It's not the governments job to distribute wealth. Charity also does not really solve problems in peoples lives. The only sort of charity which works is charity which helps people help themselves.
We have to teach people how to survive in the world. The government cannot stand in the way of this process.
I'm not attempting to attack Marxism, but Communism had its chance and it failed. Capitalism won. The reason capitalism won is because people don't want an equal society, people want unequality. We NEED bosses, authority, and structure in society. Capitalism is simply easier to organize, because money allows you to organize the masses better than communism can.
The tax system is not the most efficient way to help people. The church is a much better and more efficient way. It is much better to help people out individually, in a personal way, through the church. I don't think that the federal government is talented at helping people out. Do you have any idea how the federal government is run or how it works? It's not the role of the federal government to help people. It's the job of the federal government to protect our interests in the present and perhaps in the future. The federal government handles national security. The church helps people.
Well it's simple, in this country we have conservatives and liberals. When in a situation of protecting national security, conservativism begins to make sense. Liberals are going too far to the left, right into the arms of bin laden. There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk.
I don't think you have to agree with either party on every single issue, you just have to choose a party.
The presidential candidates are supposed to represent AMERICA'S views. Not your personal views. Elections are about voting according to what is best for America, not what is best for just you personally.
The Republican party and Democrat party both represent two sides of America. Pick a side. Liberal or Conservative?
I think the problem with liberals is that liberals don't know or can't explain what their believe in or what their agenda is. Conservatives are actually straight forward about what their agenda is.
While you might be right, most Americans are ideologically in the middle. I don't think "throwing the bums out" is a very smart plan. Politicians have a job to do, they do the job we tell them to do ultimately. Throwing the politicians out and starting all over again, may not be so wise.
I think experience does count for something in politics, and we should not just throw politicians out unless you have a very good reason to do so. The issue here is national security, just throwing the bums out, how does this make us more secure?
Republicans have a clear plan. Democrats need to do a better job actually planning, because right now they look like Republican lite, and honestly, I'd rather vote for the Republicans than for the Republican lite or Republican little party.
The Republicans have an agenda, a plan, and while people may debate and disagree with some of the tactics, at least theres a plan, an agenda, and a set of tactics that exist. The Republicans basically outlined what they want and how they plan to go about getting it, they have a complete agenda. Democrats just have a bunch of issues that they highlight but which have nothing to do with an overall agenda.
Democrats want to make people vote on stuff like abortion, or racial issues, or to try to talk us into going toward the FDR style government. I don't think we can turn back the wheels of time, I think Republicans represent the future. Republicans also have plans for dealing with Iran, and Democrats have said next to nothing on this issue. Republicans have actual plans on how to organize the country, while the Democrats just are a bunch of special interest groups.
The main debate right now is about tactics. Democrats have no tactics, and Republicans have tactics which are debateable. Debateable tactics are better than no tactics at all. If we don't deal with Iran, if we don't prevent Iran from getting nukes, this situation will become very scary, not just for Isreal but for the entire world. We have to deal with the middle east, that much is clear, and we have to deal with Iran. If there is a war with Iran, we all must be united in the interest of national security. We also must be united in dealing with terrorism. Terrorism does not benefit any of us, terrorism harms all of us. Currently Democrats are making themselves look soft on terrorism because they arent outlining their plan for dealing with terrorism. If Democrats want to have a chance at winning they need to figure out how to deal with terrorism.
States are made up of individuals. States are just places on a map, the world is flat now. Individuals are globalized, and so all this talk about states sounds pointless. Also you assume all terrorists are poor, which is ignorant.
I think disruptive technology ultimately is a stupid idea. It will accomplish nothing, and at best will simply piss people off. Innovation is good, but don;'t be an activist.
It seriously sounds like something you'd see in a comedy routine. It almost sounds like sarcasm or something. When I read it I was thinking "are these guys serious?"
We all know what the satelite is for. Just seeing that Isreal and France is involved automatically tells you exactly what this satelite is for.
I think we all know what this satelite will be used for. I don't know why they talk about it like we are school children. Are we supposed to believe that this satelite is going to be used to help farmers? LOL
I just wish they could have come up with something better than that. Sure I can believe this satelite will be used to help people, but even a generic answer such as "This satelite will be used to help people view and track organic structures from space" makes a bit more sense than tracking fish?
