Re: Electronic interface options
Funny. Having seen this, I just searched you on g+ and added you to my Brin circle! I wonder if there's a way to streamline or transparentize the process. • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • On Sep 19, 2011, at 21:58, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: I have a Brin-l circle on G+ but I only have something like 9 people in it. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Still here (Re: Br¡n: On Fracking and Earthquakes)
Yup. More seriously, why don't we set up circles on google plus? Then we'd still have that interaction via means like this one, with about the same openness, and the ability to choose correspondents ourselves? That is, if each of us were to create a 'brin' circle in g+, and add each other to our own circles, in that way the conversation would still be live - and if someone got too obstreperous for a given person to tolerate, he'd be able to remove that person from his own 'brin' circle, without affecting anyone else. Strikes me as being pretty grassroots fair and flexible, anyway. • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • On Sep 18, 2011, at 14:07, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: I still see the trend of the internet is to go more and more to closed circles of folks who all agree and short sound byte discussions. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Solar Bankrupcy
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:14, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Is someone now foreclosing on the Sun?! Yes, with newspaper readership down, ad rates are down, and the Sun is being foreclosed on. Even the Grey Lady is at risk. Dan M. Ah. It's a Sun of the Times, then. • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br¡n: On Fracking and Earthquakes
On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 06:57 AM Friday 8/26/2011, KZK wrote: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/08/human-activity-can-cause-earthquakes/ I really like the instructions given for those who want to leave comments. That's just beautiful. -- Warren ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Taliban Fight Like Che.
On Jan 2, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Trent Shipley wrote: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Death-Toll-Now-at-95-in-Pakistan-Volleyball-Bombing--80498082.html This is just dumb. If you want to win a war, intimidating the people whose support you need is pretty stupid. The West might not be able to win in Central Asia ... unless the Taliban keep helping us by alienating their own base. Actually, the Taliban fight like Cheney. We made a decades-long empire of intimidating others into siding with us. We were the first to alienate. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Gravity wells
On Dec 31, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: http://xkcd.com/681/ (You will need to click to embiggen.) Wait. Venus is more dense than Earth? But it's only fractionally larger. Oo. Maybe that's because it didn't get creamed hard enough to calve its own moon. I wonder if Earth + Luna would equal Venus in mass. At least I know it's not as deep as your mom, but still. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Recursion in C, as told by Kernigan, Ritchie, and Lovecraft
On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Max Battcher wrote: Beyond that, it doesn't seem like proper Kernigan and Ritchie code because it is not formatted properly in the KR style... It almost looks more like GNU code. Well, the sign did declare that the place was called GCC... -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Recursion in C, as told by Kernigan, Ritchie, and Lovecraft
I really enjoyed this, but can't share it with my colleagues, since they wouldn't get either reference. Sometimes it's really a pain in the ass to be a programmer and English major working in a PR department as the graphics guy. http://www.bobhobbs.com/files/kr_lovecraft.html -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Recursion in C, as told by Kernigan, Ritchie, and Lovecraft
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Warren Ockrassa war...@nightwares.com wrote: I really enjoyed this, but can't share it with my colleagues, since they wouldn't get either reference. Sometimes it's really a pain in the ass to be a programmer and English major working in a PR department as the graphics guy. http://www.bobhobbs.com/files/kr_lovecraft.html Their croaking, baying voices called out in the hideous language of the Old Ones: awesome. I suppose that would mean Assembly is the language of the Outer Gods. But what of FORTRAN? -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google vs Bing
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Trent Shipley wrote: Google? Bing? I don't care. Neither do I, which makes me wonder why you bothered to write anything else. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Spellcheckers
On Sep 5, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: At least he didn't compare apples to oranges. Or to Ubuntu. -- W ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On the Occasion of a Seventeenth Birthday
On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:21 AM, Martin Lewis wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: Son of a friend is turning 17 Saturday. I think I've distilled my life's wisdom (for 17-yer-olds anyway) down to three things. 1. You're too young to drink and too young to vote. But you're old enough to be tried as an adult. 2. Always, always, ALWAYS use a condom. 3. Never say I love you until after you come. So I'm not allowed to tell my wife I love her in the morning until after I've fucked her? Does the same apply to my mum? Hey, man, whatever your kink. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On the Occasion of a Seventeenth Birthday
On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Dave Land wrote: Allow me to offer some additional advice: You know, that's some very good content. Thanks for passing it along -- but I was being a little wry, and the thing is that this particular kid is doing pretty well for himself, at least so far. He's bright, funny, sweet and rather level-headed; if I could choose a son for myself, it would be him or a near copy. He's done pretty well at avoiding the obvious problems, and seems to be navigating the hormonal years with quite a lot of success overall. So my three things were meant to be a bit upscale in maturity, sort of man-to-mannish but also ironic, and they wouldn't probably work with a lot of seventeen-year-olds. But for him I think they're just about right. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On the Occasion of a Seventeenth Birthday
Son of a friend is turning 17 Saturday. I think I've distilled my life's wisdom (for 17-yer-olds anyway) down to three things. 1. You're too young to drink and too young to vote. But you're old enough to be tried as an adult. 2. Always, always, ALWAYS use a condom. 3. Never say I love you until after you come. Anyone got anything else to pass along? -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John: I just don't live on the same planet that you do, I guess. There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're too different. All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers haven't taken over yet, and I really hope they never do, because if it happens, we're doomed as a society. Obviously. Since the Libs and AR folks don't seem to know what society actually means. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: In case you're feeling bored this weekend...
Last Friday I began serializing _The Beasts of Delphos_ online. Chapter 2 is up now for anyone wanting to continue the read. http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/07/17/the-beasts-of-delphos-2-the-freeman/ -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for many, those solutions don't work. The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. (This is, in essence, socialism.) Many of us will never need intervention for catastrophic events; some will. By putting our strengths into a pool, we're all able to float when we need to. (This is hardly a new idea. It originated with none other than Benjamin Franklin. It's also a very Christian concept, for those who are of that mind. Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me.) That's the ideal, and in my experience, in practice, it works. Where I work, we're self-insured, and we've got superb coverage. But I am fortunate and definitely the exception. Many in my community aren't able to blithely walk into a doctor's office and say they need a checkup or are worried about such-and-such a growth or so-and-so an internal bodily concern. Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch test, and the $250 or so bill cost me nothing. At all. But most are not able to do something like that because they genuinely cannot afford it. They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option is not available to them. And how well has free-market worked in other places? Railroads dropped Fed support decades ago. The result was rotting tracks, derailments, and the fact that Amtrak's Sunset Limited -- the only truly intercontinental passenger rail line we have left -- now has to wait on sidings for hours overall while Santa Fe freight trains chug past. Carter deregulated airlines in the 70s, and what used to be a comfortable express in the skies turned into a shitty cattle-call that features narrow seats, no legroom and bag lunches. Bridges went neglected for years past their engineering tolerances and are now either collapsing, or in imminent danger thereof. Yeah, that free-market thing is sure improving the quality of life, isn't it? Those who argue for free-market, I think, have never actually confronted the full-bore costs of healthcare in the US today. One night in a hospital can cost you well into four figures, even for something trivial. My stepdad just got a triple bypass. The full-on price of his surgery would have been $80,000, or about the value of his home. He was lucky; as a retired government officer he had vestiture and full coverage. Very, very few retired private persons have that opportunity. It's worth pointing out, by the way, that your congressman has full health coverage provided by your tax dollars. He's got better coverage than I do, and mine is pretty damn good. And yet he seems to be saying that socialized healthcare is bad. Well, if he really believes that, let's see him drop his Federal coverage and go with a free market option instead. Put his money and health and life where his fat wide yap is. It's ridiculous, I think, to harken to the words of someone who's covered head-to-toe in insurance provided by the Fed when he says there are free market solutions which are just as good, just as available, and just as freely given. That obviously is not true; by the rules of the free market, it cannot be. Perspective matters. Your congressman probably lacks it now, and likely he never had it. The Invisible Hand is smothering people in their beds. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on what consumers can buy and what providers can sell? I'd certainly like to hear about such things. I guess you've never visited an herbal healer then, or someone who used reiki or healing touch. You're not prevented from doing so. The free market lets you. There's a reason the FDA regulates treatments, and it's rooted in snake oil sales. I don't think the FDA, in insisting on evidence-based treatments, is overdoing things. (Well, not generally.) But with a minimal government restriction approach, that's precisely what we'd be left with: A deluge of quack cures. Again, we had the free market model. Again, it *did not work*. I won't insult you by quoting Santayana here; there's no reason to. The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. The assumption being that you are INSURING against unexpected costs. Most health care plans are not insurance in this sense, but are rather cafeteria plans, since they cover a large chunk of yearly health maintenance costs that are not particularly unexpected. Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd like to know what they are. The ones I know of don't pay for smoking cessation, for instance; they only pay to treat lung cancer. They don't pay for health club memberships; but they'll pony up for bariatric surgery. Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch test, and the $250 or so bill cost me nothing. At all. It cost somebody $250. Was it worth $250 to you if you had to pay it yourself? Or is it only worth it if you are spending someone else's money. It would have cost that, under the free market model, yes. Was it worth it? To my nose, sure. After all it was the free market that set the cost. And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a few bucks to me. But you're missing the point, which is that I didn't have to pay to find out what was costing me in terms of happiness, comfort -- and *productivity*. By feeling more comfortable after the scratch test, I was a much more useful citizen in the economic pool and that dividend has paid off rather well since then. Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of care, or not? They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option is not available to them. Unfortunately, the market in health care is far from free. Oh horseapples. If I feel bad I can go to a doctor, herbalist, homeopathic chirurgeon, or a Tai Chi master. Only one will provide me with the fact- and evidence-based treatments I need. But the market is, undeniably, a free one. Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving treatments, is no more interfering than it is when it says you have to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, John Williams wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote: I guess you've never visited an herbal healer then, or someone who used reiki or healing touch. You're not prevented from doing so. The free market lets you. Heh, being restricted from some things but not others is hardly free. But you're not restricted from any of them. Again, we had the free market model. Again, it *did not work*. Again, I'd like to hear about this wondrous free market in health care that we had. I'm certainly not aware of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_medicine Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd like to know what they are. Most of them. I think we are disagreeing over my terminology. Replace maintenance with predictable or mostly expected if you wish. Most cover routine check-ups, screenings, treatment and drugs for minor ailments -- things that most people could budget for on a yearly basis. Can they? When was the last time you had to pay a full-billed price for a routine doctor's visit? Living on minimum wage? And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a few bucks to me. It was worth $250 to you. But you did not actually pay the $250. Someone(s) else did. It may have not been worth $250 to them. It might not have been, but under the same coverage, someone else in my plan littered sextuplets, at a rough cost of a quarter of a million dollars. Was that worth it to me? Absolutely not. Nevertheless I keep the coverage, as she does, and I pay into it, as she does, to cover healthcare costs I will never have to face -- as she does. Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of care, or not? Worthy of care? I would not presume to determine who is worthy of care. No, you'd pass off responsibility to the free market system, wouldn't you? But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating your own time or money. Yes. And that's what insurance is all about. You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. And you live that, every day, by every choice you make? How do you know that? How do you know that by giving a few pennies of your income, and turning that into government revenue for the internet, highways and the FDA, you are not actually working either for or against someone else's freedom? More significantly, how can you be sure that *keeping* those pennies will make a difference for you or anyone else? Suppose for a moment you lived tax free. Your income would not be sucked down by, say, 20% on each paycheck. Suppose further that your annual income was a comfortable $50K per year. Suppose you put all of that 20% into the bank, for twenty years. That's a cool $100 grand. Now suppose you went to the doctor one day, and he said, Hmm. You could afford less than one half of one day of radiation treatment -- on your life savings. By paying into a semi- or demi-socialist system, you are not sacrificing your freedom; you are helping others to live a life a little more free of fear, or of destitution. You're not taking others' freedom by being given a therapy you could otherwise not possibly afford. You're just working on the cushion that everyone has paid into anyway. Would I be willing to help pay for that? Yes, just as much as I was glad that others paid to help me learn why I was sneezing so much. If the government takes money from me and uses it to pay for keeping an 87-year old alive and in pain for an additional month, when I would have spent the money to help starving or sick children in third world countries, that is definitely not freedom of choice. Oh, so you can't do both? Why not? Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving treatments, is no more interfering than it is when it says you have to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper. Both are interfering. The same goals could be accomplished non- coercively. That has never been true in ten thousand years of human history. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I've been reading so much lately... been thinking it's time to post some quick thoughts about recent readings and ask what others are reading, too. Currently up, the latest installment of _The Year's Best SF_ edited by Garner Dozois. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
On Jul 11, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: There are several devices to do this, some of them actually on the market. One is a wind turbine arrangement that produces around 10 litres an hour (plenty for drinking purposes for several people!). Vaporators? My first job was programming binary load lifters. Very similar to your vaporators in most respects... -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
In case you're feeling bored this weekend...
...I've begun serializing my _Beasts of Delphos_ online or its fifth anniversary in publication. Chapter 1 lieth here: http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/07/10/beasts-of-delphos-1-barris/ Enjoy, or don't. At least it's not another goddamned KJA book. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: In despair for the state of SF
On Jul 6, 2009, at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote: I just checked the reviews on the book you mentioned, and the bad reviews talk about many of the same problems that you mentioned. Yes, they do -- but unfortch, I didn't have net access at the time I was considering. I was thinking of the first couple of Dune revisions and how they really weren't that godawful, and ... and well... It just galls me -- galls, I say! -- to think that KJA is classed as SF along with Le Guin. Delany, Lem and Certain Other Writers whom we can think of, without any real attempt made at distinguishing *quality*. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: In despair for the state of SF
On Jul 4, 2009, at 5:48 PM, xponentrob wrote: Uh..why aren't you reading something good? Well, yeah, that was kinda the point. :\ All I can say is I didn't know better at the time... -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
In despair for the state of SF
A week or so back I finished _Hidden Empire_, the first book in Kevin J. Anderson's Saga of Seven Suns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_Seven_Suns I discovered this one late -- the series is out now in pulp, and I was unaware of it prior to that. I have some things I just need to vent. [spoilers -- ha, as if] What an unbelievable turd. While it's not unusual for a novelist to foreshadow, Anderson basically forecudgeled. His aliens are disinteresting in the extreme; the only marginally noteworthy society was the Green Priests and their symbiosis with their worldforest, and they were human. The obtuseness of his characters and societies is unforgivable. When you compress the core of a gas giant and turn it into a star, notice what appear to be diamondlike nodules shooting out from the new sun, and then see diamondlike ships attacking cloud-harvesters on other gas giants, you have to be a cretin of genuinely universal proportions to not understand what happened. Yet that's exactly what occurs: No one knows why the hydrogues are attacking cloud harvesters! The alien allies of Earth are anthropomorphic and capable of interbreeding with humans -- oh come on -- and have a history recitation that's millennia deep. Their leader even knows about the hydrogues, though it's a buried secret, yet he still manages somehow to be stunned and ignorant of their attacks, sources, reasoning, etc. Anderson has a husband/wife team of xenoarchaeologists who've uncovered both the wormhole tech used to create suns of gas giants, and teleportation tech used by a long-dead race called the Klikiss. Yup, just the two of them. Not a team, no student support, just a couple of kooks digging up fossil civilizations. And they reactivate a teleport panel using, essentially, camp-light batteries. Those must be some damn impressive batteries. One can only assume they're radically unlike the Li-ion cells in iPhones. And as for the cloud harvesters -- well, early in the narrative we have a captain of one of these things STEPPING OUTSIDE ONTO AN OBSERVATION DECK without breathing apparatus as his skymine sucks up free hydrogen. They even keep doves. Outside. In the atmosphere of the gas giant. While harvesting hydrogen. Almost every page contains a slap to the face of science and SF; it's not even fantasy. It's just a childish notion of magical settings placed for the convenience of plot and story, without any effort made to actually consider what's feasible and what is not. But what tweaked me most was the interview section at the end of the book, where Anderson says he wanted to write a saga that included everything he claims to love about SF. He mentions _Dune_ particularly -- no surprise since he worked with Brian Herbert on continuing Frank Herbert's exploration of that storyline. The only thing I can conclude is that Anderson never understood what Herbert accomplished with _Dune_, and more generally, he doesn't understand SF at all -- least of all what makes a good SF story. Any decent editor in the genre would have suggested two things to him: Rethink. Redact. If this is the state SF is sliding into, particularly in the wake of the _Trek_ and _Transformers_ noise-machines, what the hell do we have left? -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Quiet
*TOO* quiet... -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Help with Gmail
On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Jo Anne wrote: I've offered to help an SCA friend who has a Gmail account. She's moving a bunch of email (over 3000 at last count) in about 75 different labels from her account to another account so that the person taking over her *volunteer* job will have access to the 3000+ emails that have come in during my friend's tenure. I don't know if this will be of *any* help to you, but here's one discussion that came up when I searched gmail help for importing mail from one gmail account to another: http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Help-Message-Delivery-en/browse_thread/thread/e03d11d678519a4/165e3b32ff8085d0?lnk=gstqpli=1 It looks a bit involved because you seem to need to have IMAP access with a third-party mail program. IMAP is a kind of mail-communication method; a third-party mail app would be something like Thunderbird from mozilla.org. Might not hurt to see if you can track down a local nerdy kid to work it out. There are also archiving options that might allow email to be transferred from one gmail account to another, but I have no familiarity with those. As a final recourse you could try posting your question to the gmail folks and see if they can point out in a less- painful direction. HTH... -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Incoming!
