When my youngest daughter was twelve she was a "Jazz Jackrabbit" addict. She "met" one of its artists on the internet. The fellow was a mcgrew fan; I had a fairly popular Quake site. She came to me wide-eyed one evening, saying "Dad, did you know you were famous?"
So... between the Springfield Fragfest, my K5 "Paxil Diaries", and my slashdot journals, you're saying I'm immortal, too? Sorry, I remain a skeptic.
I was there during the end of the Vietnam war, and never met a friendlier, happier people in my entire life. It was a wonderful experience, it was a beautiful country, and I urge you to visit despite the unrest. They had a revolution the year I was there.
A few things, though - their culture is very unlike western culture. Do not under any circumstances step on money, as it has the king's picture on it. You could get killed for that. Do not under any ciscumstances point your foot at anyone, you can get your ass kicked for that.
If someone bows, bow back even lower. If someone offers you food or drink, take it and eat/drink it, as refusal of a gift is seen as a grave insult. I had a loaded and cocked.45 pointed at my face once when I didn't want to drink a shot of whiskey.
After drinking the shot, the guy with the pistol was my new friend. The place is wierd and wonderful, and so are its people. I would dearly love to be able to visit Thailand again!
Oh yeah - they have stunningly beautiful women there.
Uh this is Thailand we're talking about. Far far less than 1% will revolt against the King.
Unless the Thais have changed drastically since 1974 (and as they have a 5,000 year history I sincerely doubt it), you are correct. I was there from August 1973 to August 1974 and I never once met a Thai would wouldn't lay his or her life down for the king. Most people had his portrait/photograph displayed in their homes.
I spent August 1973 to August 1974 in Utapao AFB in Thailand. Utapao was a short boat ride away from Phuket (pronounced "fuck it"; the Thais have a different alphabet than we do) At the time, Thailand was then a third world country. Utapao was in the southern part of the country, and there was no electricity nor running water nor natural gas in homes. The roads were unpaved. The business districts of Saddaheep and Bong Chong to the south of Utapao had electricity, but not the houses.
We had a Thai intern at work a few years ago, and from her account Thailand has industrialized and is no longer a third world country.
Once while riding a bhat bus (so called because it cost one bhat to ride; a bhat equaled five American pennies. The "bus" was a Japanese pickup truck with benches in the bed) flashing lights came up behind us, the driver skidded to a halt and took off running. I cursed and started to get out. "No!" a fellow passenger insisted, "Day keel you!" She was right; I watched in horror as Thai police shot the driver as he ran across the field.
I attributed it to the fact that Thaland was closer to Vietnam than St Louis is to Chicago, and the war was going on, but it appears that even though they may no longer be a third world country, their government is still authoritarian.
What's troublesome is my government, USA, seems to have been headed more and more towards authoritarianism and less free as time has gone on. So I fear that the answer to the question posed in TFS is "yes".
I wrote two K5 diaries about my Thailand experiences a few years ago, Gecko Poker and War and Sex if anyone is interested in hearing about the place.
While I was there I thought that a visit to Mars couldn't be stranger. Nothing was the same as here, even the dirt was a different color, the hills were a different shape, the vegetation was completely different. But the world seems to becoming more homogenous as time goes on.
If you want a definition see a dictionary. But for an explanation from one who has experienced it, true love is the love of a parent for his or her child. Most people would die for their children.
The love of a child for their parent is true love.
Note not all parents do, in fact, love their children (and those who don't have something badly wrong with them), and some people hate their parents. That is perhaps the saddest thing that can possibly be.
Oddly, the quote at slashdot a while ago was Oscar Hammerstein, "Love isn't love 'til you give it away". Another quote I don't know the author of is "absense is to love as water is to fire -- a little quickens, much extinguishes".
The band Nazareth said "Love hurts" and indeed it does. I say a man can punch me, hit me, kick me, bite me, shoot me, stab me, break my bones, but only a woman can hurt me.
Shakespeare said "it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all," I think Shakespeare was a fucking idiot for saying something that ignorant.
Evolution has shaped me to want to survive - not just my ideas, but ME. Most people outside this crowd here (and lately it seems quite a few here) have nothing concrete to give to the world.
My dad was an electrical lineman. In the forty years he did construction and repair of towers and poles and assorted hardware, in two hundred years nothing he did will remain, except having and raising my sister and me.
We remember Plato and a few others of his time, and some of their ideas, but the vast, VAST majority of people of his time left nothing at all, unless their genes survived.
