or even just "legal" cases.
The day to day German and Dutch that I speak both have a formal definition and I stick to it as best I can (although being a native speaker of neither, I do make mistakes here and there). Other people also stick to this definition as best they can. When the spelling in German was changed a few years back for example, it was a big adjustment for everyone, but anyone who spells things the old way even in an informal email between friends is going to get comments!
I know it was only a metaphor, but really... one should ALWAYS consider attacking France.
Actually, that's what most non-English language European nations do... There is a defined version of the language and if you speak it or write it differently, then you are definitively WRONG. It's so much easier that way! If something becomes commonly used, then it will be considered in the next formal revision of the language. There's nothing stopping you from using any words, grammar, phrases and so on that you like, and if people understand you, that's fine, but if there's a legal question raised about what you "meant", then the formal definition wins out and it's YOUR FAULT if you meant something else.
The problem there is in which part of the English speaking world you happen to be. I have noticed over the last few years a sharp increase the differences between the different dialects of the English language (I'm not even going to say "US English" and "British English", since mine is neither, and I'm also WELL aware that different areas of both the US and UK have quite different English).
"Begs the question" may have lost its original meaning in your part of the English speaking world, but in mine, that's the only meaning that is understood (when it is understood at all - not being a common phrase, I'd expect that in reality the majority of people simply wouldn't know the phrase). If anyone wants to say that it "raises the question", then they will say "RAISES the question" (or "brings up the question", or "leads to the question" or whatever else, but not "begs the question").
Of course, not all drugs that the government says are bad really are...
There are BIG difference between Marijuana, LSD, and Heroin, just to name three. (personally, I'm not a fan of the first, but do think it should be legal; am very much a fan of the second, which I also think should be legal; and I think the third is far too dangerous to be legal)
I was roughly the same as you, and I find my earliest coherent memories stem back to around that time. I've had this conversation with others, and almost everyone I talk to finds that their earliest coherent memories are around the time that they began reading or learning to read.
So, I think the GP's statement about "brain reorganizes around age five" may actually be an effect rather than a cause - at age 5, many people are just learning to read, and their brains reorganise accordingly. Those of us who learned earlier, underwent this reorganisation earlier. Seem reasonable?
And "Muslim" means "Terrorist" right?
Grow up!
Of course, you could reply to say that Muslims don't actually bother you, only Muslim extremists... but then, that would invalidate your point about the number of Muslim countries being a factor now wouldn't it?
You could probably counter that by saying that the Muslim faith is one that appears to lend itself to extremism, and thus the number of Muslim countries in the world does have a direct impact on the number of extremists... It's fairly easy to point out that Christianity is another religion which lends itself to extremism, and I personally am just as worried about those nutjobs trying to blow me up as I am nutjobs from any other religion.
I have friends that are Christians, and I have friends that are Muslims. I think they're all wrong in their beliefs, but as long as they're not trying to kill me, I really don't mind what they believe. (most of my friends are atheists though - probably simply because they represent the majority of people in the area I live in)
Okay, you're trolling here, but you do realise that most people in Europe don't hate what America SHOULD stand for? We think your Constitution is a great thing, and admire and respect what it stands for. What we hate is what your government is doing to destroy it, and what many people are doing (or NOT doing) to let this happen.
So, the label "America hating" may actually be fairly accurate at the moment, but it's not without cause, and it doesn't mean it's an irrational hate that can't be changed.
You say this in jest, but something that does worry me about the future is that unless the US changes drastically for the better, there are three possibilities:
I think the US is, in general, too large and powerful at present for the third possibility to be likely. With the military force available, the economy can be artificially controlled simply through the dominance of smaller places that have strategic economic value. So that really only leaves the first two possibilities...
I don't LIKE either of these options, but without serious reform in the direction that the US is headed, I think these are the only two realistic outcomes. And if it must happen, sad as it may be, I'd prefer the second option.
Can the US please wake up and see that if a country "oppressing it's people's rights and having WMDs" is a good enough reason to invade it, then they've just given carte blanche permission for they themselves to be invaded?
Ok, what riggers do children face coming in to Kindergarten?
They need to be prepped to understand nap-time is not laying down and playing dead?
Parents can not be relied upon to make sure that a child can count to one hundred?
What is the problem in this country? What is Obama smoking and why is he not sharing?
The problem is more that without pre-school education, the responsibility is on the schools to teach too much, and then they fail. If you take a survey of the smartest (note: "smartest", not "best educated") people in the world, I think you'll find the majority of them have a few things in common, such as a "love of learning" (instilled in the early pre-school years), very high literacy (and having been able to read BEFORE going to school), and so on.The idea of children not being able to read before they go to school still shocks me. I vividly remember my first year of primary school in New Zealand - we weren't "taught to read", we were told to go and read some books (VERY simple books admittedly, but the assumption was there that everyone could already read)
Note that this isn't the case these days... most kids in New Zealand are ALMOST (but not quite) as dumb as the kids in the US. Very, very sad.By the way, you misspelt "rigours"...