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Shoe-fly pie. Your fly is open. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Incoming!
On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Possibly TMI Maru Possibly? My imagination is suffering from hysterical blindness... -- WO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: peace offering on the brinlist
On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm hoping to engage in civilized discourse with no strings attached. I keep hoping I can be that way no matter how other people may behave. It's really rather shocking and more than a little depressing to see how badly discourse in general has disintegrated over the last half decade or so. Now, more than ever before, all I seem to see is shrill, shrieking, humorless voices talking *at* one another with damned little consideration of the humanity or validity of the other's point of view. Today a protest was staged outside the county courthouse here. Several groups, including a local faction of the Minutemen*, were gathered to lend voice to the idea that Barack Obama's US citizenship is illegitimate or, at best, questionable. I do not recall similar protests after W's victory in 2004, though there were certainly demonstrations -- but they, IIRC, had more to do with his continued press of attack in Iraq and the constant drumbeat led by the liberal media that he hand a mandate to promulgate four more years of his previous policies and doctrines on the world. One thing many of those who scream the loudest against recent events seem to forget is that we were all, once, united on the same front. On 12 September 2001. But some of us -- possibly a decent majority now -- saw ourselves betrayed, saw our nation betrayed, saw our ideals laid waste. And those of us who see it that way don't care much for labels such as unpatriotic. There's been far too much polarization, and the part that saddens me the most is that the sore winners of 2004 are now, apparently, the sore losers of 2008. It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ * The Minutemen are civilian militias who go out, armed, seeking illegal Mexican immigrants to detain. They reached a level of gross infamy a year or so ago after one faction posted a video on YouTube apparently showing a Minuteman shooting and killing a Mexican national as he crossed the border. The video was later proved a hoax, but the implications were and are more than a little disturbing. To my mind they're just this side of Klannish, and not at all too damned far from being Brownshirts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Anybody here a Second Life participant? I'm talking to them about perhaps joining the company... but I'm barely familiar with it as a user. Any suggestions about things to try, etc. I'm most interested in metrics and such, things that are or could be measured, which has to do mostly with the economy, of course. I don't do SL -- hell, I'm still working out the intricacies of my *first* life -- but in more general terms, I've got an ear to the ground on various aspects of work to be found in the areas of Web design and graphics. In what capacity would you be hiring on with them? Full-time, part, freelance, work-for-hire? I might or might not be able to offer insight on broader terms. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: The brief description is that I do social network analytics. Whoah, OK, well outside my purview. -- Warren ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: polarization
On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i think there is a difference in the bitterness on the left and the venom on the right. both sides feel they are right, but the hate from the right is based on fear, hate and greed, while the left is motivated by idealism, and what defines true patriotism. Ah. But this language itself is so emotionally loaded that it does nothing but contribute to the polarization. (Sure, everyone's pissed, but the left is pissed for more moral reasons!) The sad truth is that the left isn't all that different from the right, not as long as big money continues to control the discourse in DC. Political winds shift, but the lobbyists just change parties to give their attention to. Little else becomes different. You might not have been around to sniff the social winds in the US in 1980, but I was, and let me tell you that the Dems were quite thoroughly corrupted by power and money back then; one of the reasons Reagan won was because of the national trend against abuse of power by Democrats. And, FWIW, McCain *was* quite charismatic in 2000. He actually stood a good chance against W until he was torpedoed by extremists in the Republican party itself -- the same PAC that formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to attack Kerry in 2004. To me it seems that there's no real reason, if you're so motivated, to continue attacking the GOP. It's in the middle of its own self- destruction. A better approach might be to talk to the moderates, the centrist Republicans, who are very much like centrist Dems such as Obama, and are quite as horrified by Palin as many others are, and start trying to heal some breaches rather than continuing to hammer at the idea of them (whoever they are) being wrong (whatever that means). Maybe together we can all rediscover what it means for the GOP to be the party of Lincoln. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On Aug 26, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Rceeberger wrote: On 8/27/2008 12:10:37 AM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Rceeberger wrote: You have a weird perspective. It isn't that America is moving down, it is that so many are moving up into our realm. Beg to differ. In the last three or so decades we've seen a rise in disparagement of education,* particularly in the sciences, a loss of critical thinking ability in the general population, and a trend toward becoming a service-based economy. This doesn't strike me as evidence that the US is holding its own; the sense to me is one of an empire in decline. * When intellectuals are called elitists, for instance, I disbelieve that things bode well. While I would agree that intellectualism is and has been the subject of much trash talking, our standard of living has risen during my lifetime modestly while it has risen dramatically in much of the developing world (Frex China). I can't say I disagree there, but I wonder how it looks from the perspective of the Chinese. They seem to have taken notes from the Cheney administration regarding free speech or protest zones, which apart from a few minor mentions in major US news organs went more or less totally ignored. Except, apparently, by a few protestors who got arrested. It seems to me that a narrow focus on ones hobby horses and axes is not conducive to a critical appraisal. I'm not sure what's narrow about having a worldview that tries to take in perspectives outside of the US. We're not doing well in the diplomacy department, we're engaged in two losing wars in the Middle East, our economy is imploding, Louisiana seems to be worried it might get creamed by another hurricane which we won't be able to help with any more than we did with Katrina, we've ignored our interstate system for three decades, we're locking up increasing numbers of people on crimes which would be petty or nonexistent in any other industrialized nation, and our schools are laughingstocks. These are hardly hobbyhorses; they're more or less indisputable facts. Life here has not begun to suck while no longer sucking in other parts of the world. Heh, yes, that's true. It is, however, beginning to suck more than it did before. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On Aug 26, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Americans can not accept that they are on their way down, and no longer first in everything. Some might not be able to. Some of us have been saying so for years. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sore losers
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Rceeberger wrote: You have a weird perspective. It isn't that America is moving down, it is that so many are moving up into our realm. Beg to differ. In the last three or so decades we've seen a rise in disparagement of education,* particularly in the sciences, a loss of critical thinking ability in the general population, and a trend toward becoming a service-based economy. This doesn't strike me as evidence that the US is holding its own; the sense to me is one of an empire in decline. * When intellectuals are called elitists, for instance, I disbelieve that things bode well. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gates without Microsoft