I don't know the point of the annoucement. But whoever worked on the PR on this announcement should investigate a career in comedy.
You'd think these guys were FOR it the way they select the most idiotic approach to dealing with it. This technology MUST be legal and regulated, yet it also must be restricted, and not through a stupid idea like a ban. Just don't let people study it in an unclassified way. If people want to study artificial life, make it classified. If they discover something, destroy it and erase it from all records and give them money for the discovery. Use the patent systems to patent all the dangerous technologies and then don't build anything. The ban I think is just stupid.
Rogue states? No, rogue individuals are what we have to worry about. You have to worry about terrorists of the future getting a hold of this. It's debateable if there are any true "rogue" states, as communist states are sanctioned and isolated. North Korea is a threat, but China has influence over North Korea and it's not in China's best interest to allow North Korea to go terrorist. I don't think we have to worry about the middle east anymore, the middle east is being liberated as we speak and by the time this technology comes along the middle east will be as Democratic as Japan.
The war on terrorism is neccessary to PREVENT people from abusing these kinds of technology. INDIVIDUALS, not rogue states. You talk about states as if states arent made up of people.
We are mortal because we choose to be. We accept mortality because we don't want to be immortal. So it's our decision to die.
If we want to die, the question then becomes, what is the healthiest way to live, and what is the longest amount of time we are required to live. NanoTech and BioTech can allow us to live healthier more productive lives, this is good for the economy.
Try moving to Africa and living through a bug and water diet before making such idiotic comments.
The human body can adapt, but if you don't consume any vitamins at all, you age quicker. I think the point he is making is we DO need vitamins. It's debateable if these vitamins should be in the form of pills instead of food, but considering how the food industry is headed, we all will be living off artificial food in the future anyway. So we can either die of kidney failure or a heart attack. We can either eat Mc Donalds or bugs and water. We can either drink Green Tea or drink Beer. Take your pick, you'll die either way.
The sigularity does and will exist. Biotechnology and genetic modification is not the problem. We already do this, and I think it will be great for the medical industry. If you have enough money to afford to pick and choose the genes of your baby, thats your option. If you have enough money to cure yourself and live longer, thats your option, this is basically the reason why the healthcare industry exists.
NanoTechnology and Artificial life, this is a completely different set of technologies. Artificial life is life which is made in a lab, and there could be all sorts of potential dangerous involving this. NanoTechnology is already here, but I can understand why people would need to control it, in the same way people needed to control nuclear technology. Certain technologies are just dangerous as hell most likely should remain classified.
Don't get me wrong, Nano Technology and Artificial Life have their uses, but I don't think these are technologies for the masses, and I think that most of you here can agree. I think if we do use nano technology, instead of using laws to restrict it, it should be restricted willingly by the masses. Do we really want to have to deal with nano viruses? Do we want our kids in the next generation to have to deal with nano terrorism? In the interest of national security nano technology must be controlled.
The reason why bans don't work is because if you simply tell someone not to do something, it does not provide any incentive for them not to do it. If we are worried about these abuses the solution is simple, keep the knowledge secret or classified. If you discover something, don't share it, if it's so dangerous. If you discover something profitable, then sell it for a billion dollars or make people pay you a billion dollars not to discover it. The point is you need to sit down with a room filled with economists, doctors, technologists, sociologists, psychologists, and every other professional of every type, and discuss this issue in a realistic way. A ban in my opinion is as stupid as trying to ban someone from Slashdot, sure you can ban anyone, but they'll go to another computer and bypass the ban. Sure you can ban anyone, but given enough incentive they'll start hacking and using fake IP addresses. Sure you can ban anyone, but if there is enough incentive people will unban themselves.
The solution to this is a conservative solution. We need to prevent disruptive technologies from being spread in the same way we prevent nuclear technology from being spread. If we are worried that this technology could destroy the planet, or cause harm, we have all the tools we need to prevent the creation of potential weapons of mass destruction, and we do not need a ban to do it. We simply can use the patent system to patent all the ideas, or simply buy the ideas and patents from people for millions of dollars. Sure these discoveries will be made, but these discoveries will be surpressed, or purchased. Sure discoveries will be made, but if these discoveries are bad for the market, these discoveries will be useless.
