well, that does seem to be the most popular line of reasoning behind this distinction. but that's still a very weak argument IMHO as it borders on circular logic. the DSM-IV is meant to provide a set of diagnostic criteria to determine whether the patient is suffering from mental illness (whether there is indeed something abnormal about their brain). so it's not a very helpful diagnostic criterion to ask whether a false belief is rooted in a neurological abnormality--that's what we're trying to determine here.
also, it should be noted that there are two subclasses of folie a deux. to quote Wikipedia:
Folie imposée is where a dominant person (known as the 'primary', 'inducer' or 'principal') initially forms a delusional belief during a psychotic episode and imposes it on another person or persons (known as the 'secondary', 'acceptor' or 'associate') with the assumption that the secondary person might not have become deluded if left to their own devices. If the parties are admitted to hospital separately then the delusions in the person with the induced beliefs usually resolve without the need of medication.
Folie simultanée describes the situation where two people, considered to independently suffer from psychosis, influence the content of each other's delusions so they become identical or strikingly similar.
so in the case of folie imposée, the "associate" does not necessarily have to suffer from a neurological disorder, but it is still considered a delusion nonetheless. what is conventional wisdom really depends on how a person is socialized. if two people are completely isolated from other human populations, what is "conventional wisdom" is entirely dependent on those two individuals. if one has a dominant personality, then it is just dependent on one individual. now, if the dominant individual happens to go through a psychotic break, the second person who may be otherwise mentally healthy could easily become the associate in a shared delusion.
being social creatures, it shouldn't be surprising that a large number of mental disorders can be caused by extreme or unhealthy social environments. you tie someone up and lock them in a dark room devoid or mental stimuli of any kind they will quickly go crazy. if someone is abused by their parents from childhood, they could easily develop a mental disorder as well. so just because a mental condition is brought on by social/environmental factors does not preclude it from being a disorder or illness.
lastly, with the wide range of neurodiversity represented in healthy & functional populations, how can one define what is a normal brain and what is an abnormal one. Einstein's brain was quite abnormal generally speaking, and his theories were radical enough that if he'd lived in a more reactionary society, many people would have likely called him delusional. so are we to call all geniuses who are ahead of their time "delusional"?
and apparently the articles posted in the Fashion & Style section don't go through any kind of editing or proof-reading process: "Some have hundreds of postings, along with links to dozers of similar sties.[sic.]" "Mr. Robinson said in an interview that that [sic.] he has been tortured and abused by gang stalkers..."
in any case, i find the notion of shared delusion very fascinating. as Ronald De Sousa puts it, "When enough people share a delusion, it loses its status as a psychosis and gets religious tax exemption instead." the article also mentions this paradox in the medical definition of delusional beliefs.
folie à deux (madness shared by two) is the name for a psychiatric condition in which two people share a common delusional belief. similarly, folie à trois, folie à quatre, and folie à famille refer to shared delusions between 3 people, 4 people, and all members of a family, respectively. then there is the general case of folie à plusieurs, or madness of the many. but at which point does mass delusion become an accepted subculture rather than a psychiatric disorder? there doesn't seem to be a discrete boundary between what constitutes mental illness and what is considered socially acceptable behavior.
i mean, why should it make any difference how many people share a common delusion. a fallacy is a fallacy regardless of how many people believe in the fallacy. should medical diagnostic criteria pay tribute to political correctness? whether you were socialized with irrational, factually unsupported beliefs by 5 people or 500 people, it's still a delusion. factual reality isn't dictated by majority opinion.
that's brilliant. i heard about Ian Banks' the Culture series, but i haven't had a chance to actually check out any of his books yet. i'll definitely have to take a look at Against a Dark Background.
personally, i'm quite fond of the titular device in Sphere by Michael Chrichton (which was also made into a movie). it's not really a weapon per se, but if a device did exist that caused everyone's, both conscious and subconscious, thoughts/dreams/fantasies to manifest themselves as reality, it probably wouldn't take very long for humanity to destroy itself with our own mental demons.
just imagine what would happen if the user base of 4chan came across the sphere.::shudders::
to be fair, there's a thumbnail gallery that lets you jump to any page you want. also, since each device description comes with a large image or a YouTube video, it's probably better that they are put on separate pages for users with older powerful computers or netbooks/smartphones/PSPs/etc., which do not have a lot of memory.
besides, it's not really a slide show as it doesn't have a JavaScript timer that automatically flips to the next slide. it's just a paginated list. and it isn't presented in a tiny pop-up window that only uses a quarter of the screen like a lot of other sites.
nah, it's rational thought and faith that are incompatible. myths aren't incompatible with science/rational thought as long as you recognize what they are. you can be a rational person and adhere to scientific principles while appreciating cultural myths, folklore, and legends.
i mean, you can be an atheist and still appreciate the beauty of Greek mythology. you don't have to actually believe in Hellenic polytheism to appreciate the literary value and rich cultural tapestry that's woven into Greek mythology. likewise, you can study and appreciate the myths of other ancient cultures without abandoning logic and reason.
but religion by definition requires blind faith, and that's why it's incompatible with rational thought.