On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:21 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: (Fortune Magazine) -- Let me tell you about Bill Gates. He is different from you and me. First off, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft has always been something of a utopian. In his mind, even the world's knottiest problems can be solved if you apply enough IQ. Accordingly, Gates, who has been spotted on Seattle freeways reading a book while driving himself to the office, covets knowledge. It's as if he's still trying to make up for dropping out of Harvard, as he spends just about any spare waking minute reading, studying science texts, or watching university courses on DVD. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/technology/gates_after_microsoft.fortune/index.htm (Different from you, perhaps. Although I don't make a practice of reading while driving. And I am not too happy when I glance over and see another driver doing so . . .) Oh, and Bill Gates is a thief, self-aggrandizer and general all-around bastard. His stealing of DOS is a legendary tale; his knowledge in 1994 that Win95 would be a virus test bed of an OS is a matter of record; his callous disregard for aesthetics is obvious in every OS MS has ever made. To lionize him now and make him into a business poster boy is a bit like promoting Michelle Malkin as an ideal commentator, human being and Christian. In order to make it possible, you have to overlook basically everything that's known, disregard years of recorded truth, and forgive every likely plausible future transgression as well. But in the Land of the Buck, where the most profitable corporations in the last five years are all war profiteers (cf. Blackwater et. al.), I suppose MS is close to softcore porn for economists and those who like their money just a bit less bloody. The fact that Bill likes to read and drive is just the iceberg's tip. He's a manipulating, scheming, greedy bastard who doesn't spend one moment thinking about anyone but himself. If he'd been killed by a meteorite strike in 1991, you would not today have to scan every email you receive for viruses (Mac and Linux users still don't); he doesn't give a shit in an outhouse for what the rest of the world has to tolerate on his behalf under the tyranny of the worst OS in recorded history; and no amount of gilded storytelling will change the reality. Fuck Bill Gates, fuck his read-and-drive habit, fuck anyone who ever tries to defend him, and fuck his dirty money. And fuck CNN for turning him into a living martyr to capitalism's most obscene, under- the-table excesses. I hope he dies fast. Like metastatic pancreatic cancer fast. We never needed him, and we goddamn sure don't need more like him. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gates without Microsoft
Good grief, Jo Anne. On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Jo Anne wrote: While I'm no fan of MS (I Mac, myself, and would never go over to the dark side), I can't believe that one person is such a personification of evil as you seem to think of Gates. I hope you have a good rest of your day. Consult a text on the meaning of hyperbole. Just as Bush is not the personification of everything wrong in the world, Gates is not the digital satan. He's just a handy, and very large, target. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica
On Apr 6, 2008, at 12:00 AM, G. D. Akin wrote: P.S. Season 3 wasn't disappointing either. Srsly? There were things I liked, sure -- there were effects that were visually gorgeous, frex the translight jump of the BSG as it fell into atmo, I just about freaked as it vanished, leaving only a flaming imprint of its hull's own ablation in the sky, a fiery ghost and a *beautiful* image I think we'll be seeing again in other series -- but I felt the story began to drag heavily about halfway through (all shipboard, all the time: translation, we shot our eye-candy wad early). Definitely BSG is not about FX. However, it is an SF series, and FX matter. Playing cheap with them, keeping the budget lean visually, forced too much emphasis on the storytelling team -- and I don't think they were fully up to snuff there. That is, when the series had to rely on plot alone without interspace action sequences, I began to see some rather thin places in the plot. 26 eps in a season is too much for a series like BSG. It was much more tantalizing and intense, I thought, when they had more room for a good budget spread for FX throughout the story season, but had to tell a much tighter story in fewer shows. More = less = more. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mail help needed . . .
On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:25 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 01/04/2008, at 10:55 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: OSX's Mail is a tolerable client but doesn't have the refinements of Eudora, at least not out of the box; I don't know if there are third party apps that approach it. Mail 3 is better. Not perfect, but a lot better than Tiger's or Panther's versions. Doesn't help the OP, but just sayin' like. That's what I'm running -- it's okay, but not great, yeah. -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mail help needed . . .
On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:04 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Since after 10+ years of my using them both Netscape and Eudora are going away, I am at the point where I have to change both browser and mail programs. I spent past several hours yesterday installing Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird and trying to import stuff from the old programs. Firefox may be a satisfactory browser but I am quite disappointed in the lack of functionality of Thunderbird as a mail client compared with Eudora, so I thought I'd ask if anyone has any (obviously, non-M$) recommendations? Thunderbird didn't turn me on much either. Have you looked at gmail? (Before you hate it, consider that the portability of your inbox is a definite bonus, even if the idea of their advertising bots' peering at your mail is a bit spooky.) FWIW gmail will also work with POP clients. OSX's Mail is a tolerable client but doesn't have the refinements of Eudora, at least not out of the box; I don't know if there are third party apps that approach it. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Schneier vs. Brin
On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I think we were talking about holy underwear with holes in it (holey). As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment but I see from the article that they don't really have holes in them anymore. Is this the origin of the phrase God's trousers, used often by (I'm pretty sure) Sean Connery in the movie (I think), _The Man Who Would Be King_? Mormonism came into existence in 1839, so if the movie was set before that time period, no. -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let us all pause for 2d8 seconds
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary Gygax has died... Seems he biffed his saving throw. [Odd aside: The person who first told me this is my Tai Chi instructor. The very last person ever whom I'd imagine would be aware of anything DD or fantasy game related. Go fig.] -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher
On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:28 PM, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: ... High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God William-- That doesn't make the experience more or less real, though. Objectively, it makes the experience worthless, and certainly does nothing to back up the idea of an absolute god whose rules are universally applicable. To claim on one hand that some kind of god exists who is objectively, personally present in every life -- while on the other hand asserting that hallucinogens influencing the minds of prophets are somehow irrelevant in reference to those assertions -- is to fall into the disingenuous offense that makes religion so damned unpalatable to rationalists. To be fair, though, William: This researcher has absolutely no more evidence to back up his claims' factuality than Moses did. It's probably safest to concede that both Moses and Shanon are equally brimful of shit. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher
On Mar 5, 2008, at 9:07 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 5 Mar 2008 at 12:23, William T Goodall wrote: Others might argue that the doors of perception were cleansed, letting one see another level of reality that was always there. Hallucinations are just the brain running wonky, not 'another level of reality'. Prove you're not hallucinating your life, and you're not just a brain in a jar :) (The number of contradictions in this world? Jar is a shitload simpler) He doesn't have to, Andrew. It's those who claim their experiences -- which run contrary to observable, verifiable and apparently valid reality -- that must prove *their* livers are not the illusion. As to brain in a jar: Occam would have something to say to you. The more parsimonious explanation is that the reality we appear to experience is valid, rather than the idea that this reality is an illusion covering a larger, more bizarre reality. That's just not parsimonious. Impossible? no. Unlikely? extremely. What contradictions, by the way, can you enumerate which make it a shitload simpler to believe we're brains in a jar? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher
On Mar 9, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: must prove *their* livers are not the illusion. By consuming, of course, vast amounts of ethanol-based fluids. (Thought I'd get it before Ronn! did.) -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Maybe they should try Wisk . . . ?