The market will ban useless technology. The market will defend us, we don't have to do anything except use the market. If we don't want to deal with deadly nano technology, you arent going to solve it with laws. You'll stop it by simply not funding it. If I were an investor I sure as hell wouldnt fund some of these crazy technologies. If the technology makes enough of a profit I'm sure someone will fund it, but then someone else will buy them out and destroy it. Trust the market.
Karma, if you cheat all the time, it's like pouring poison into your drinking water, eventuallly it comes back to you. If you put out misery and pain, you eventually recieve it back.
That's actually a good point. I can see this working on the scale of billions because there will definately be patterns, but I don't know how or why you'd want to apply this to billions of people.
It's as if they get retarded real quick. It's complicated, but if you want to make a science out of it, it's very stupid to focus on the "physics" of friendship. This is like focising on the "shape" of love, or the weight of emotion. Well okay, it does make sense to focus on these things, but why focus on these things?
If your goal is to find dates, then the first rule, BE HONEST. A woman can smell a liar, and women gossip, so anything you do will spread around town. You want the gossip to go in your favor, you want the legions of women to highlight how good you were in bed, or how nice you treat them, so that news spreads around town and you become a teenage or college legend. You don't want to be the town player, who gets drunk and beats women, or who cheats on women constantly, you don't want to be that guy. Geeks must learn to create the Geek image. We need a Geek 2.0, and it's your job as slashdot geeks to create the Geek 2.0 image. Do your research, figure out how women think and what they want, then come up with a set of guidelines and rules that all Geeks should follow, complete with dress code and language.
If you don't want to be single it's not difficult.
on
The Physics of Friendship
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
If you just want to find a woman, or a guy, simply go out and keep asking people on dates or to be with you until one of them says yes. If you want to be precise about it, do your research about the people around you, find the one who seems most vulnerable, desperate and lonely, and wait for the oppurtunity, wait for the right time, and then show them you are interested.
It's no different than anything else, you research and learn as much as you can about the target, you ask the target out on a date, if they say no, then you move on to the next target, if they say yes then you go out on a date. If the date goes well, then you date again and again.
The main problem with geeks, geeks don't know what they want, geeks are too picky about what they deserve or can get, and geeks use their brain everywhere but here. Finally the most important part about dating, be honest! Be honest about yourself. You'd think that being a liar would get you more dates, but it ruins your reputation, and when you piss the wrong woman off, it will stick. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't play women. Treat them as your equal, and have fun in a safe fashion.
This is like reiventing the wheel, naming it the squeel,and calling it something new because its a square wheel. This is not new science, this is not news, all of us or at least those amount us who are wise, know this already. They just encoded it into a new physics language, thats all.
In highschool there is very few real friendships. Most of the time its just recognizeable faces, or people who are cool but don't actually matter.
When you get to college and beyond is when you begin to build your true friendships, and these friendships arent based on emotion anymore because by this age usually a person has the ability to reason and filter out the people they don't want. By this time people usually have a laser like focus on exactly the personality types they get along with and know how to avoid the personality clashes which don't mix.
Loyalty is glue.It holds a relationship together. Keep your word and your word means something, commit to friendships as one commits to family and you'll have something to protect. Without loyalty, friendship is just familiar faces and cool people who you talk to on a regular basis but who don't matter and who you don't miss when they are gone.
I think theres room for both friends, and cool people, but relationships based on coolness are completely based on logic.If they are useful to you, and you are useful to them, if they and you both have reasons to hang around each other, business reasons, then these relationships last as long as there is mutual benefit.
The emotional relationship can end overnight when someone cusses the other out. So logic is a core component of any relationship. Emotion is a component as well, but emotion cuts both ways, and usually emotional relationships do not and cannot last.
I do not think friendships work in such a way that math can literally outline the direction they are headed. Friendship is based on loyalty, when someone involved is disloyal it usually ends, and this can happy at any time. So friendships by nature come and go, and all relationships are temporary. The goal in this I suppose is to try to find patterns, so here is a pattern
If you want to have stronger friendships, have leverage, enough money, or charisma to keep people hovering around you. These variables can be added into the equation and then there are patterns, but if you just look at it emotionally then it will be complete chaos because emotion is not logical. There are logical elements of friendship, logical components, and logical tools which one can use to keep a friendship together or tear it apart.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the governments job to distribute wealth. Charity also does not really solve problems in peoples lives. The only sort of charity which works is charity which helps people help themselves.