Federalising it would be... but can you point to where anyone suggested doing that? All I see from TFA is funding for pre-school education... since the federal government already funds education in general (funding, but not control), I don't see how this is any different.
I do actually strongly disagree with this policy of Obama's, but on the balance, I still think he's a better choice than the other two. The "best of a bad bunch" basically.
I'm actually curious about the effects that this had... my GUESS is that it increased the amount of prostitution, which in turn worsened the drug problem, but "hid it from view" a bit more... would I be right?
That's the problem with prostitution being illegal... legalise it, regulate it, and if necessary unionise it, and then almost all the negative issues around it disappear (note: Most of the western world has legal prostitution, and it's simply a non-issue)
This brings up the very tricky concept of democracy not always being a good thing...
Sometimes, just because everyone thinks/wants something, it doesn't mean it's not in their best interests to do it anyway. For example, I think if some kind of vote were held as to whether the government should give every citizen one million dollars, a very great deal of people would vote to take that money (which would both effectively destroy the economy, and make that million completely worthless). I really do believe that less than 50% of people would understand how stupid the idea really is, and vote against it.
Democracy requires an intelligent and educated populace, and since that's what's currently lacking, I think the government needs to do some things that are unpopular just to fix the damn situation.
I fully agree that it can be a slippery slope though and that there needs to be a definitive way to stop abuses of it, otherwise totalitarianism is only a stone's throw away.
I fully agree with the sentiment of your post, but feel I must comment on this little snippet...
The problem as it stands is that the US has already LOST its reputation, so there's nothing there to preserve. The reputation needs to be regained.
40 to 60 years ago, the US was viewed by the world as a "shining light" - the "land of the free", where "the streets are paved with gold" and anyone who wants to start a new life there can do so and prosper.
5 to 20 years ago, the US was viewed by the world as a joke - we'd turn on the news, and laugh at all the silly things the US was doing, shake our heads and get on with our lives.
As of around the last 5 years, it's even worse though. We now no longer laugh at the silly things - you're starting to worry us. Everyone knows that the US is a great and powerful country, and what that means is that you have a great and powerful military. Recent events have shown terrible uses of that military, inciting violence and terrorism throughout the world. It worries some of us... and scares yet more. Unless you elect a president that will RADICALLY turn the government around, promote rationality, fix your economy and stop you falling in to a state of "dark ages mixed with Third Reich", the rest of the world WILL eventually react against you... and honestly, we really don't want to have to.
I may disagree with the policy Obama is in favour of in the article, I still think he's by far the ONLY sensible choice for BEGINNING the process of turning the country around (I think it will take longer than the time he is in power though, so after him, you need at least one more sensible choice).
Shouldn't you be passing the "set up" to the joke, and having the joke return the punchline?
This certainly applies to me. I have no emotional attachment to either of those words. I don't understand why there should be an emotional attachment to them either...
Nevertheless, research also suggests that a sizable number of psychopaths may be walking among us in everyday life.I'm starting to think I possibly qualify...
A pseudo-scientific test to measure yourself on the psychopath-meter.And, surprise surprise, I am, apparently, a psychopath according to that pseudo-scientific test.
However, I'd argue that it's a fairly weak test - I believe I do have a "moral compass", and consider myself a relatively ethical and moral person. However, many of the questions asked in that test apply equally well to the anti-social geek types that frequent places such as slashdot. How many of us here wouldn't be at least "moderately psychopathic"? - look at the items like "Easily bored, in need of constant stimulation" for example. (I should note that had I answered only one other item as "somewhat" rather than "yes", I'd be "moderately" rather than "pyschopath").
... or the reverse in which your brain simply could not fire the neurons to tell you that you need food or you're going to starve to death.Interestingly, I think you've just described me fairly well there... I get a vague feeling of discomfort if I don't eat for a couple of days, and if I go beyond that, I feel weak and headachy, but I certainly don't feel "hunger" as other people have described it to me. I don't know exactly what it feels like, having never experienced it, so the "discomfort" may be related, but from the descriptions I've had from others, if it is, it's VERY minor compared to actual hunger.
Thankfully, I enjoy eating (probably too much judging from my weight), so it's never been a real problem, and can actually be fairly beneficial if I'm busy at work and need to skip lunch (meaning not having eaten since the previous night, as I never have breakfast either).
Closer to being on topic...
Now a sociopath might be able to live in a normal society through other emotions (fear, greed) but they simply will never have any emotional incentive to not be bad towards others.Actually, this is something that often scares me - based on this definition of a sociopath (which is, I think, quite accurate), there are indeed a very great deal of sociopaths in our world. I am often told by people that the "only" reason that don't rape, murder, steal etc is fear of punishment (be it by God in the case of religious people, or the law in the case of most others (be they religious or otherwise)). I do hope it's not true, but if even 10% of the people that say it, do actually mean it, then the world is in for some serious trouble if the controls of law and religion break down.