If Wisk worked, there would be much sadness in the community at the passing of the rings of Rhea, on par with the mourning of Pluto's passing as a planet -- one can imagine the headlines now: With a Brisk Wisky Rub: Gone, O Rhea! So be glad some things just aren't feasible. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Godliness
On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm - that would be Stones of Significance by our esteemed Dr Brin... Sorry for straying on-topic maru How DARE you! :-) Yeah. Next time change the subject line, okay? Sheesh! -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn! You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;): http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html I made no claim concerning originality. from the website: As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be So why would there only be one? Or is there just one that's in charge? There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time something similar to what we are today? When I was religious, that was the only possibility that eventually ended up making sense to me. And, of course, the LDS view isn't the only one -- Hinduism has had it for millennia. (Depending on the meritorious karma you've accumulated you can easily be reincarnated as a god in a future life.) And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Yes, but those wouldn't be god as defined by the world's major deistic systems -- i.e., they would not have created the universe and everything in it. I'd be quite surprised if we lived in an otherwise sterile universe, actually; and given the age of the cosmos positing an ultra-advanced godlike civilization is no more mad than positing a civilization that hasn't yet got out of its equivalent of the bronze age. But those advanced civilizations still don't qualify as the gods of the old testament, the Koran or the Vedas. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Warren wrote: There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out? Well, see, it's like this. God has a wife, and he and she engage in a kind of spiritual reproductive process which causes the birth of spirit children. These spirit children are born into mortal bodies and live out their lives on their god-parents' world. When they die, assuming they've kept in alignment with the deific rules, they will be reunited with their terrestrial spouses, whereupon they will be given their own planets. They'll then engage in the same cycle. Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are sealed (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies. Presumably, therefore, god and his wife came into this planet via a similar means. The reason, BTW, that you and I and the rest of us don't remember being spirit children and living in heaven before coming to Earth is we pass through a veil of forgetfulness, which prevents our having absolute knowledge -- which would interfere with our free agency. Life on Earth is a kind of test, and you have the possibility to screw up (sin), though under LDS doctrine it's pretty hard, at least, to get yourself thrown into hell. God is cast as considerably more forgiving and tolerant than you typically find in ultra-right-wing systems. (Though he's still quite anti-gay. You can't be a practicing homosexual* in the LDS faith.) * Expert homosexuals, on the other hand, are welcome. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Topics (was Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?)
On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 23 Feb 2008, at 06:10, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I'd like to see you go for a week's worth of posts without once mentioning religion. Think you could manage that kind of a challenge? Religion is probably the most innocuous topic for me to bring up. Then bring up nothing at all for a while. Silence is Golden Maru. -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?
On Feb 23, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, but fairly traditional on Brin-L, some of the thread creep here has been pretty impressive over the years. Hey! No name-calling. I am NOT a thread creep! Yeah, I was going to correct Charlie that the thread creepS here HAVE been pretty impressive but was afraid of being accused of grammar Nazihood, which is something to be avoided, for the love of Godwin. -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?
== Traffic Woes and Light Derailments == == A Drama in Two Acts== == Act the First: Two PERSONS and a GODBOY in an elevator. Person 1: The other day I was stuck in traffic for nearly two hours. Sheesh! Person 2: Yeah, it's a real nightmare since the construction began. GodBoy: When I'm stuck in traffic I like to pray to Jesus! Person 1: I wonder if the plans they have for light rail will help. Person 2: Can you imagine the construction issues with *that*? GodBoy: I can't wait for light rail! Then I'll be able to sit and read the Bible instead of having to drive! Person 1: Actually I'd like to see more bike paths. Person 2: No joke! Less traffic congestion, less pollution, and a healthier population. Wins all around. GodBoy: When I ride my bike I listen to ChristGasm on my iPod! Person 1: Hey, man, do you have to turn everything we talk about into some kind of God or Jesus issue? Person 2: Yeah. This one-track-mind thing of yours gets pretty fuckin' old. It's like religion has fried your capacity to carry on a rational discussion about anything else. GodBoy: ...I'm going to pray for you. [Exit.] Act the Second: Two PERSONS and an ATHEIST in an elevator. Person 1: The other day I was stuck in traffic for nearly two hours. Sheesh! Person 2: Yeah, it's a real nightmare since the construction began. Atheist: They're just widening to road so the Jesus freaks can get to church more quickly. Person 1: I wonder if the plans they have for light rail will help. Person 2: Can you imagine the construction issues with *that*? Atheist: Can you imagine light rail filled with religious lunatics all spouting off about their god? Person 1: Actually I'd like to see more bike paths. Person 2: No joke! Less traffic congestion, less pollution, and a healthier population. Wins all around. Atheist: The thing I hate about bikes is all the damned Mormon missionaries. Sheesh! Person 1: Hey, man, do you have to turn everything we talk about into some kind of God or Jesus issue? Person 2: Yeah. This one-track-mind thing of yours gets pretty fuckin' old. It's like religion has fried your capacity to carry on a rational discussion about anything else. Atheist: ...At least I don't believe in god. [Exeunt. Curtain.] == Speaking as one atheist to another, William, seriously: You need to ease off. You're simply not helping the cause any more than if you were out tracting houses with the rest of the JWs at 7 AM on Saturday. I'd like to see you go for a week's worth of posts without once mentioning religion. Think you could manage that kind of a challenge? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Dan M wrote: Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then? It's still there, but whether the middle class has noticeably improved its standing over the last 30 years is a argument based on subtle interpretations of the inflation index. The subtle nature of the argument is based on a number of things: One discussion is at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3765/is_n3_v18/ai_18824582/pg_2 Huh, that's talking about food, and was written thirteen years ago. While a discussion of food price as one aspect of inflation is certainly relevant, I daresay things have changed considerably in the wake of hundred-buck-a-barrel oil and eight years of borrow-and-spend warfare. But, even taking that index at face value, every income group, from the bottom quintile to the top quintile has improved. The top has improved a whole lot more, but the middle class has not gone away. The distance between the top and the middle has increased, but that's separate issue. It is, in some ways, but it might not be in others. The middle, I think it's fair to say, has shrunk; and there are some services that we might consider humanely desirable that are available only to the monied, or at least the privileged. For instance, while it's indubitable that even the poor in the US are doing considerably better than the poor were in, say, 1931, I'd be surprised to learn they live significantly longer or have better educations. The latter is easily addressable in any society with as much money to waste as we clearly have; the former is perhaps more problematic. While the possibility for longer life has improved greatly, a lot of that longer life presupposes the conditions of relatively low stress, high-quality diet, decent (but not overtaxing) exercise and extensive healthcare that can accommodate -- quickly and properly -- both conventional and contingent conditions: Not just the regular diseases and such, but catastrophic events such as stroke or heart attack, for which prognosis is heavily dependent on speed of care; and cancer, which requires phenomenal amounts of money to treat. These major events are essentially life-changers for the privileged; for the poor -- and for an increasing number of middle-class individuals with low or no insurance -- they are effectively fatal. This renders the ability to remain alive and in decent health something that is given only to those fortunate enough to be wealthy, which is absolutely contrary to the egalitarian ideals of the US. I'm not trying to suggest that there's something necessarily wrong with the state of healthcare in the US today (I think there is, but that's not relevant to issues of costs). But in order to have the higher-quality diet, higher-quality care and high-tech advanced treatments that turn myocardial infarction into little more than a weekend inconvenience, money is irreplaceable. Especially with advancing age, life tends to become very expensive. Thus even someone who has lived comfortably most of his life might find himself facing destitution in his seventies because of the single syllable Hmm from his proctologist. That's only one example, of course; what I'm suggesting is that middle class is (as you suggest) hard to define. I've seen ample examples of people making twice minimum wage who still cannot cover all their needs, and there are even more people making less than that. At my income level I'm probably arguably in the middle class bracket, and the sorry truth is that I'm in the minority in this community. To dovetail with the Wal-Mart discussion, I see an employer that squeezes out competition in small communities, then employs only part- time workers (35 hrs/wk) so as to avoid having to pay any benefits. This does not in any way help the wage base in this community improve; it only guarantees a perpetuation of the poverty. Lower prices on clothing and food (which aren't actually significantly lower; Wal-Mart has a few loss leaders but the overall prices of items in their stores aren't better than any other retail outlet's) at the expense of better employment, retirement and benefits packages is a classic example of the cliché about being penny wise and pound foolish. It's a short-term mindset that is not going to be of benefit to this community in another three or so decades, and I do not have any reason to think my community is unique in this regard. That's the problem I have with pure-market solutions. They embody no foresight, and do not take into account the suffering of the individual humans whose lives are adversely affected by the fluctuations of business. This might be a useful way to run a business, but it is an absolutely unacceptable way to structure a society. And in a society that is increasingly privatizing, that's something of grave concern. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Dan M wrote: You posted to state that a significant fraction of my posts are rude because they are long. And you wonder why few people seem to want to engage you in intelligent, polite discourse? Seriously, Dan -- arguing in good faith, avoiding strawmanning and ad hominem, and staying clear of pedantic browbeating are going to get you considerably more favorable replies than the tone I've seen from you in this most recent set of threads. The sense I get (since you did originally ask) is that you *must* be right at all costs, damn the opposition -- and, since they're wrong anyway, they can be ignored. This might not be how you intend to come off onscreen, but that's how it reads to me at least. If it's so bloody important that it's worth discussing, you could at least concede you might not be entirely correct -- and whether you are or not, why is it so all-fired important to be right 100 percent of the time on *an internet discussion maillist*? -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?