We have to teach people how to survive in the world. The government cannot stand in the way of this process.
I'm not attempting to attack Marxism, but Communism had its chance and it failed. Capitalism won. The reason capitalism won is because people don't want an equal society, people want unequality. We NEED bosses, authority, and structure in society. Capitalism is simply easier to organize, because money allows you to organize the masses better than communism can.
The tax system is not the most efficient way to help people. The church is a much better and more efficient way. It is much better to help people out individually, in a personal way, through the church. I don't think that the federal government is talented at helping people out. Do you have any idea how the federal government is run or how it works? It's not the role of the federal government to help people. It's the job of the federal government to protect our interests in the present and perhaps in the future. The federal government handles national security. The church helps people.
Well it's simple, in this country we have conservatives and liberals. When in a situation of protecting national security, conservativism begins to make sense. Liberals are going too far to the left, right into the arms of bin laden. There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk.
I don't think you have to agree with either party on every single issue, you just have to choose a party.
The presidential candidates are supposed to represent AMERICA'S views. Not your personal views. Elections are about voting according to what is best for America, not what is best for just you personally.
The Republican party and Democrat party both represent two sides of America. Pick a side. Liberal or Conservative?
I think the problem with liberals is that liberals don't know or can't explain what their believe in or what their agenda is. Conservatives are actually straight forward about what their agenda is.
While you might be right, most Americans are ideologically in the middle. I don't think "throwing the bums out" is a very smart plan. Politicians have a job to do, they do the job we tell them to do ultimately. Throwing the politicians out and starting all over again, may not be so wise.
I think experience does count for something in politics, and we should not just throw politicians out unless you have a very good reason to do so. The issue here is national security, just throwing the bums out, how does this make us more secure?
Republicans have a clear plan. Democrats need to do a better job actually planning, because right now they look like Republican lite, and honestly, I'd rather vote for the Republicans than for the Republican lite or Republican little party.
The Republicans have an agenda, a plan, and while people may debate and disagree with some of the tactics, at least theres a plan, an agenda, and a set of tactics that exist. The Republicans basically outlined what they want and how they plan to go about getting it, they have a complete agenda. Democrats just have a bunch of issues that they highlight but which have nothing to do with an overall agenda.
Democrats want to make people vote on stuff like abortion, or racial issues, or to try to talk us into going toward the FDR style government. I don't think we can turn back the wheels of time, I think Republicans represent the future. Republicans also have plans for dealing with Iran, and Democrats have said next to nothing on this issue. Republicans have actual plans on how to organize the country, while the Democrats just are a bunch of special interest groups.
The main debate right now is about tactics. Democrats have no tactics, and Republicans have tactics which are debateable. Debateable tactics are better than no tactics at all. If we don't deal with Iran, if we don't prevent Iran from getting nukes, this situation will become very scary, not just for Isreal but for the entire world. We have to deal with the middle east, that much is clear, and we have to deal with Iran. If there is a war with Iran, we all must be united in the interest of national security. We also must be united in dealing with terrorism. Terrorism does not benefit any of us, terrorism harms all of us. Currently Democrats are making themselves look soft on terrorism because they arent outlining their plan for dealing with terrorism. If Democrats want to have a chance at winning they need to figure out how to deal with terrorism.
I guess, he is now layed off, the question is this, who owns the company now? Can we trust them?
States are made up of individuals. States are just places on a map, the world is flat now. Individuals are globalized, and so all this talk about states sounds pointless. Also you assume all terrorists are poor, which is ignorant.
I think disruptive technology ultimately is a stupid idea. It will accomplish nothing, and at best will simply piss people off. Innovation is good, but don;'t be an activist.
It seriously sounds like something you'd see in a comedy routine. It almost sounds like sarcasm or something. When I read it I was thinking "are these guys serious?"
We all know what the satelite is for. Just seeing that Isreal and France is involved automatically tells you exactly what this satelite is for.
I think we all know what this satelite will be used for. I don't know why they talk about it like we are school children. Are we supposed to believe that this satelite is going to be used to help farmers? LOL
I just wish they could have come up with something better than that.