It felt more like a wire than a string, and it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was downright painful -- a show stopper. I had to learn to position it correctly, or *ZAP* ouch, game over, no erection.
You might want to look up 'semantic' in a dictionary.
You might want to link a dictionary when you accuse someone of ignorance, and quote it as well.
semantic Audio Help/smæntk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-man-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion. 2. of or pertaining to semantics.
Also, semantical.
[Origin: 1655-65; Gk sémantikós having meaning, equiv. to sémant(ós) marked (séman-, base of sémaínein to show, mark + -tos verbal adj. suffix; akin to sêma sign) + -ikos -ic]
--Related forms semantically, adverb
semantic Audio Help (s-mn'tk) Pronunciation Key adj. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.
[French sémantique, from Greek smantikos, significant, from smantos, marked, from smainein, sman-, to signify, from sma, sign.]
seman'tically adv.
semantic
1894, from Fr. sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Gk. semantikos "significant," from semainein "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" (Doric sama). Semantics "the study of the relationship between linguistic symbols and their meanings" is recorded from 1893. Earlier this was called semasiology (1847, from Ger. Semasiologie, 1829).
I believe he used the term correctly, and said exactly what he meant. There is no real difference; only wordplay.
Mod me down, google fans. I think it's time that Google stop the "don't be evil" bullshit. From helping China and other countries repress their citizens to buying doubleclick, now this eula, the "don't be evil" has become a joke.
iGoogle is my home page and they have the best search on the internet, but they're no less evil than any other multinational corporation. I take offense when someone not only lies to me, but knows I know they're lying and keeps lying anyway. My ex-wife used to do that and I hated it.
It's all about the money and nothing else, just like any other corporation.
I don't lack imagination; I was an art major, I play guitar, I write (caution: my/. journals are mostly NSFW), yet I was faithful to my ex-wife for the 27 years we were married, despite great temptation. It wasn't religion that kept me faithful, it was love - I knew how much her infidelity hurt. I've since had multiple partners, but I'd trade all those sluts and whores for one faithful woman.
You can't buy love. You can't even buy cuddling. But you can buy sex.
Social evolution drives genetic evolution. Even if you live to be two hundred, unless you procreate you're an evolutionary dead end. If you are afraid of women you won't procreate. If you are percieved as butt-ugly you won't procreate. No matter how smart you are, if you have asperger's you're probably an evolutionary dead end because we are social animals and have a certain "mating dance" (that I unfortunately suck at).
My friend Linda has had fourteen kids, thirteen still living. She's not that smart and neither are her kids, a few of whom are in prison right now. However, I only have two kids, one of whom is doing pretty good. However, Linda has six times higher chance of her genes surviving than I do.
Actually her chances of gene survival are higher because I doubt Leila will have any kids, and Patty may not either. Linda's already a grandmother and even great grandmother several times, but she's ten years younger than me.
Again, social evolution drives genetic evolution. If you don't get laid, you lose the evolution game.
Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?
Did you not even read the summary? I was faithful to my ex-slut for 27 years until the pain of her continued affairs became too much and I divorced her. This was despite repeated advances by her so-called "friends", who she'd obviously been bragging about the size of my penis to.
I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months.
You're confusing lust with love. A man with the monogamy gene will be faithful because he wouldn't want to hurt the woman he loves. It's possible that a man without this gene is incapable of true love.
Some species of animals are nearly 100% monogamous and mate for life, while other species are not monogamous at all. Other species, like the voles mentioned, vary withing subspecies.
We are nothing but complex chemical reactions. Thought, speech, feelings, love, even movement are only chemical reactions.
Surveys show that roughly half of married men admit to having extramaital affairs, but 75 of married woman do. So either woman are more dishonest with their husbands, or a lot more honest with researchers.
Men I know would lie the other way on the survey and say they cheat when they can't. I suspect that woman are lying and 75% of them cheat.
Unless you're referring to something in TFA (which I haven't read yet), that was a pretty misandrist statement.
Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.
Seems you don't want to include men as people, since they didn't study the gene expression in women. However, they should - surveys show roughly 50% of men admit to affairs, but over 75% of women do.
Unfortunately for me I have the monogamous gene while my ex-wife had the "slut" gene.
Yes, pot is social, although not so much as it was back in the "stoned age". The younger smokers use "hitters", which hold one toke. It wasn't the pot itself that made it the social drug, it was the times themselves. As to offering, that's just courtesy. As to offering more than once, that's short term memory loss and force of habit.