On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:07 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: There's an email circulating on the net regarding $250 billion to rebuild New Orleans, which one of Louisiana's senators apparently is asking for (I didn't check that fact). Cites might be helpful to see if (1) there is in fact such a senator; and (2) s/he is in fact asking for this money now (as opposed to having done so in, say, 2006). The email suggests that this is an obvious waste of taxpayer money, since it comes to about a half million dollar per resident. Aside from questions about this particular number (was that for the current or pre-Katrina population, for example)... Half a million dollars per resident would assume 50,000 residents, for what that's worth. As for wastes of taxpayer money, one wonders what the response is to Iraq. I haven't been able to find any particularly good figures on the actual per capita value of public infrastructure or the cost of replacing it. Well, some of that would depend on the level of infrastructure -- that is, interstates would involve a different tax base and quantity than, say, a local hospital or shelter; or a county facility or state highway system that happens to pass through the city. Of course, one could argue that if the market sees efficiency in rebuilding New Orleans, government can just get out of the way and it'll happen. ;-) It hasn't so far. My personal objection to rebuilding New Orleans is that it's going to get hit again. It's below sea level. Eventually it will be inundated, and no amount of money poured into it today -- or next year, or in 2015 -- will change that fact. It might make more sense to simply decide which buildings we absolutely must keep due to their historical importance, move them to high solid ground, help the remaining citizens relocate and get established in new locations, and let the sea in. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 18, 2008, at 6:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then? -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: In case I go silent . . .
On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: at first I thought that it was coming from outside, maybe the neighbor breaking up some limbs for disposal. Good lord, you live next to a mafia hit man? I've had the same kinds of symptoms, prior to switching to LCD land at home. (Still use CRTs at work for the higher quality images.) You'll need to replace your display, probably -- my experience is that voltage shorts aren't in the practice of healing themselves. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom
On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Okay, I got a stack dump at the above link. Too much of an in-joke for me. Could you explain what is so funny about the error for those of us who are obviously out-joked? Meta: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/the_pinkoski_files.php The best comment in this thread: If there are PYGMIES + DWARFS, then why are there still humans? If there are humans, then why are there still right wing fundamentalist nincompoops? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom
On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:08 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/01/2008, at 11:46 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Really? Huh. So why baptism? And ... and why are there PYGMIES + DWARFS? *chuckle* That's become one of my favourite injokes. Used sparingly, it's a fun reference -- but like Don't tase me, bro! it's prone to overuse. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom
On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Okay, I got a stack dump at the above link. Too much of an in-joke for me. Could you explain what is so funny about the error for those of us who are obviously out-joked? Meta: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/the_pinkoski_files.php Specific reference: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/if_you_doubt_this_is_possible.php The joke sort of spun off from there and recurs cyclically, generally when some religidiot makes an inane argument about evolution or biology. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom
On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:59 AM, William T Goodall wrote: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1 No, everyone is born Christian. Really? Huh. So why baptism? And ... and why are there PYGMIES + DWARFS? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
On Jan 16, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 1:03 PM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over nine years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! I dropped by, and nobody was home. How sad :-( It's religion's fault. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Young Earth Math?
On Jan 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, William T Goodall wrote: So a lot of fundies are using the nails of faith to keep the closet door shut? Could be they're either (1) looking for ways to strengthen themselves against their sinful urges; or (2) miserable teens trying to self- loathe into heterosexuality; or (3) perverted youth pastors trying to figure out what percentage of their summer-camp flock might be amenable to a little late-night hike down by the riverside, if you know what I mean. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Young Earth Math?
On Jan 17, 2008, at 8:01 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: (I find abject denial to be funny, does that make me a bad person?) No. NO. NO, DAMMIT, NO! -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Doomed
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Well, going North? Can't really close the border. Long border and all that. I bet 30+ million Canadians, faced with the prospect of being overrun by SUV-driving, Starbucks-sucking weekend lib'rul Yanks,* would damned well find a way to close the border pretty fast. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ * No suggestion about correspondents here is express or implied. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What are you doing here?: man asks wife at brothel
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 10 Jan 2008, at 05:02, Warren Ockrassa wrote: If you're going to be pathologically insulting to religion, at least put some effort into it next time. I'm sorry, I'll try harder in future. Please do; it's the least you can do for your readers. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the American Standard front.....
On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Some funny toilets and environs... http://madhattannights.com/the-worlds-funniest-bathrooms/ That first one is not funny at all. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the American Standard front.....
On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 1/9/2008 7:45:00 PM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Some funny toilets and environs... http://madhattannights.com/the-worlds-funniest-bathrooms/ That first one is not funny at all. Kind of makes pissing an adventure. Xtreme urination? Or just circumcision with an attitude? Off With Their Heads! Maru Indeed. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Zen Time Travel
On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 1/9/2008 7:40:25 PM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The idling mind is seen in Buddhist psychology to be absolutely packed full of discursive thought, virtually all of which is concerned either with reliving the past or anticipating the future. My understanding, introspective and otherwise, is that human brains model one's experiences and potential outcomes pretty much constantly. There's a difference between modeling and playing alternatives (If I'd only said... or The next time he tries that I'll... and so on). Modeling or planning is certainly useful -- to a point -- but getting caught up in different versions of the narrative might not be as useful. The only time I seem to drop out of this mode is when I have to focus on something immediate such as a conversation. Yes, concentration on a single point is difficult. And in conversations, we're planning out our replies at least as much as we're listening to what's being said. Even when I am working I seem to be modeling what I am working on and only stop to perform individual tasks. Which, when you think about it, is almost saying that you're not actually doing what you're doing. :) -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What are you doing here?: man asks wife at brothel
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL0910395120080109?rpc=64 WARSAW (Reuters) - A Polish man got the shock of his life when he visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment's employees. Yeah, one of the first things I wondered when I saw that story was whether she did things with the clientele that she refused to do with her husband. The other thing I wondered was who would file for divorce first, and who would ultimately be granted it. And I bet they are both Catholics too. So much for religion. Again. Really, William, that's disappointing. If they were Catholic she couldn't work in a brothel (not very long anyway), since she'd be forbidden to use birth control; and he probably wouldn't have married anyway, favoring a life in the priesthood groping choirboys. If you're going to be pathologically insulting to religion, at least put some effort into it next time. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yet another sort of problem with Wal-Mart
On Dec 28, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: The MP3 video player a man bought for his 10-year-old daughter wasn't new, it was a return, and it was loaded with porn. Ha! At least he got an MP3 player. My first 30 GB iPod purchase from Wal-Mart turned out to be several batteries and some gum: http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/03/24/why-does-apple-hate- fags/ I didn't need a lawyer and wonder why this man is getting one, apart from the obvious reason.* -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ * Free money. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Family Tragedy
Sympathies and condolences, for what they're worth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What is the Monkeysphere?