Sure I can believe this satelite will be used to help people, but even a generic answer such as "This satelite will be used to help people view and track organic structures from space" makes a bit more sense than tracking fish?
I don't know the point of the annoucement. But whoever worked on the PR on this announcement should investigate a career in comedy.
You'd think these guys were FOR it the way they select the most idiotic approach to dealing with it. This technology MUST be legal and regulated, yet it also must be restricted, and not through a stupid idea like a ban. Just don't let people study it in an unclassified way. If people want to study artificial life, make it classified. If they discover something, destroy it and erase it from all records and give them money for the discovery. Use the patent systems to patent all the dangerous technologies and then don't build anything. The ban I think is just stupid.
Rogue states? No, rogue individuals are what we have to worry about.
You have to worry about terrorists of the future getting a hold of this. It's debateable if there are any true "rogue" states, as communist states are sanctioned and isolated. North Korea is a threat, but China has influence over North Korea and it's not in China's best interest to allow North Korea to go terrorist. I don't think we have to worry about the middle east anymore, the middle east is being liberated as we speak and by the time this technology comes along the middle east will be as Democratic as Japan.
The war on terrorism is neccessary to PREVENT people from abusing these kinds of technology. INDIVIDUALS, not rogue states. You talk about states as if states arent made up of people.
We are mortal because we choose to be. We accept mortality because we don't want to be immortal. So it's our decision to die.
If we want to die, the question then becomes, what is the healthiest way to live, and what is the longest amount of time we are required to live. NanoTech and BioTech can allow us to live healthier more productive lives, this is good for the economy.
Try moving to Africa and living through a bug and water diet before making such idiotic comments.
The human body can adapt, but if you don't consume any vitamins at all, you age quicker. I think the point he is making is we DO need vitamins. It's debateable if these vitamins should be in the form of pills instead of food, but considering how the food industry is headed, we all will be living off artificial food in the future anyway. So we can either die of kidney failure or a heart attack. We can either eat Mc Donalds or bugs and water. We can either drink Green Tea or drink Beer. Take your pick, you'll die either way.
The sigularity does and will exist. Biotechnology and genetic modification is not the problem. We already do this, and I think it will be great for the medical industry. If you have enough money to afford to pick and choose the genes of your baby, thats your option. If you have enough money to cure yourself and live longer, thats your option, this is basically the reason why the healthcare industry exists.
NanoTechnology and Artificial life, this is a completely different set of technologies. Artificial life is life which is made in a lab, and there could be all sorts of potential dangerous involving this. NanoTechnology is already here, but I can understand why people would need to control it, in the same way people needed to control nuclear technology. Certain technologies are just dangerous as hell most likely should remain classified.
Don't get me wrong, Nano Technology and Artificial Life have their uses, but I don't think these are technologies for the masses, and I think that most of you here can agree. I think if we do use nano technology, instead of using laws to restrict it, it should be restricted willingly by the masses. Do we really want to have to deal with nano viruses? Do we want our kids in the next generation to have to deal with nano terrorism? In the interest of national security nano technology must be controlled.
The reason why bans don't work is because if you simply tell someone not to do something, it does not provide any incentive for them not to do it. If we are worried about these abuses the solution is simple, keep the knowledge secret or classified. If you discover something, don't share it, if it's so dangerous. If you discover something profitable, then sell it for a billion dollars or make people pay you a billion dollars not to discover it. The point is you need to sit down with a room filled with economists, doctors, technologists, sociologists, psychologists, and every other professional of every type, and discuss this issue in a realistic way. A ban in my opinion is as stupid as trying to ban someone from Slashdot, sure you can ban anyone, but they'll go to another computer and bypass the ban. Sure you can ban anyone, but given enough incentive they'll start hacking and using fake IP addresses. Sure you can ban anyone, but if there is enough incentive people will unban themselves.
The solution to this is a conservative solution. We need to prevent disruptive technologies from being spread in the same way we prevent nuclear technology from being spread. If we are worried that this technology could destroy the planet, or cause harm, we have all the tools we need to prevent the creation of potential weapons of mass destruction, and we do not need a ban to do it. We simply can use the patent system to patent all the ideas, or simply buy the ideas and patents from people for millions of dollars. Sure these discoveries will be made, but these discoveries will be surpressed, or purchased. Sure discoveries will be made, but if these discoveries are bad for the market, these discoveries will be useless.