exactly. it's unlikely that the initial electric charge will require more energy than is produced by the 1500 tons of garbage it burns each day (and presumably the plant stays on for more than a day at a time).
though i think a diesel engine is perhaps a better analogy since normal gas ICEs need an electrically-generated spark for each cycle, whereas a diesel engine uses compression-ignition thus only requires electricity for the initial compression stroke, after which point the engine is self-sustaining. so in this case the trash being vaporized is like the diesel fuel which is capable of sustaining the reaction on its own once the process is started.
in any case, this sounds like a great way to kill two birds with one stone. so long as the plasma plant doesn't generate any toxic waste or cause heat pollution it'd be a great way to get energy in practically any environment. now we just need to get more plug-in electrics on the road so that our transportation infrastructure can take advantage of cool sustainable technologies like this.
well, ignoring the fact those are not sexual orientations, if someone is attracted to children but doesn't act on it, then why should they be discriminated against or punished? likewise with someone who has incestuous feelings. heck, if two consensual adults engage in incestuous acts, that's their own business. as long as they aren't hurting anyone, why should they be persecuted for the way they are mentally wired?
and just because it's wrong to discriminate against people based on their innate or inborn disposition doesn't mean people can't be held responsible for their actions which are conscious decisions. you can't choose who/what you're attracted to. but you can choose what beliefs you espouse and personally believe in.
making fun of a stupid idea isn't bigotry. you can choose not to believe in irrational backward beliefs/myths. if they sound stupid and don't make a whole lot of sense, then how do you expect people to react to them? bigotry is discriminating against people for things they cannot change. for instance, persecuting someone because of their sexual orientation--that is bigotry.
being intolerant of ignorance, or criticizing/refuting specious beliefs, isn't cruel or unethical. in fact, it's societally beneficial. it's because our society is too tolerant of ignorance and blatant stupidity that the religious right has gained so much power in the U.S., which has allowed the ID movement to gain so much traction, and to cause religion to impede scientific research. it's also the reason why the U.S. is still "debating" on whether global warming is happening while the governments of other countries are already working hard to attenuate climate change.
i think it's a good thing that the ratings board is actually providing to the public more detailed explanations for the ratings they assign. however, like the MPAA's film rating system, there's still a lack of transparency in how the rating process is conducted--for instance, who is on the ratings board, how are these members selected, and what are their qualifications.
also, the AO rating for video games, like the NC-17 rating for films, is still in effect blacklisting creative works such that they are commercially inviable by making such works impossible to distribute. this means filmmakers & video game developers need to gain the approval of the ESRB/MPAA rating board before they can release their work, essentially giving each industry's self-appointed censors editorial power over all creative works that the mainstream public has access to.
one of the more ridiculous examples of this self-censorship process can be seen in the Manhunt 2 release for the PSP, which was crammed with so many blurry, staticky video filters and bloom effects overlaid one on top of the other, that it felt like you were watching a bad low-budget 80's grunge music video. within the game the main character was the one escaping from a psychiatric ward, but the developers were the ones who were actually stuck in an artistic straitjacket.
the ESRB and MPAA have no right to dictate what content the public should have access to, nor should they have any sort of editorial control over published works. this has given them an unreasonable level of influence over the media and our cultural landscape. but worse yet, they are not accountable to anyone except themselves. at least if the board were selected by the public via an open and transparent process that would give them some kind of democratic legitimacy. and while i don't know much about the ESRB, according to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, the MPAA has had 2 clergy members on every ratings board since their film rating system was created. now, i'm fine with each religious establishment coming up with their own ratings for films/games/books/whatever, but why should the clergy be involved in the "official" rating system that everyone is subjected to.
there also seems to be no written or published rubric to ensure consistent ratings across all games/films. they don't solicit opinions from the public to determine how they should hand out ratings. who are they to decide what is acceptable for children/teenagers/mature adults and what's not? at the very least they should allow the public to give feedback on the ratings they assign. so if a film or game is given the rating of AO or NC-17 but public opinion does not agree with the rating, then the rating can be changed to reflect public opinion. perhaps the IMDb can add user ratings polls for films and games. it would be interesting to see how well public opinion matches up with actual assigned ratings.
so were the complaints filed by amateur radio operators groundless, or does this only speak for the RC modeling community? according to Wikipedia new BPL modems can detect shortwave radio services that are operating nearby and avoid frequencies allocated for radio broadcast.
the Wikipedia article also discusses the potential of using BPL as a backhaul for WiFi or WiMax networks. i don't know how densely developed these rural populations are, but assuming that not everyone is going to be accessing the internet at the same time, it might be better to keep the bandwidth intact and distribute it over a municipal wireless network. so if only 50% of the population is using the internet at a time, each user would have twice the bandwidth as they'd have if everyone had a PLC modem in their house. and with speeds of up to 10 Mbps at a range of 6 miles, that's significantly faster than BPL modems, which top out at 2 Mbps.
yes, god forbid a multi-billion dollar corporation comes up with more than one innovative idea in ~70 years. lego bricks aren't a natural monopoly, and you certainly don't need a monopoly to make a profit (otherwise why would anyone try to compete with Lego?). if they can't survive without a monopoly then, oh well--that's free market capitalism, right?