Depends on the drugs unfortunately. A good ten years back, I tried a LOT of different drugs as a sort of self-experiment to better understand their effects. I must say that some drugs (specifically things like PCP and cocaine in high quantities) do cause what feels like an unnatural aggressiveness in me.
Most drugs though - you're quite right... someone could near destroy themselves with most drugs and still retain enough of "themselves" to avoid random psychopathic rampages.
As a side note, if everyone took a lot more LSD, I really think there'd be a lot LESS psychopathic rampages in the world (maybe a few more accidental deaths, but statistically it'd probably be worth it!)
Probably just feeding the flames here, but...
Look, the *majority* of people use "cow" to mean either. It's the accepted non-technical use of the word.I have NEVER heard anyone use the word "cow" to refer to cattle in general (both cows and bulls). Maybe it's just a regional dialect thing?
Certainly in New Zealand English, Australian English and the small amount of British English, Scottish English and New England region US English that I've been exposed to, I don't think it's common at all.
Ummm... so how did you explain Charlie Chaplin?
Your point of view is identical to that of several other people I know. As an atheist, I disagree, but at least respect your way of thinking in general (as opposed to the "earth is 6000 years old, man lived side-by-side with dinosaurs" crowd).
However, none of the other people I know that subscribe to the same belief that you do have been able to answer me about the basis/rationale/need for their belief. To put it simply: Given that God created the universe with these set rules, and then as time progressed the universe came to shape itself in pretty much the way that it is (based on the rules God had placed), then how is this idea any different from an atheists viewpoint other than what started it all (which atheists generally have no viewpoint on)? What relevance does God have now that he's set the rules of the universe (physics et al) in place? Does God ever interfere with the universe (changes the rules, even on a local or minute scale) for his own purposes (e.g. Jesus walking on water, Moses parting the sea, other misc miracles)? If so, why? And does this have any effect on how one should live their life? If not, is there ANYTHING about your belief structure that changes how you should live your life? If so, what, why and how?
Lots of questions, I know... but I think you probably get where I'm aiming at with these?
Also, honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything - I'm genuinely interested (my step-father is both an extra-ordinarily brilliant man of science and an ordained minister - I've never been able to quite reconcile that in my head, so your answers may help)
Parent is sadly at -1 currently and may be missed by many... mods - please mod up!
He makes a very valid point. Personally, I don't use IM services very often, and like the author of TFA, I'm generally "signed in, but unavailable". If someone messages while I'm busy, I ignore it until I'm not busy, or about to take a coffee break, or cigarette break or whatever.
Email, I use almost exclusively. If someone wants something from me that will take more than 10 seconds of my time to do, the ONLY way I'll accept it is via email.
Blogging - well, actually, there's something else. I view blogging more like I view emails - I can spend time to think about them before I write them, and am under no pressure for "instant" communication. My blog posts are infrequent (around once a month or so on average) and only of a personal nature (I have friends all over the world due to having moved country many times, and I use it to keep my friends up to date with my life (stops them asking!)).
And finally, to agree with the parent - phones are EVIL. If my phone rings and I don't answer it, whoever was calling will be personally offended by me - which is ridiculous, but seems to be the way of the world. I am almost forced to be interrupted, and there's little I can do about it. Because my phone is used for both work and private calls, I do not have the luxury of switching it off.
(note: English IS my native language, but I haven't been using it so much recently and I'm very tired right now, so please excuse any grammar/spelling/phrasing errors in this post)
Anyone that CAN'T read at age 3 has parents that obviously have their priorities screwed up. Come on... at that age, you learn FAST - and reading isn't exactly complex.
I have no problem believing the GP's claim, as I was the same. (and got my first computer at 5, and was then programming in BASIC at 6 (mostly text adventures involving piles of PRINT, INPUT and GOTO statements, but it was a start!))
Actually, in the company I work for, software is built to help our hardware sales (no, I don't work for Apple)... so I'm strongly pushing internally for more Open Source efforts (we have some, but I'd like to see more). And yes, I get paid to write code - which I would be more than happy to share with the world and let the world share back.
PLEASE tell me you're joking! Literacy is not just about the ability to learn new information by reading things, it's a basic requirement for a normal life in western society (and most others for that matter). An illiterate person can't get a job beyond the most basic of labour, can't function in matters of democracy, and can't even decide which restroom to use in a restaurant if there aren't pictures on the door. Literacy is about a LOT more than just learning and education (although it of course plays a very large role in those as well).
From the fact that you're posting to slashdot, I assume you are in fact quite literate, despite your anecdote about how you studied for your college level courses. Have you stopped to realise how much reading you actually do from day to day? Parking signs when you're driving (with the hours you're allowed to park etc), phone books, labels on food... the list goes on.