As to the "crossover effect", that's not caused by the pot, but by the laws against it. The same people who sell pot sell coke, crack, heroin, meth, anything to make a buck. When Reagan started his "war on drugs" it was actually a "war on marijuana"; all of a sudden the country was awash with cocaine. I'd look for pot and be told, "it's dry, man, want some coke?" Were reefer legal and sold as alcohol is, it would NOT be a "crossover drug".
As to the meth, if you can keep the kids off of it they're far less likely to get addicted to it. Teenagers are immortal; they are perfect, know everything, and impervious to all. Hell, I was a teenager once and raised two of them. But the laws against meth actually make it easier for a teenager to buy meth than for an adult. A fourtten year old kid is too young to be a policeman, so it's safe to sell it to him. A thirty year old will be looked at with suspicion.
I would rather have my daughter be an addict than a prisoner. Laws against drug possession don't stop drug use; education and treatment are the keys there. The laws are counterproductive.
That's true, but athiests make up far more than 1% of the slashdot population. Make a pro-Christian or pro-Muslim comment here and you will see more rabid, fanatical athiests than you would imagine.
The Constitution Party wants to restore the US government to its Biblical roots
Their candidate is a preacher. Even though I'm a Christian, that would worry me if I thought he might win. We are most decidedly NOT a Chriatian nation; we have Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Hinus, Athiests, Agnostics, secular humanists, all of whom are entitled to their own beliefs.
The worst thing my bible says about prostitutes is that if you consort with them, other men will spend your money (although it says pimping ("whoremongering") is a bad sin), but it lists adultery as one of the ten "thou shalt nots" that Moses brought down from the mountain.
If this is a Christian nation why is it legal for me to have sex with my congressman's wife so long as I don't pay her for it? My bible doesn't say anything bad about drugs, yet they are illegal.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, you got it correct; it is disingenuous to say you're "pro choice" whan you want to make MY choices of whether to take drugs away. I'm actually both pro-choice and pro-life; I think abortion is none of my business unless I'm the father (although I would not want to be faced with the decision myself), but I'm firmly against war and the death penalty, both of which kill in my name via my government.
I see they modded me "troll", but that's to be expected any time you advance an unpopular notion. I have so many unpopular opinions I'm amazed that my karma remains excellent. But whoever though that comment was a troll is an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
When my youngest daughter was twelve she was a "Jazz Jackrabbit" addict. She "met" one of its artists on the internet. The fellow was a mcgrew fan; I had a fairly popular Quake site. She came to me wide-eyed one evening, saying "Dad, did you know you were famous?"
So... between the Springfield Fragfest, my K5 "Paxil Diaries", and my slashdot journals, you're saying I'm immortal, too? Sorry, I remain a skeptic.
As to the Soviet Russia meme, you can blame Arte Johnson and Yakov Smirnoff.
I was there during the end of the Vietnam war, and never met a friendlier, happier people in my entire life. It was a wonderful experience, it was a beautiful country, and I urge you to visit despite the unrest. They had a revolution the year I was there.
A few things, though - their culture is very unlike western culture. Do not under any circumstances step on money, as it has the king's picture on it. You could get killed for that. Do not under any ciscumstances point your foot at anyone, you can get your ass kicked for that.
If someone bows, bow back even lower. If someone offers you food or drink, take it and eat/drink it, as refusal of a gift is seen as a grave insult. I had a loaded and cocked .45 pointed at my face once when I didn't want to drink a shot of whiskey.
After drinking the shot, the guy with the pistol was my new friend. The place is wierd and wonderful, and so are its people. I would dearly love to be able to visit Thailand again!
Oh yeah - they have stunningly beautiful women there.
Uh this is Thailand we're talking about. Far far less than 1% will revolt against the King.
Unless the Thais have changed drastically since 1974 (and as they have a 5,000 year history I sincerely doubt it), you are correct. I was there from August 1973 to August 1974 and I never once met a Thai would wouldn't lay his or her life down for the king. Most people had his portrait/photograph displayed in their homes.
I spent August 1973 to August 1974 in Utapao AFB in Thailand. Utapao was a short boat ride away from Phuket (pronounced "fuck it"; the Thais have a different alphabet than we do) At the time, Thailand was then a third world country. Utapao was in the southern part of the country, and there was no electricity nor running water nor natural gas in homes. The roads were unpaved. The business districts of Saddaheep and Bong Chong to the south of Utapao had electricity, but not the houses.
