What's wrong with group think? If you had an original idea, and nobody took it seriously, you might claim that it's due to group think. But if your idea got adopted, and became part of social consciousness, that would be due to group think too. So you can't really call it a con. It's just always present in discussions. If you really wanted to avoid it, you probably wouldn't discuss at all.
Conservative viewpoints are discouraged on the Internet because the Internet has no central governing authority, thereby giving it a liberal bias.
Plus, all forms of ideology are gradually becoming unfashionable due to open communication on the Internet. Conservatism is more recognizable as an ideology and that's why it's targetted first.
It doesn't have to be difficult. I think the reason it is or isn't for most people is emotional, or psychological. I for one loved math as a student. It was the only subject where you were either right, or wrong. I could walk into an exam, write it, verify my answers, and be sure of how I did. The teacher couldn't slant, because if there was a mistake in the marking, it could be proven a mistake.
On the other hand, there's a friend of mine who hates math. He's no good at it, and he can't learn it because when he tries, he spends too much time worrying about the fact that he's not good at it. He calls it a mental block. It's probably the same reason why a lot of nerds are no good at sports.
I'd suggest to the submitter to stop looking for "different ways" to conceptualize math, and actually just follow through with one way.
I hope so too. Why would a business pay for the responsibility of running a free service where ideally, the user is barely even aware of its presence? Will there be pop-up ads or animated company logos whenever a freedb search is performed? There is only one thing corporations care about, and it's not charity.
Come on buddy, let's not dodge the question... Why? And another thing, why are we all such avid Justin Timberlake fans? And why do we roll around naked in mayonnaise all the time? These are all straightforward questions. It's about time we faced them.
This is a report containing predictions about the future of technology according to a survey of "technology thinkers and stakeholders". I am sure many of these technology thinkers are brilliant and all that, but whatever predictions they make are going to be the result of tunnel-vision, because they are commenting on their own industry.
It's not surprising that most of their predictions sound like science fiction, because for one thing, the future IS fiction. There is no such thing as the future. It's not something you can grab onto or even look at - it doesn't exist. It's the product of imagination. Just like fiction.
And for another thing, people's visions of the future are largely based on other people's visions of the future. Nobody is really interested in predicting the future. After all, you can't predict lottery numbers or anything else that is actually useful. People are only interested in being right. They want to say, "See? I told you." Even though it gains them fuck-all, aside from bragging rights. So out of their desire to be right, they look at the past (the Luddite social movement) and they look at their peers and they adopt the same visions as them, because those are safe bets. And naturally, a lot of visions stem from science fiction. The best science fiction is the kind that gives you chills because you get a sense that the author is predicting the future with eerie accuracy. So if you're looking for a vision you can adopt, science fiction is a good place to start.
The two stupidest predictions in this report are AI and violent anti-technologists. People only believe in AI because they would like to believe that their own intelligent consciousness is somehow trancendental. Meanwhile, let me know when we have a robot that can ride a damn bicycle. Then we'll talk about AI. As for violent anti-technologists, this is just the manifestation of nerds' fear of getting beat up at recess. The fact is that technology itself is violent, since it subjugates nature. True anti-technologists are people who are not even interested in technology, like my uncle Ron who lives in a house he built himself. These guys think technology is just a bunch of screwing around, which it mostly is. They're not going to go around smashing particle accelerators.
So TFA is not really about the future, it's about "experts' fears" about the future. And a lot of experts are nutty - that's what drove them to become experts.
You just compared giving up Bluetooth-enabled gizmos to giving up baths.
Cripes, man, are you guys so hooked on electronic gadgets that this is a meaningful comparison for you? And (to the GGP), do you really think it'll be impossible to get to work without Bluetooth in the near future? Holy daydreaming Batman. Ever hear of walking? Bicycles, scooters, public transit? Not everybody is an IT worker living in the suburbs and putting 40 miles on their car each day to get to work.
If you choose to carry around a Bluetooth-enabled PDA to convince yourself you're important while walking around past billboards, don't be surprised if people advertise to you. You can't blame them - you're an excellent target market. How you can compare this need to the need to wash yourself is beyond me.
I think that was the parent's sly way of pointing out that 'Enquirer' is a typo. Should be 'Inquirer'. Anyway, both magazines are rags. Although I guess for the Inquirer, you have to print the articles yourself to use them as rags.
I think, as someone who's not an addict, I'll never really understand it.
I was addicted to online Quake (Quakeworld) from 1996-97 during University. This was the first online FPS with solid networking and I loved it. It was unhealthy, of course. I stayed up all night, marks plummetted, roommates laughed at me. I wanted to quit, so I'd go cold turkey, but it was really hard. I'd feel the urge to play in my bones, so I'd go back.