besides, they're still the most recognizable makers of construction brick toys. their company name is well-known throughout most of the world, and they are immediately recognizable as the "original" lego toy makers. if anyone wanted to market a licensed lego-based construction set based on their IP, then they will go to Lego first, not just for the name-recognition, but also for their established distribution and marketing network.
if not, then future Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc. lego sets will be sold by a different company who won't be able to charge as much money for them. either way consumers will still get what they want, and probably for cheaper.
yes, scent seems to be the primary way of determining a person's major histocompatibility complex (MHC).
if a potential mate has a highly complementary (dissimilar to one's own) MHC then your offspring will inherent a more robust immune system. if a couple shares very similar/homogeneous MHC genes then their offspring will inherit a less diverse set of natural immunities, and thus will be more susceptible to disease & illness.
however, birth control pills do not interfere with this sexual selection process by masking one's scent. instead, the hormonal changes simply cause women to be more attracted to men with MHCs similar to their own.
on a separate note, what is up with these narrow input boxes in the idle section? is this submission form designed for cellphone browsers or something?
that just moves the flash file from the 'temporary internet files' folder to another location. it'll still be a.swf file. unless there's a way to extract audio streams from.swf files it'd still be useless for mixing.
as a side note, i personally use the DownloadThemAll! extension to download links & embeds. it's pre-configured for downloading images, archives (.rar,.zip, etc.), videos, audio, software (.xpi,.exe, etc.), and it also supports DOS/Unix-type wildcards in addition to regexp filters.
yea, i recall hearing some astronauts talk about it in a space/NASA documentary. it's too bad more people couldn't experience such a n eye-opening/life-changing spiritual epiphany. if people could just take a few steps back and rise above the rat race of modern society for a moment, they'd be able to see how petty much of their greed, selfishness, xenophobia/hatred, etc. are.
the world would be a much better place if more people could pull themselves out their myopic and solipsistic existence and develop a sense of altruism and cooperation. life doesn't have to be just a competition of who can accumulate the most power and wealth. in fact, such attitudes only impede our cultural evolution and moral progress.
i've never heard of these particular ISPs or web hosts, so i don't know what their policies are. but i would be pretty pissed off if Verizon, Cox Digital, Comcast, etc. were packet shaping to throttle p2p traffic while letting spammers inundate mail servers around the world with spam and spreading mal-ware that actually causes real damages to people and businesses.
the RIAA/MPAA have government support for forcing ISPs to finger subscribers accused of illegal file sharing, and are even allowed to circumvent the courts to obtain private user info. this may be the interests of a powerful industry lobby, but it in no way serves public interest. meanwhile, clamping down on SPAM originating domestically does serve public interest, but the government has done little to combat spam, even protecting spammers to an extent with the CAN-SPAM act by preventing individuals from suing spammers, or states from enacting stricter anti-spam laws.
the only thing i can think of to explain this disparity is that spam is a form of marketing, and the U.S. government has always had a very pro-business attitude, to the extent of even placing commercial interests above public interest. since a lot of big, well-known corporations also employ spammers to advertise their products & services, and because the spammers themselves are engaging in commerce/capitalism, it has been sanctioned for so long and even granted a degree of legal legitimacy. in stark contrast, the federal government started cracking down on file sharing in 1996 when the DMCA was passed.
so i a grandma, who only uses her computer to check e-mail once a month, or a 7-year-old girl who downloaded a couple Britney Spears songs she heard on the radio, can be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages by the RIAA. but someone whose computer is shot to shit by commercially-developed malware is powerless against the companies who make money off of that malware. i guess the lesson here is that it's ok to be unethical so long as you're exploiting people for profit.
backwards compatibility doesn't cause bloat. unnecessary features and poor implementation do. since backwards compatibility isn't an unnecessary feature to most people, as long as it's implemented correctly it's not considered bloat.
what are generally considered bloat are things like:
a 76 MB web browser--this is just the full size install of IE6. IE7 takes up about 145 MB of disk space including all updates.
bundled cruftware, such as Outlook Express, NetMeeting, MSN/Windows Messenger, Comic Chat, Windows Media Player, etc.
useless components like Microsoft Agent, Active Desktop/Channel, Active Scripting, Microsoft Script Debugger, Windows Indexing Service, ActiveX, System Restore, Files and Settings Transfer Wizard, Windows Messenger Service, SQL Server, ClipBook Viewer, not to mention all the integrated DRM.
unnecessary/unwanted features, like Remote Assistance/Desktop/Registry, Windows Error Reporting, WGA & other system tray "security" alerts, etc.
there's a ton of crap in Microsoft's desktop OSes that can be considered bloat, but backwards compatibility isn't one of them.