The market will ban useless technology. The market will defend us, we don't have to do anything except use the market. If we don't want to deal with deadly nano technology, you arent going to solve it with laws. You'll stop it by simply not funding it. If I were an investor I sure as hell wouldnt fund some of these crazy technologies. If the technology makes enough of a profit I'm sure someone will fund it, but then someone else will buy them out and destroy it. Trust the market.
Karma, if you cheat all the time, it's like pouring poison into your drinking water, eventuallly it comes back to you. If you put out misery and pain, you eventually recieve it back.
That's actually a good point. I can see this working on the scale of billions because there will definately be patterns, but I don't know how or why you'd want to apply this to billions of people.
It's as if they get retarded real quick. It's complicated, but if you want to make a science out of it, it's very stupid to focus on the "physics" of friendship. This is like focising on the "shape" of love, or the weight of emotion. Well okay, it does make sense to focus on these things, but why focus on these things?
If your goal is to find dates, then the first rule, BE HONEST. A woman can smell a liar, and women gossip, so anything you do will spread around town. You want the gossip to go in your favor, you want the legions of women to highlight how good you were in bed, or how nice you treat them, so that news spreads around town and you become a teenage or college legend. You don't want to be the town player, who gets drunk and beats women, or who cheats on women constantly, you don't want to be that guy. Geeks must learn to create the Geek image. We need a Geek 2.0, and it's your job as slashdot geeks to create the Geek 2.0 image. Do your research, figure out how women think and what they want, then come up with a set of guidelines and rules that all Geeks should follow, complete with dress code and language.
If you just want to find a woman, or a guy, simply go out and keep asking people on dates or to be with you until one of them says yes. If you want to be precise about it, do your research about the people around you, find the one who seems most vulnerable, desperate and lonely, and wait for the oppurtunity, wait for the right time, and then show them you are interested.
It's no different than anything else, you research and learn as much as you can about the target, you ask the target out on a date, if they say no, then you move on to the next target, if they say yes then you go out on a date. If the date goes well, then you date again and again.
The main problem with geeks, geeks don't know what they want, geeks are too picky about what they deserve or can get, and geeks use their brain everywhere but here. Finally the most important part about dating, be honest! Be honest about yourself. You'd think that being a liar would get you more dates, but it ruins your reputation, and when you piss the wrong woman off, it will stick. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't play women. Treat them as your equal, and have fun in a safe fashion.
This is like reiventing the wheel, naming it the squeel,and calling it something new because its a square wheel. This is not new science, this is not news, all of us or at least those amount us who are wise, know this already. They just encoded it into a new physics language, thats all.
In highschool there is very few real friendships. Most of the time its just recognizeable faces, or people who are cool but don't actually matter.
When you get to college and beyond is when you begin to build your true friendships, and these friendships arent based on emotion anymore because by this age usually a person has the ability to reason and filter out the people they don't want. By this time people usually have a laser like focus on exactly the personality types they get along with and know how to avoid the personality clashes which don't mix.
Loyalty is glue.It holds a relationship together. Keep your word and your word means something, commit to friendships as one commits to family and you'll have something to protect. Without loyalty, friendship is just familiar faces and cool people who you talk to on a regular basis but who don't matter and who you don't miss when they are gone.
I think theres room for both friends, and cool people, but relationships based on coolness are completely based on logic.If they are useful to you, and you are useful to them, if they and you both have reasons to hang around each other, business reasons, then these relationships last as long as there is mutual benefit.
The emotional relationship can end overnight when someone cusses the other out. So logic is a core component of any relationship. Emotion is a component as well, but emotion cuts both ways, and usually emotional relationships do not and cannot last.
I do not think friendships work in such a way that math can literally outline the direction they are headed. Friendship is based on loyalty, when someone involved is disloyal it usually ends, and this can happy at any time. So friendships by nature come and go, and all relationships are temporary. The goal in this I suppose is to try to find patterns, so here is a pattern
If you want to have stronger friendships, have leverage, enough money, or charisma to keep people hovering around you. These variables can be added into the equation and then there are patterns, but if you just look at it emotionally then it will be complete chaos because emotion is not logical. There are logical elements of friendship, logical components, and logical tools which one can use to keep a friendship together or tear it apart.