Anyway, the reason why I was addicted was basically because of my own ego. I always needed to feel like I was hot shit at something, and I was good at the game, so when I placed #1 in each match, it was a buzz. I think I finally kicked the habit when I got over myself. I don't know if it's the same for WoW addicts (40% of them can't be #1), but that's my experience.
Eventually you'll realize that even you don't exist.
That's a pretty ballsy thing to come out and post directly, even if it's true. Problem is, there are a million ways to interpret that statement and some of those interpretations are pretty fucked up/nonsensical. I like this subject though, so here's one interpretation that I think makes sense:
You do exist, of course. What doesn't exist is the idea of you. To put it another way, your identity doesn't exist. This identity begins when you're born and your parents give you a name. They talk about you and call you by this name. You grow up, get a driver's license and credit cards with this name on it. You develop a life story, really start to identify with this name and you want people to think good things when they hear it. (And you play Metroid and Mario Kart, I guess...) Nonetheless, this identity was made up, and given to you. When you get down to it, there's no truth to it. So, that's what it means to say, "You (your identity) don't (doesn't) exist".
So what does exist then? You are right here in the flesh. That's you and it doesn't matter what you name it. That's how the phrases "you exist" and "you don't exist" can both be true (one is concrete, the other's a concept). Not only that, but your flesh needs the atmosphere around it, and the atmosphere needs the earth, and the earth needs the sun, etc. Therefore, those are all "you" too. This is where the phrase "All is one" comes from. Ta daa, now you're enlightened.
Oh man. I'm with you guys 100%. I have been cable TV-free for 7 weeks (would have been longer if not for an ex-gf). And I can name at least 8 close personal friends who don't have cable TV either.
I don't mind TVs terribly - they're just machines - but I really hate TV programming. It's pure advertisement delivery. People believe commercials support the TV shows they watch, but it's actually the opposite. Most TV shows exist just to support the commercials. Their job is to keep our attention span between breaks. Sometimes it really amazes me that people pay money to bring TVs into their homes at all.
Actually, Microsoft is free to rewrite their TCP/IP stack as many times as they want. It's not an attempt to undermine standards, or take over the Internet. It's an attempt to optimize performance on the local machine, and expose more functionality to developers. What's wrong with that? It will probably help people write faster BitTorrent clients. You should be happy about it!
The network protocol will still conform to all established IEEE standards, just like the original BSD stack did. Otherwise, they couldn't call it a "TCP/IP stack".
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with group think? If you had an original idea, and nobody took it seriously, you might claim that it's due to group think. But if your idea got adopted, and became part of social consciousness, that would be due to group think too. So you can't really call it a con. It's just always present in discussions. If you really wanted to avoid it, you probably wouldn't discuss at all.
Conservative viewpoints are discouraged on the Internet because the Internet has no central governing authority, thereby giving it a liberal bias.
Plus, all forms of ideology are gradually becoming unfashionable due to open communication on the Internet. Conservatism is more recognizable as an ideology and that's why it's targetted first.
And, there's the whole Bush thing too.
It doesn't have to be difficult. I think the reason it is or isn't for most people is emotional, or psychological. I for one loved math as a student. It was the only subject where you were either right, or wrong. I could walk into an exam, write it, verify my answers, and be sure of how I did. The teacher couldn't slant, because if there was a mistake in the marking, it could be proven a mistake.
On the other hand, there's a friend of mine who hates math. He's no good at it, and he can't learn it because when he tries, he spends too much time worrying about the fact that he's not good at it. He calls it a mental block. It's probably the same reason why a lot of nerds are no good at sports.
I'd suggest to the submitter to stop looking for "different ways" to conceptualize math, and actually just follow through with one way.
I hope so too. Why would a business pay for the responsibility of running a free service where ideally, the user is barely even aware of its presence? Will there be pop-up ads or animated company logos whenever a freedb search is performed? There is only one thing corporations care about, and it's not charity.
Although, you gotta admit, most Mario games are sequels and feature original gameplay and content.
Come on buddy, let's not dodge the question... Why? And another thing, why are we all such avid Justin Timberlake fans? And why do we roll around naked in mayonnaise all the time? These are all straightforward questions. It's about time we faced them.
I challenge anybody to post a +5 Insightful comment about this story. It can't be done!
This is a report containing predictions about the future of technology according to a survey of "technology thinkers and stakeholders". I am sure many of these technology thinkers are brilliant and all that, but whatever predictions they make are going to be the result of tunnel-vision, because they are commenting on their own industry.
It's not surprising that most of their predictions sound like science fiction, because for one thing, the future IS fiction. There is no such thing as the future. It's not something you can grab onto or even look at - it doesn't exist. It's the product of imagination. Just like fiction.