Eee PC is hardware, and it's not open source. you might be able to get it with open source software installed, but it has nothing to do with the open source community. it was developed by ASUS, and they were the ones that came up with that name.
and i don't see any correlation between F/OSS and poor naming. you can find just as many closed source applications with retarded, unmarketable names: Webteh BS.Player, WS_FTP, dBPowerAmp, foobar2000, etc.
also, the examples you gave really just demonstrate that Taiwanese companies come up with poor names (for U.S. markets at least). ASUS is a Taiwanese company, and so is Linpus Technologies, the company that developed Linpus Lite. in contrast, Fedora, which is what Linpus is based off of, is a pretty good name by a F/OSS company. likewise, MySQL, Firefox, Pidgin, Red Hat, etc. are all pretty reasonable names.
huh? if media pundits understood logic and were rational, then they would not be espousing sophistry. whether you agree with their premise or not is a separate issue. and you can still show an argument to be invalid by disproving its premise. understanding the fundamentals of dialectic would allow you to discern an invalid argument as easily as an unsound one. and if people are accustomed to rational thought they'd be less likely to believe in false premises.
i think that's one of the greatest strengths of PC gaming. aside from the handful of open consoles like the GP2X and Pandora, most consoles are closed platforms. you need expensive dev kits and a developer's license to design games for them, and you need manufacturer approval to publish games, and you usually also need the console maker to manufacture the actual game cartridges/discs for you.
and even if you can manage all those things, few independent developers will be able to market & distribute their games. if you can't get your console title into stores like Best Buy or EB Games, or get Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony to pick up your game on their online distribution networks, then you will have no way to get your game out. whereas anyone can publish their PC games for free and distribute it themselves online. closed platforms just aren't accessible to indie developers.
um, except that PCs aren't just business tools. they're used for scientific research, for entertainment as media centers/PVR/DVR, for gaming, as well as tools for day to day life. consoles are just computers specialized for a specific purpose. anything a console can do, so can a computer, so some people choose not to buy a redundant piece of hardware.
also your observational skills apparently aren't very good. the PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360, PSP, and soon the DS with the upcoming DSi, all have multiple hardware configurations. and FYI, video games were invented on computers, before the concept of a gaming console was developed.
almost every household has a computer for surfing the web, checking the e-mail, word processing, etc. if their computer is also capable of playing games, then why shouldn't they play games on it if they want to? likewise, if your console is basically just a cheap computer, then why not use it as a media center or to surf the web, check e-mail, etc.? right now the trend in consumer electronics is moving towards technological convergence. instead of having 4-5 different specialized appliances, it makes much more sense to have a single generalized appliance that performs the combined functions of all those specialized appliances.
the line between console and computers has always been an artificial and arbitrary one. and gradually that line is becoming increasingly blurred as current generation consoles receive keyboard & mouse attachments, internet connections, web browsing capabilities, and take on the role of a HTPC.
so you think that only appointing rich people while keeping poor people out of government is the best way to combat government corruption?
part of the reason why government corruption exists is because there's little incentive for politicians to represent the interests of the people. there's such a big cultural/socioeconomic gap between the political elite and the common man that government officials don't even share the same realities, much less the same political interests, as the average working class person. worst yet, if a political leader fucks up, they'll just be replaced with more of the same. so there's no real democratic recourse for the constituency.
the rich simply don't play by the same rules as the working class in most societies. they are willing to pass draconian laws because they know they aren't going to be held to those laws like everyone else. a rich person will never be wrongly executed under capital punishment laws. they will never be thrown in jail for drug possession (and don't tell me that it's because rich people don't do drugs) and have all of their property seized by the government.
now, if all government officials were came from the working class, not only would they be more in touch with their constituency, but their interests would also be aligned with the people they are supposed to represent. that's why it makes no sense to pay civil servants more than the national median income. if most citizens can't afford to own a house, then neither should politicians. that way, they have some incentive to fix the situation.
things like bribery and illegal corruption are a separate issue. those problems can be solved once you have a government that truly represents the electorate and have dealt with legal corruption. for instance, you can start placing heavier penalties on illegal corruption. and if politicians are working class citizens, then they would be bound by the same legal code/punishments as everyone else. laws against political corruption are useless when politicians can buy their way out of any legal problem.
if they have a list of all the kiddie porn sites on the web, why don't they just go after the site owners? even if the sites are hosted overseas, there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing, and with a little international pressure it shouldn't be too hard to get their own governments to shut them down.
if the RIAA can get the Swedish government to illegally shut down the pirate bay and seize their equipment, i'm sure it'd be no problem for the Australian government to pressure other governments to go after their own kiddie porn sites.
personally, i think philosophy should be taught starting in high school or junior high. the sad fact of the matter is, most people never go to college, but almost anyone could benefit from a strong foundational knowledge of philosophy, including logic and ethics.
i mean, we teach economics, physics, chemistry, etc. in high school, so why not philosophy? at the very least high school students should be introduced to the rules of logic & dialectic and familiarize themselves with common informal fallacies. if a person cannot distinguish truth from fallacy, they are much easier to manipulate as they would be easily deceived by specious arguments. this is both dangerous and societally detrimental.
if more people understood the rules of the logic then we wouldn't have so many people falling for the blatant sophistry espoused by political pundits & demagogues who dominate the media. so there's definitely much benefit to be gained from teaching philosophical logic early on. aside from cutting down on irrational attitudes and behaviors, the analytical & problem-solving skills one develops by learning how to apply logic rigorously in all aspects of one's life can be invaluable life tools.
i'm curious (because of your user name), if you're willing to waste money on gas to buy from a store that's out of your way, then how would you feel about retail workers receiving union protection against such employers? i mean, conservatives are always complaining about unionized workers raising the prices on domestically manufactured goods, but isn't it worth paying a little extra to support workers' rights?
otherwise, why rag on Circuit City for trying to cut costs?