We had a Thai intern at work a few years ago, and from her account Thailand has industrialized and is no longer a third world country.
Once while riding a bhat bus (so called because it cost one bhat to ride; a bhat equaled five American pennies. The "bus" was a Japanese pickup truck with benches in the bed) flashing lights came up behind us, the driver skidded to a halt and took off running. I cursed and started to get out. "No!" a fellow passenger insisted, "Day keel you!" She was right; I watched in horror as Thai police shot the driver as he ran across the field.
I attributed it to the fact that Thaland was closer to Vietnam than St Louis is to Chicago, and the war was going on, but it appears that even though they may no longer be a third world country, their government is still authoritarian.
What's troublesome is my government, USA, seems to have been headed more and more towards authoritarianism and less free as time has gone on. So I fear that the answer to the question posed in TFS is "yes".
I wrote two K5 diaries about my Thailand experiences a few years ago, Gecko Poker and War and Sex if anyone is interested in hearing about the place.
While I was there I thought that a visit to Mars couldn't be stranger. Nothing was the same as here, even the dirt was a different color, the hills were a different shape, the vegetation was completely different. But the world seems to becoming more homogenous as time goes on.
If you want a definition see a dictionary. But for an explanation from one who has experienced it, true love is the love of a parent for his or her child. Most people would die for their children.
The love of a child for their parent is true love.
Note not all parents do, in fact, love their children (and those who don't have something badly wrong with them), and some people hate their parents. That is perhaps the saddest thing that can possibly be.
Oddly, the quote at slashdot a while ago was Oscar Hammerstein, "Love isn't love 'til you give it away". Another quote I don't know the author of is "absense is to love as water is to fire -- a little quickens, much extinguishes".
The band Nazareth said "Love hurts" and indeed it does. I say a man can punch me, hit me, kick me, bite me, shoot me, stab me, break my bones, but only a woman can hurt me.
Shakespeare said "it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all," I think Shakespeare was a fucking idiot for saying something that ignorant.
Evolution has shaped me to want to survive - not just my ideas, but ME. Most people outside this crowd here (and lately it seems quite a few here) have nothing concrete to give to the world.
My dad was an electrical lineman. In the forty years he did construction and repair of towers and poles and assorted hardware, in two hundred years nothing he did will remain, except having and raising my sister and me.
We remember Plato and a few others of his time, and some of their ideas, but the vast, VAST majority of people of his time left nothing at all, unless their genes survived.
It felt more like a wire than a string, and it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was downright painful -- a show stopper. I had to learn to position it correctly, or *ZAP* ouch, game over, no erection.
You might want to look up 'semantic' in a dictionary.
You might want to link a dictionary when you accuse someone of ignorance, and quote it as well.
I believe he used the term correctly, and said exactly what he meant. There is no real difference; only wordplay.
Mod me down, google fans. I think it's time that Google stop the "don't be evil" bullshit. From helping China and other countries repress their citizens to buying doubleclick, now this eula, the "don't be evil" has become a joke.
iGoogle is my home page and they have the best search on the internet, but they're no less evil than any other multinational corporation. I take offense when someone not only lies to me, but knows I know they're lying and keeps lying anyway. My ex-wife used to do that and I hated it.
It's all about the money and nothing else, just like any other corporation.
I have one, I still hate it. I can't wait to retire (except I had better if I know what's good for me).
I don't lack imagination; I was an art major, I play guitar, I write (caution: my /. journals are mostly NSFW), yet I was faithful to my ex-wife for the 27 years we were married, despite great temptation. It wasn't religion that kept me faithful, it was love - I knew how much her infidelity hurt. I've since had multiple partners, but I'd trade all those sluts and whores for one faithful woman.
You can't buy love. You can't even buy cuddling. But you can buy sex.
It's a trap. You'll wind up without your domain OR any cash for it. Ask a lawyer.
Dude, that's Star, you don't want to mess with her. Her friend Margaret took the money our of my wallet while she was sucking my dick.
BTW the link is even less SFW than this comment.
Social evolution drives genetic evolution. Even if you live to be two hundred, unless you procreate you're an evolutionary dead end. If you are afraid of women you won't procreate. If you are percieved as butt-ugly you won't procreate. No matter how smart you are, if you have asperger's you're probably an evolutionary dead end because we are social animals and have a certain "mating dance" (that I unfortunately suck at).
My friend Linda has had fourteen kids, thirteen still living. She's not that smart and neither are her kids, a few of whom are in prison right now. However, I only have two kids, one of whom is doing pretty good. However, Linda has six times higher chance of her genes surviving than I do.