And for another thing, people's visions of the future are largely based on other people's visions of the future. Nobody is really interested in predicting the future. After all, you can't predict lottery numbers or anything else that is actually useful. People are only interested in being right. They want to say, "See? I told you." Even though it gains them fuck-all, aside from bragging rights. So out of their desire to be right, they look at the past (the Luddite social movement) and they look at their peers and they adopt the same visions as them, because those are safe bets. And naturally, a lot of visions stem from science fiction. The best science fiction is the kind that gives you chills because you get a sense that the author is predicting the future with eerie accuracy. So if you're looking for a vision you can adopt, science fiction is a good place to start.
The two stupidest predictions in this report are AI and violent anti-technologists. People only believe in AI because they would like to believe that their own intelligent consciousness is somehow trancendental. Meanwhile, let me know when we have a robot that can ride a damn bicycle. Then we'll talk about AI. As for violent anti-technologists, this is just the manifestation of nerds' fear of getting beat up at recess. The fact is that technology itself is violent, since it subjugates nature. True anti-technologists are people who are not even interested in technology, like my uncle Ron who lives in a house he built himself. These guys think technology is just a bunch of screwing around, which it mostly is. They're not going to go around smashing particle accelerators.
So TFA is not really about the future, it's about "experts' fears" about the future. And a lot of experts are nutty - that's what drove them to become experts.
That is some nerdy shit!
You just compared giving up Bluetooth-enabled gizmos to giving up baths.
Cripes, man, are you guys so hooked on electronic gadgets that this is a meaningful comparison for you? And (to the GGP), do you really think it'll be impossible to get to work without Bluetooth in the near future? Holy daydreaming Batman. Ever hear of walking? Bicycles, scooters, public transit? Not everybody is an IT worker living in the suburbs and putting 40 miles on their car each day to get to work.
If you choose to carry around a Bluetooth-enabled PDA to convince yourself you're important while walking around past billboards, don't be surprised if people advertise to you. You can't blame them - you're an excellent target market. How you can compare this need to the need to wash yourself is beyond me.
He said "could be", dude. That makes it rather disciplined speculation. Take it easy.
I think that was the parent's sly way of pointing out that 'Enquirer' is a typo. Should be 'Inquirer'. Anyway, both magazines are rags. Although I guess for the Inquirer, you have to print the articles yourself to use them as rags.
I was addicted to online Quake (Quakeworld) from 1996-97 during University. This was the first online FPS with solid networking and I loved it. It was unhealthy, of course. I stayed up all night, marks plummetted, roommates laughed at me. I wanted to quit, so I'd go cold turkey, but it was really hard. I'd feel the urge to play in my bones, so I'd go back.
Anyway, the reason why I was addicted was basically because of my own ego. I always needed to feel like I was hot shit at something, and I was good at the game, so when I placed #1 in each match, it was a buzz. I think I finally kicked the habit when I got over myself. I don't know if it's the same for WoW addicts (40% of them can't be #1), but that's my experience.
That's a pretty ballsy thing to come out and post directly, even if it's true. Problem is, there are a million ways to interpret that statement and some of those interpretations are pretty fucked up/nonsensical. I like this subject though, so here's one interpretation that I think makes sense:
You do exist, of course. What doesn't exist is the idea of you. To put it another way, your identity doesn't exist. This identity begins when you're born and your parents give you a name. They talk about you and call you by this name. You grow up, get a driver's license and credit cards with this name on it. You develop a life story, really start to identify with this name and you want people to think good things when they hear it. (And you play Metroid and Mario Kart, I guess...) Nonetheless, this identity was made up, and given to you. When you get down to it, there's no truth to it. So, that's what it means to say, "You (your identity) don't (doesn't) exist".
So what does exist then? You are right here in the flesh. That's you and it doesn't matter what you name it. That's how the phrases "you exist" and "you don't exist" can both be true (one is concrete, the other's a concept). Not only that, but your flesh needs the atmosphere around it, and the atmosphere needs the earth, and the earth needs the sun, etc. Therefore, those are all "you" too. This is where the phrase "All is one" comes from. Ta daa, now you're enlightened.
Oh man. I'm with you guys 100%. I have been cable TV-free for 7 weeks (would have been longer if not for an ex-gf). And I can name at least 8 close personal friends who don't have cable TV either.
I don't mind TVs terribly - they're just machines - but I really hate TV programming. It's pure advertisement delivery. People believe commercials support the TV shows they watch, but it's actually the opposite. Most TV shows exist just to support the commercials. Their job is to keep our attention span between breaks. Sometimes it really amazes me that people pay money to bring TVs into their homes at all.
Actually, Microsoft is free to rewrite their TCP/IP stack as many times as they want. It's not an attempt to undermine standards, or take over the Internet. It's an attempt to optimize performance on the local machine, and expose more functionality to developers. What's wrong with that? It will probably help people write faster BitTorrent clients. You should be happy about it!
The network protocol will still conform to all established IEEE standards, just like the original BSD stack did. Otherwise, they couldn't call it a "TCP/IP stack".