Slashdot Mirror
well, that does seem to be the most popular line of reasoning behind this distinction. but that's still a very weak argument IMHO as it borders on circular logic. the DSM-IV is meant to provide a set of diagnostic criteria to determine whether the patient is suffering from mental illness (whether there is indeed something abnormal about their brain). so it's not a very helpful diagnostic criterion to ask whether a false belief is rooted in a neurological abnormality--that's what we're trying to determine here.
also, it should be noted that there are two subclasses of folie a deux. to quote Wikipedia:
so in the case of folie imposée, the "associate" does not necessarily have to suffer from a neurological disorder, but it is still considered a delusion nonetheless. what is conventional wisdom really depends on how a person is socialized. if two people are completely isolated from other human populations, what is "conventional wisdom" is entirely dependent on those two individuals. if one has a dominant personality, then it is just dependent on one individual. now, if the dominant individual happens to go through a psychotic break, the second person who may be otherwise mentally healthy could easily become the associate in a shared delusion.
being social creatures, it shouldn't be surprising that a large number of mental disorders can be caused by extreme or unhealthy social environments. you tie someone up and lock them in a dark room devoid or mental stimuli of any kind they will quickly go crazy. if someone is abused by their parents from childhood, they could easily develop a mental disorder as well. so just because a mental condition is brought on by social/environmental factors does not preclude it from being a disorder or illness.
lastly, with the wide range of neurodiversity represented in healthy & functional populations, how can one define what is a normal brain and what is an abnormal one. Einstein's brain was quite abnormal generally speaking, and his theories were radical enough that if he'd lived in a more reactionary society, many people would have likely called him delusional. so are we to call all geniuses who are ahead of their time "delusional"?
and apparently the articles posted in the Fashion & Style section don't go through any kind of editing or proof-reading process:
"Some have hundreds of postings, along with links to dozers of similar sties.[sic.]"
"Mr. Robinson said in an interview that that [sic.] he has been tortured and abused by gang stalkers..."
in any case, i find the notion of shared delusion very fascinating. as Ronald De Sousa puts it, "When enough people share a delusion, it loses its status as a psychosis and gets religious tax exemption instead." the article also mentions this paradox in the medical definition of delusional beliefs.
folie à deux (madness shared by two) is the name for a psychiatric condition in which two people share a common delusional belief. similarly, folie à trois, folie à quatre, and folie à famille refer to shared delusions between 3 people, 4 people, and all members of a family, respectively. then there is the general case of folie à plusieurs, or madness of the many. but at which point does mass delusion become an accepted subculture rather than a psychiatric disorder? there doesn't seem to be a discrete boundary between what constitutes mental illness and what is considered socially acceptable behavior.
i mean, why should it make any difference how many people share a common delusion. a fallacy is a fallacy regardless of how many people believe in the fallacy. should medical diagnostic criteria pay tribute to political correctness? whether you were socialized with irrational, factually unsupported beliefs by 5 people or 500 people, it's still a delusion. factual reality isn't dictated by majority opinion.
that's brilliant. i heard about Ian Banks' the Culture series, but i haven't had a chance to actually check out any of his books yet. i'll definitely have to take a look at Against a Dark Background.
personally, i'm quite fond of the titular device in Sphere by Michael Chrichton (which was also made into a movie). it's not really a weapon per se, but if a device did exist that caused everyone's, both conscious and subconscious, thoughts/dreams/fantasies to manifest themselves as reality, it probably wouldn't take very long for humanity to destroy itself with our own mental demons.
just imagine what would happen if the user base of 4chan came across the sphere. ::shudders::
to be fair, there's a thumbnail gallery that lets you jump to any page you want. also, since each device description comes with a large image or a YouTube video, it's probably better that they are put on separate pages for users with older powerful computers or netbooks/smartphones/PSPs/etc., which do not have a lot of memory.
besides, it's not really a slide show as it doesn't have a JavaScript timer that automatically flips to the next slide. it's just a paginated list. and it isn't presented in a tiny pop-up window that only uses a quarter of the screen like a lot of other sites.
nah, it's rational thought and faith that are incompatible. myths aren't incompatible with science/rational thought as long as you recognize what they are. you can be a rational person and adhere to scientific principles while appreciating cultural myths, folklore, and legends.
i mean, you can be an atheist and still appreciate the beauty of Greek mythology. you don't have to actually believe in Hellenic polytheism to appreciate the literary value and rich cultural tapestry that's woven into Greek mythology. likewise, you can study and appreciate the myths of other ancient cultures without abandoning logic and reason.