Actually her chances of gene survival are higher because I doubt Leila will have any kids, and Patty may not either. Linda's already a grandmother and even great grandmother several times, but she's ten years younger than me.
Again, social evolution drives genetic evolution. If you don't get laid, you lose the evolution game.
Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?
Did you not even read the summary? I was faithful to my ex-slut for 27 years until the pain of her continued affairs became too much and I divorced her. This was despite repeated advances by her so-called "friends", who she'd obviously been bragging about the size of my penis to.
I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months.
You're confusing lust with love. A man with the monogamy gene will be faithful because he wouldn't want to hurt the woman he loves. It's possible that a man without this gene is incapable of true love.
Some species of animals are nearly 100% monogamous and mate for life, while other species are not monogamous at all. Other species, like the voles mentioned, vary withing subspecies.
We are nothing but complex chemical reactions. Thought, speech, feelings, love, even movement are only chemical reactions.
Surveys show that roughly half of married men admit to having extramaital affairs, but 75 of married woman do. So either woman are more dishonest with their husbands, or a lot more honest with researchers.
Men I know would lie the other way on the survey and say they cheat when they can't. I suspect that woman are lying and 75% of them cheat.
Unless you're referring to something in TFA (which I haven't read yet), that was a pretty misandrist statement.
Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.
Seems you don't want to include men as people, since they didn't study the gene expression in women. However, they should - surveys show roughly 50% of men admit to affairs, but over 75% of women do.
Unfortunately for me I have the monogamous gene while my ex-wife had the "slut" gene.
I stand corrected; it was indeed 1976.
Yes, pot is social, although not so much as it was back in the "stoned age". The younger smokers use "hitters", which hold one toke. It wasn't the pot itself that made it the social drug, it was the times themselves. As to offering, that's just courtesy. As to offering more than once, that's short term memory loss and force of habit.
As to the "crossover effect", that's not caused by the pot, but by the laws against it. The same people who sell pot sell coke, crack, heroin, meth, anything to make a buck. When Reagan started his "war on drugs" it was actually a "war on marijuana"; all of a sudden the country was awash with cocaine. I'd look for pot and be told, "it's dry, man, want some coke?" Were reefer legal and sold as alcohol is, it would NOT be a "crossover drug".
As to the meth, if you can keep the kids off of it they're far less likely to get addicted to it. Teenagers are immortal; they are perfect, know everything, and impervious to all. Hell, I was a teenager once and raised two of them. But the laws against meth actually make it easier for a teenager to buy meth than for an adult. A fourtten year old kid is too young to be a policeman, so it's safe to sell it to him. A thirty year old will be looked at with suspicion.
I would rather have my daughter be an addict than a prisoner. Laws against drug possession don't stop drug use; education and treatment are the keys there. The laws are counterproductive.
Your post makes a lot more sense with the "not" in it! =)
That's true, but athiests make up far more than 1% of the slashdot population. Make a pro-Christian or pro-Muslim comment here and you will see more rabid, fanatical athiests than you would imagine.
I'm not biting, troll. As trolls go, you're one of the most pathetic I've seen.
The Constitution Party wants to restore the US government to its Biblical roots
Their candidate is a preacher. Even though I'm a Christian, that would worry me if I thought he might win. We are most decidedly NOT a Chriatian nation; we have Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Hinus, Athiests, Agnostics, secular humanists, all of whom are entitled to their own beliefs.
The worst thing my bible says about prostitutes is that if you consort with them, other men will spend your money (although it says pimping ("whoremongering") is a bad sin), but it lists adultery as one of the ten "thou shalt nots" that Moses brought down from the mountain.
If this is a Christian nation why is it legal for me to have sex with my congressman's wife so long as I don't pay her for it? My bible doesn't say anything bad about drugs, yet they are illegal.
We are not a Christian nation.
Why aren't you on my "freaks" list, troll?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, you got it correct; it is disingenuous to say you're "pro choice" whan you want to make MY choices of whether to take drugs away. I'm actually both pro-choice and pro-life; I think abortion is none of my business unless I'm the father (although I would not want to be faced with the decision myself), but I'm firmly against war and the death penalty, both of which kill in my name via my government.
I see they modded me "troll", but that's to be expected any time you advance an unpopular notion. I have so many unpopular opinions I'm amazed that my karma remains excellent. But whoever though that comment was a troll is an idiot.