but religion by definition requires blind faith, and that's why it's incompatible with rational thought.
exactly. it's unlikely that the initial electric charge will require more energy than is produced by the 1500 tons of garbage it burns each day (and presumably the plant stays on for more than a day at a time).
though i think a diesel engine is perhaps a better analogy since normal gas ICEs need an electrically-generated spark for each cycle, whereas a diesel engine uses compression-ignition thus only requires electricity for the initial compression stroke, after which point the engine is self-sustaining. so in this case the trash being vaporized is like the diesel fuel which is capable of sustaining the reaction on its own once the process is started.
in any case, this sounds like a great way to kill two birds with one stone. so long as the plasma plant doesn't generate any toxic waste or cause heat pollution it'd be a great way to get energy in practically any environment. now we just need to get more plug-in electrics on the road so that our transportation infrastructure can take advantage of cool sustainable technologies like this.
well, ignoring the fact those are not sexual orientations , if someone is attracted to children but doesn't act on it, then why should they be discriminated against or punished? likewise with someone who has incestuous feelings. heck, if two consensual adults engage in incestuous acts, that's their own business. as long as they aren't hurting anyone, why should they be persecuted for the way they are mentally wired?
and just because it's wrong to discriminate against people based on their innate or inborn disposition doesn't mean people can't be held responsible for their actions which are conscious decisions. you can't choose who/what you're attracted to. but you can choose what beliefs you espouse and personally believe in.
making fun of a stupid idea isn't bigotry. you can choose not to believe in irrational backward beliefs/myths. if they sound stupid and don't make a whole lot of sense, then how do you expect people to react to them? bigotry is discriminating against people for things they cannot change. for instance, persecuting someone because of their sexual orientation--that is bigotry.
being intolerant of ignorance, or criticizing/refuting specious beliefs, isn't cruel or unethical. in fact, it's societally beneficial. it's because our society is too tolerant of ignorance and blatant stupidity that the religious right has gained so much power in the U.S., which has allowed the ID movement to gain so much traction, and to cause religion to impede scientific research. it's also the reason why the U.S. is still "debating" on whether global warming is happening while the governments of other countries are already working hard to attenuate climate change.
i think it's a good thing that the ratings board is actually providing to the public more detailed explanations for the ratings they assign. however, like the MPAA's film rating system, there's still a lack of transparency in how the rating process is conducted--for instance, who is on the ratings board, how are these members selected, and what are their qualifications.
also, the AO rating for video games, like the NC-17 rating for films, is still in effect blacklisting creative works such that they are commercially inviable by making such works impossible to distribute. this means filmmakers & video game developers need to gain the approval of the ESRB/MPAA rating board before they can release their work, essentially giving each industry's self-appointed censors editorial power over all creative works that the mainstream public has access to.
one of the more ridiculous examples of this self-censorship process can be seen in the Manhunt 2 release for the PSP, which was crammed with so many blurry, staticky video filters and bloom effects overlaid one on top of the other, that it felt like you were watching a bad low-budget 80's grunge music video. within the game the main character was the one escaping from a psychiatric ward, but the developers were the ones who were actually stuck in an artistic straitjacket.
the ESRB and MPAA have no right to dictate what content the public should have access to, nor should they have any sort of editorial control over published works. this has given them an unreasonable level of influence over the media and our cultural landscape. but worse yet, they are not accountable to anyone except themselves. at least if the board were selected by the public via an open and transparent process that would give them some kind of democratic legitimacy. and while i don't know much about the ESRB, according to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, the MPAA has had 2 clergy members on every ratings board since their film rating system was created. now, i'm fine with each religious establishment coming up with their own ratings for films/games/books/whatever, but why should the clergy be involved in the "official" rating system that everyone is subjected to.
there also seems to be no written or published rubric to ensure consistent ratings across all games/films. they don't solicit opinions from the public to determine how they should hand out ratings. who are they to decide what is acceptable for children/teenagers/mature adults and what's not? at the very least they should allow the public to give feedback on the ratings they assign. so if a film or game is given the rating of AO or NC-17 but public opinion does not agree with the rating, then the rating can be changed to reflect public opinion. perhaps the IMDb can add user ratings polls for films and games. it would be interesting to see how well public opinion matches up with actual assigned ratings.
so were the complaints filed by amateur radio operators groundless, or does this only speak for the RC modeling community? according to Wikipedia new BPL modems can detect shortwave radio services that are operating nearby and avoid frequencies allocated for radio broadcast.
the Wikipedia article also discusses the potential of using BPL as a backhaul for WiFi or WiMax networks. i don't know how densely developed these rural populations are, but assuming that not everyone is going to be accessing the internet at the same time, it might be better to keep the bandwidth intact and distribute it over a municipal wireless network. so if only 50% of the population is using the internet at a time, each user would have twice the bandwidth as they'd have if everyone had a PLC modem in their house. and with speeds of up to 10 Mbps at a range of 6 miles, that's significantly faster than BPL modems, which top out at 2 Mbps.
yes, god forbid a multi-billion dollar corporation comes up with more than one innovative idea in ~70 years. lego bricks aren't a natural monopoly, and you certainly don't need a monopoly to make a profit (otherwise why would anyone try to compete with Lego?). if they can't survive without a monopoly then, oh well--that's free market capitalism, right?
besides, they're still the most recognizable makers of construction brick toys. their company name is well-known throughout most of the world, and they are immediately recognizable as the "original" lego toy makers. if anyone wanted to market a licensed lego-based construction set based on their IP, then they will go to Lego first, not just for the name-recognition, but also for their established distribution and marketing network.
if not, then future Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc. lego sets will be sold by a different company who won't be able to charge as much money for them. either way consumers will still get what they want, and probably for cheaper.
yes, scent seems to be the primary way of determining a person's major histocompatibility complex (MHC).
if a potential mate has a highly complementary (dissimilar to one's own) MHC then your offspring will inherent a more robust immune system. if a couple shares very similar/homogeneous MHC genes then their offspring will inherit a less diverse set of natural immunities, and thus will be more susceptible to disease & illness.
however, birth control pills do not interfere with this sexual selection process by masking one's scent. instead, the hormonal changes simply cause women to be more attracted to men with MHCs similar to their own.
on a separate note, what is up with these narrow input boxes in the idle section? is this submission form designed for cellphone browsers or something?
that just moves the flash file from the 'temporary internet files' folder to another location. it'll still be a .swf file. unless there's a way to extract audio streams from .swf files it'd still be useless for mixing.
as a side note, i personally use the DownloadThemAll! extension to download links & embeds. it's pre-configured for downloading images, archives (.rar, .zip, etc.), videos, audio, software (.xpi, .exe, etc.), and it also supports DOS/Unix-type wildcards in addition to regexp filters.
yea, i recall hearing some astronauts talk about it in a space/NASA documentary. it's too bad more people couldn't experience such a n eye-opening/life-changing spiritual epiphany. if people could just take a few steps back and rise above the rat race of modern society for a moment, they'd be able to see how petty much of their greed, selfishness, xenophobia/hatred, etc. are.
the world would be a much better place if more people could pull themselves out their myopic and solipsistic existence and develop a sense of altruism and cooperation. life doesn't have to be just a competition of who can accumulate the most power and wealth. in fact, such attitudes only impede our cultural evolution and moral progress.
i've never heard of these particular ISPs or web hosts, so i don't know what their policies are. but i would be pretty pissed off if Verizon, Cox Digital, Comcast, etc. were packet shaping to throttle p2p traffic while letting spammers inundate mail servers around the world with spam and spreading mal-ware that actually causes real damages to people and businesses.
the RIAA/MPAA have government support for forcing ISPs to finger subscribers accused of illegal file sharing, and are even allowed to circumvent the courts to obtain private user info. this may be the interests of a powerful industry lobby, but it in no way serves public interest. meanwhile, clamping down on SPAM originating domestically does serve public interest, but the government has done little to combat spam, even protecting spammers to an extent with the CAN-SPAM act by preventing individuals from suing spammers, or states from enacting stricter anti-spam laws.
the only thing i can think of to explain this disparity is that spam is a form of marketing, and the U.S. government has always had a very pro-business attitude, to the extent of even placing commercial interests above public interest. since a lot of big, well-known corporations also employ spammers to advertise their products & services, and because the spammers themselves are engaging in commerce/capitalism, it has been sanctioned for so long and even granted a degree of legal legitimacy. in stark contrast, the federal government started cracking down on file sharing in 1996 when the DMCA was passed.
so i a grandma, who only uses her computer to check e-mail once a month, or a 7-year-old girl who downloaded a couple Britney Spears songs she heard on the radio, can be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages by the RIAA. but someone whose computer is shot to shit by commercially-developed malware is powerless against the companies who make money off of that malware. i guess the lesson here is that it's ok to be unethical so long as you're exploiting people for profit.
backwards compatibility doesn't cause bloat. unnecessary features and poor implementation do. since backwards compatibility isn't an unnecessary feature to most people, as long as it's implemented correctly it's not considered bloat.
what are generally considered bloat are things like:
there's a ton of crap in Microsoft's desktop OSes that can be considered bloat, but backwards compatibility isn't one of them.
Eee PC is hardware, and it's not open source. you might be able to get it with open source software installed, but it has nothing to do with the open source community. it was developed by ASUS, and they were the ones that came up with that name.
and i don't see any correlation between F/OSS and poor naming. you can find just as many closed source applications with retarded, unmarketable names: Webteh BS.Player, WS_FTP, dBPowerAmp, foobar2000, etc.
also, the examples you gave really just demonstrate that Taiwanese companies come up with poor names (for U.S. markets at least). ASUS is a Taiwanese company, and so is Linpus Technologies, the company that developed Linpus Lite. in contrast, Fedora, which is what Linpus is based off of, is a pretty good name by a F/OSS company. likewise, MySQL, Firefox, Pidgin, Red Hat, etc. are all pretty reasonable names.
i always thought it was pronounced ee-ron, not "i ran".
but then again i've heard middle easterners pronounce Iraq both with a short "i" and with a long "i."
huh? if media pundits understood logic and were rational, then they would not be espousing sophistry. whether you agree with their premise or not is a separate issue. and you can still show an argument to be invalid by disproving its premise. understanding the fundamentals of dialectic would allow you to discern an invalid argument as easily as an unsound one. and if people are accustomed to rational thought they'd be less likely to believe in false premises.
i think that's one of the greatest strengths of PC gaming. aside from the handful of open consoles like the GP2X and Pandora, most consoles are closed platforms. you need expensive dev kits and a developer's license to design games for them, and you need manufacturer approval to publish games, and you usually also need the console maker to manufacture the actual game cartridges/discs for you.
and even if you can manage all those things, few independent developers will be able to market & distribute their games. if you can't get your console title into stores like Best Buy or EB Games, or get Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony to pick up your game on their online distribution networks, then you will have no way to get your game out. whereas anyone can publish their PC games for free and distribute it themselves online. closed platforms just aren't accessible to indie developers.
um, except that PCs aren't just business tools. they're used for scientific research, for entertainment as media centers/PVR/DVR, for gaming, as well as tools for day to day life. consoles are just computers specialized for a specific purpose. anything a console can do, so can a computer, so some people choose not to buy a redundant piece of hardware.
also your observational skills apparently aren't very good. the PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360, PSP, and soon the DS with the upcoming DSi, all have multiple hardware configurations. and FYI, video games were invented on computers, before the concept of a gaming console was developed.
almost every household has a computer for surfing the web, checking the e-mail, word processing, etc. if their computer is also capable of playing games, then why shouldn't they play games on it if they want to? likewise, if your console is basically just a cheap computer, then why not use it as a media center or to surf the web, check e-mail, etc.? right now the trend in consumer electronics is moving towards technological convergence. instead of having 4-5 different specialized appliances, it makes much more sense to have a single generalized appliance that performs the combined functions of all those specialized appliances.
the line between console and computers has always been an artificial and arbitrary one. and gradually that line is becoming increasingly blurred as current generation consoles receive keyboard & mouse attachments, internet connections, web browsing capabilities, and take on the role of a HTPC.
so you think that only appointing rich people while keeping poor people out of government is the best way to combat government corruption?
part of the reason why government corruption exists is because there's little incentive for politicians to represent the interests of the people. there's such a big cultural/socioeconomic gap between the political elite and the common man that government officials don't even share the same realities, much less the same political interests, as the average working class person. worst yet, if a political leader fucks up, they'll just be replaced with more of the same. so there's no real democratic recourse for the constituency.
the rich simply don't play by the same rules as the working class in most societies. they are willing to pass draconian laws because they know they aren't going to be held to those laws like everyone else. a rich person will never be wrongly executed under capital punishment laws. they will never be thrown in jail for drug possession (and don't tell me that it's because rich people don't do drugs) and have all of their property seized by the government.
now, if all government officials were came from the working class, not only would they be more in touch with their constituency, but their interests would also be aligned with the people they are supposed to represent. that's why it makes no sense to pay civil servants more than the national median income. if most citizens can't afford to own a house, then neither should politicians. that way, they have some incentive to fix the situation.
things like bribery and illegal corruption are a separate issue. those problems can be solved once you have a government that truly represents the electorate and have dealt with legal corruption. for instance, you can start placing heavier penalties on illegal corruption. and if politicians are working class citizens, then they would be bound by the same legal code/punishments as everyone else. laws against political corruption are useless when politicians can buy their way out of any legal problem.
if they have a list of all the kiddie porn sites on the web, why don't they just go after the site owners? even if the sites are hosted overseas, there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing, and with a little international pressure it shouldn't be too hard to get their own governments to shut them down.
if the RIAA can get the Swedish government to illegally shut down the pirate bay and seize their equipment, i'm sure it'd be no problem for the Australian government to pressure other governments to go after their own kiddie porn sites.
personally, i think philosophy should be taught starting in high school or junior high. the sad fact of the matter is, most people never go to college, but almost anyone could benefit from a strong foundational knowledge of philosophy, including logic and ethics.
i mean, we teach economics, physics, chemistry, etc. in high school, so why not philosophy? at the very least high school students should be introduced to the rules of logic & dialectic and familiarize themselves with common informal fallacies. if a person cannot distinguish truth from fallacy, they are much easier to manipulate as they would be easily deceived by specious arguments. this is both dangerous and societally detrimental.
if more people understood the rules of the logic then we wouldn't have so many people falling for the blatant sophistry espoused by political pundits & demagogues who dominate the media. so there's definitely much benefit to be gained from teaching philosophical logic early on. aside from cutting down on irrational attitudes and behaviors, the analytical & problem-solving skills one develops by learning how to apply logic rigorously in all aspects of one's life can be invaluable life tools.
i'm curious (because of your user name), if you're willing to waste money on gas to buy from a store that's out of your way, then how would you feel about retail workers receiving union protection against such employers? i mean, conservatives are always complaining about unionized workers raising the prices on domestically manufactured goods, but isn't it worth paying a little extra to support workers' rights?
otherwise, why rag on Circuit City for trying to cut costs?