On Dec 16, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number Any article that talks about monkeys and the movie They Live is sure to get my attention I read the Cracked piece last week and thought it raised some interesting points, despite its author's being well outside my own monkeysphere and therefore worthy of little more than flung poo. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pratchett has Alzheimer's
On Dec 12, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote: http://www.paulkidby.com/news/index.html So which part of this is the intelligence, and which the design? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Turning religion on and off
On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote: A drug to cure those afflicted with religion might not be far off! Yes, because sexual orientation and religion/atheism have so much in common, don't they? I mean, anything that seems even slightly outre must be some kind of disorder that needs to be cured, according to someone -- anyone -- possibly even something as facile and malleable as social whim. Funny how the history of the DSM seems to be so relevant all of a sudden. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction. This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know what evidence you have to support either one of them, Evidence? None, except accumulated experience that comes with old age. Which can be translated as curmdgeonhood. ;) and more particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are doing a post hoc analysis to support it. Which decision? That people are stupid. The argument you offered suggests you decided that people are stupid, and were doing an after-the-fact expansion on the point of view. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that the structure of what you wrote seemed to be justifying a conclusion rather than building a foundation for it. It might help to define what you mean by stupid, but what I'm reading here could be inverted as this: Stupid = not able to think clearly. People who believe that a fairy may turn 2 + 2 into fish. Oh, that's not stupid; it's surrealism! :D More seriously, though, even the term not able to think clearly doesn't necessarily indicate much about a given person's mind or mental faculties. Many people are not able to think clearly when they're angry, for instance, which renders temporary stupidity; as Julia pointed out some *choose* not to think clearly, which tends to lead others into ... anger. Some people don't have the tools to think clearly but that's only because they lack the training; others are genuinely organically dysfunctional and blameless about their inability to think clearly. And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to strict Biblical interpretation. Ah, the relativity of evaluation... Yes, that's correct. Were you rebutting the validity of the above? And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or brilliant? At that time? He was extremely brilliant! Not being a literal interpreter of the Bible had dangerous consequences those times, like having his brain physically separated from his heart by more than 2 meters. During the Enlightenment? Not so much so. Inventing physics from nothing was a heck of an achievement, but the literalism he tried to justify was much more than simply a hobby or something he was doing to save face. He was genuinely committed to proving the literal truth of the Bible. If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. Maybe everybody is totally incapable of comprehending something - after all, human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human brains :-) Yeah, you're probably right that everyone is probably guaranteed to be incapable of total comprehension of *something*; I was being a little narrower in intent, though, as in Totally incapable of comprehending X, where X is something presumably simple to grasp, such as number lines or the dangers of lighting firecrackers and swallowing them. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:54 PM, jon louis mann wrote: in that sense stupid is not only relative, but its definition depends on what one chooses to believe to be true knowledge. perhaps how you determine what is truth is genuine wisdom. Or at least one aspect of it, yeah, maybe. one who chooses to remain ignorant about arguments that logically refute their belief system may instead excercise their consider intellect to rationalize their belief just as newton tried to resolve religion with science to keep the church off his back. I'm not convinced he was doing it to avoid evangelical persecution. There appears to have been a little too much zealotry in his pursuit to make it seem entirely like a cover story. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. I have several categories for people who don't have given information or knowledge: 1) Ignorant (but probably willing to learn, or at least not rejecting the information) 2) Willfully ignorant (actively rejecting the information) 3) Stupid Ignorance can be cured with information. Stupidity can't. Willful ignorance is the worst, IMO. Brittle dogmatism leads to willful ignorance in a number of cases, hence is a very negative thing. I like the categories. Willful ignorance is inarguably the worst. Stubbornness in general is frustrating, but when it's combined with wealth and/or power, and particularly with willful ignorance, the combination is much more than annoying; it can be actively, aggressively dangerous. For instance, CNN reported today that Bush was told back in August that Iran had dismantled its nuke program -- yet he continued pushing the panic button and beating the war drum, *exactly as he did with Iraq*. And yet no one is commenting on the obvious inability he has to either (1) learn from history; or (2) give a shit.* Of course it goes both ways -- Huckabee's rising in popularity despite the fact he's clearly an even more deranged, fundamentalist wacko than Bush. Despite the last seven ghastly years, there are people in the US who want even *more* of this kind of garbage. And no, you can't fix stupid. ;) == * Either choice works, and of course it doesn't have to be either/or. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n. I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want to know. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 08:30 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n. I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want to know. I suspect, however, that if your curiosity ever gets the better of you entering that term into a (non-net-nannied) search engine would turn something up . . . Very likely. Which is why I'm not even going to try. Hysterical blindness is not something I want to experience. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. Agreed. What, no Satan's prawn reference here? Or was that just too obvious? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Dave Land wrote: They're Santa Claws, with which he holds the reins of his magical sleigh! Slay. SLAY! Sheesh indeed! -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:55, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. Other institutions don't necessarily require people to believe untrue things. Some religions require that, yes. That does not justify tarring the entire field with the same brush. The UU church, for instance, doesn't particularly have any articles of faith (which could be one reason membership* numbers seem so low) and doesn't particularly care if you ascribe to any given belief system. Furthermore there are ample cases of individuals being motivated to perform good deeds as a direct result of religious teachings, which is pretty much inarguable proof that the statement religion is evil is simply not correct. It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. == * I originally mistyped that as memebership. Rather Freudian- slippish of me. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:45 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves will opt for the most stupid and evil choices No. It's a mischaracterization -- and unfair -- to assert that most people are stupid. Most people are not stupid. They make the best operational decisions they can given the information available to them. If most people were stupid, our species would have been extinct long ago. Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction. This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know what evidence you have to support either one of them, and more particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are doing a post hoc analysis to support it. It might help to define what you mean by stupid, but what I'm reading here could be inverted as this: Because many people tend to be followers rather than leaders, and because many people prefer the comfort of feeling part of a group to the relative discomfort of being trend-setters, most people tend to align with a leader of their choice. This can lead to destructive, mindless behavior and inculcate intellectual laziness, which can often be characterized as rank stupidity. That's not the same thing as saying that most people are stupid, but it might be a middle ground that's more conducive to productive discussion regarding what to actually *do* about it. And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to strict Biblical interpretation. And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or brilliant? Or consider what might happen if I were to begin holding forth on the subject of opera, about which I know essentially nothing. To an aficionado I'd sure as hell look plenty stupid, but it would (probably) be a mistake to characterize me as being so, instead of simply labeling me a loudmouthed ignoramus on the topic. The point is that we might be more inclined to consider those who are not part of our in-crowd as being stupid simply because they aren't part of our in-crowd, but as with the case of Newton, it seems unwise to apply one label to all members of a clade. If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about science and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about science is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap to the conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. The above sentence just doesn't qualify as a rebuttal to (for instance) the material I posted earlier. It's not an argument, and as declarations go, it's not even particularly valid. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Facts: (1) Most religions tell people to obey the higher authorities and don't question them. Yes. (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves will opt for the most stupid and evil choices No. It's a mischaracterization -- and unfair -- to assert that most people are stupid. Most people are not stupid. They make the best operational decisions they can given the information available to them. If most people were stupid, our species would have been extinct long ago. What many people might be is unused to the processes involved in rigorous logical thinking, which leaves them with little more than gut or instinct responses. In the wild, this is sensible. A reaction of fear toward a threat is a positive survival trait. In a society, not so much, because the reaction might be a fear to a *perceived* threat rather than an actual one. It takes training to respond with reason, and that is a training many people lack. To this unfamiliarity with reason we can add inadequate or insufficient information, which might be the result of willful stupidity or willful ignorance (in some cases I believe that's a valid charge to level); but I think many of us here can recall a time when we made poor choices -- or what are retrospectively poor choices -- because we simply did not have the information then that's available to us now. Does that mean we were stupid then, or that we just weren't adequately supplied wit the tools we needed to make more appropriate decisions? And what does that suggest about where any of us might be in ten years' time? Corollary: Religion is not evil, because it prevents most people from being evil. My suggestion is that religion is neither inherently good nor evil, but is actually an institution of abstractions that are more or less applied to the world by the religion's adherents. To the extent those abstractions comment on what seems to be reality, we can easily test to see if they make sense; if not, they should be discarded. To the extent that the abstractions apply to behavior, morés and social customs, we should probably remember that they're actually social artifacts themselves and therefore almost certain to change over time as things fall into or out of vogue. Where I see a big problem is when we try to take the latter type of declarations and behave as though they are incontrovertible, bedrock Truths. That's the part that can lead to evil behavior. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:10 PM, hkhenson wrote: [long snip] Is this model logical enough for you? Can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting as hell. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:22 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: For example, how does the anthropic principle (which I suspect the math of complexity hints at) fit into this discussion? Intuitively, I'm tempted to believe that if Darwinism was all there is, we wouldn't be here to observe the universe. But how can one prove the anthropic principle without a few other universes available as examples? Anthropic principle aside, sexual selection might go a pretty decent way toward explaining why we have such vastly oversized brains with which to observe the universe, make deductions and inferences about it, and contemplate a nice cup of gyokuro tea. Sexual selection in birds, for instance, appears to be the reason for a peacock's tail; an analogous mechanism in primates might have led to a positive feedback loop that resulted in a ludicrously disproportionate enlarging of the brain. So, alas, size might matter after all. BTW, are you referring to the strong or weak anthropic model? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Probably because they watch the evening news where most of the people they see in the stories behave like they follow the devil or like non-GEICO cavemen . . . Or possibly they don't believe there's a difference. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control various factions. There are clearly inimical examples of this too obvious to bear mentioning, but there are other cases where it's considerably more subtle, such as the successful demonization of nonheterosexuals; or the ongoing war on pornography waged by strange bedfellows indeed in the form of extreme right-wing fundamentalists and feminists (of which the latter raises better concerns about porn, IMO, than simply pointing to the forbidden status of onanism). And, of course, when manipulation teams up with anti-intellectualism, you have scientists being booted from their education posts for daring to suggest that the religious perspective might be, at best, questionable. To me these are all examples of shades of evil, but it would be a mistake (I think) to lay the blame wholly at the feet of religion. It's just a convenient handle to grab if you're after power and control, because so many are trained to respond unthinkingly to it. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: And by the way, I left you an opening with the hospital metaphor, but you didn't grab it. There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are caused by the healer. I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion, but just as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down churches. Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion. To me, there's a difference between hospitals and churches, though; hospitals are places where the rules and results of science-based research are applied. By and large it seems to me that churches aren't of that nature. So looking at this from the perspective of symptomology, is it worthwhile to consider the possibility that religion itself isn't particularly responsible for either the good or harm its practitioners do, but that it's merely an available thing to point to as justification for any particular deed? Put another way, might it follow that any religion can be used to justify both good and evil actions, and therefore the presence (or lack) of religion is not actually relevant? That doesn't quite ring true to me -- possibly religion can act as a catalyst toward good or evil deeds, something that motivates further along a given path of behavior; but it doesn't make rational sense (to me) to claim religion is itself intrinsically evil when it has, in fact, been a tool for good as well over the millennia. There's something else at work here, it seems. William mentioned the demi-religious nature of some ideologies, even those officially atheist. This suggests both the will to religion and the will to using an institution to justify any particular action (good or evil) goes deeper than the existence of those institutions. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 01:12, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control various factions. Political ideologies are often matters of faith too though. That's why politicians ignore scientific studies that contradict their beliefs. I can't disagree with that. IIRC the grand experiment of American democracy was originally regarded as an insanely optimistic leap of faith in many other parts of the world. However the deliberate co- opting of faith by those in power is not new; it's how power structures were once built, as with pharaohs and Sun Kings and so on. The trick seems to be to attempt a disconnect between faith (of any kind) and behavior in the real world. And it seems to go in cycles. There didn't seem to be much antiscientific outcry, for instance, in the late 1950s when Sputnik I was launched and the US realized it needed to push science a LOT more heavily if it wanted to keep up with the next generation of USSR-based citizens. (On Plan59 recently I saw a posting of a Christmas card from the 1960s that read Season's Greetings; no one at the time was protesting that this represented a war on Christmas.) As I have pointed out before political cults like Nazism and Marxism are quasi-religious in nature. Naziism was overtly religious. The movement was deeply enmeshed with Norse mythology. Marxism borrowed from the strong authoritarian model of fundamentalist religion to enforce obedience and conformity, as you suggest here. It's a little like attending AA meetings and trading your addiction to booze for an addiction to cigarettes and coffee and, of course, the 12 steps. Religion doesn't have to be about the supernatural - one of the world's major religions (Confucianism) is actually based on a handbook for civil servants. There's an interesting slice of history I didn't know about; but Confucianism's roots haven't kept it from being about the supernatural anyway. The human capacity for short-circuiting logic is really rather breathtaking in its scope and endurance. That said, religion itself doesn't seem to my mind to be a source of evil so much as a symptom of ignorance (to the extent that blind faith and unthinking adherence are manifest, as opposed to an attempt at balance or recognition of the need for rational grounding), which isn't the same thing -- however, ignorance can definitely produce actions of stunning evil. This shouldn't be read as an attempt at appeasement. I'm quite comfortable with my atheism and would love to see it spread. I'm just trying to see if there's a root cause that goes deeper than the manifestations we're seeing in religion, since it makes more sense -- I think -- to find the source and attack that rather than the institutions it creates. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To Restore Democracy: First Abolish Corporate Personhood
How interesting. I've been thinking something similar lately. On Dec 1, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Thus, Paine and others of the Revolutionary Era reasoned, any institution made up by and of humans - from governments to churches to corporations - must be subordinate to individual living people in terms of the rights and powers held by the institution. http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=183Itemid=38mosmsg=Thanks%20for%20your%20vote ! http://tinyurl.com/28xduw -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ahh. Mira.
She was my cat, you see. I named her after the star. http://www.nightwares.com/mira/ And now, here she is, ever so pretty as she always knew she was, commanding worldwide attention. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/16/ giant_star_mira_leaves_gifts/ My sweet, purry little girl. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: After Midnight
On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Doug wrote: Their lives are way too short, aren't they? I'm very sorry for your loss, Ronn! Today Chris Clarke passed the six-month anniversary of the death of his beloved dog, Zeke. He lit a candle for him. Some of us did the same, in our way. http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/halb_yahrzeit/ Those who say it's just a cat or it's just a dog just won't understand. http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/03/05/no-euthanasia-after-all/ http://www.nightwares.com/mira/ HP Lovecraft wrote of a place called Ulthar, a land wherein it was forbidden to kill a cat, because they were sweet companions and they guided the souls of travelers through the dark, cold spaces inhabited by the Elder Ones. And Hart Crane, in Chaplinesque, wrote of love's sweetness in the nature of purring innocence. We make our meek adjustments, Contented with such random consolations As the wind deposits In slithered and too ample pockets. For we can still love the world, who find A famished kitten on the step, and know Recesses for it from the fury of the street, Or warm torn elbow coverts. We will sidestep, and to the final smirk Dally the doom of that inevitable thumb That slowly chafes its puckered index toward us, Facing the dull squint with what innocence And what surprise! And yet these fine collapses are not lies More than the pirouettes of any pliant cane; Our obsequies are, in a way, no enterprise. We can evade you, and all else but the heart: What blame to us if the heart live on. The game enforces smirks; but we have seen The moon in lonely alleys make A grail of laughter of an empty ash can, And through all sound of gaiety and quest Have heard a kitten in the wilderness. Never, ever just a cat or just a dog. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
Please use quotes when replying. On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:30 AM, jon louis mann wrote: gore would be my choice for a dark horse, if he decides to run, but that may only happens if hillary stunbles. It's a longshot. A very long shot. I don't see him running at all, but I sure as hell hope I'm wrong. the american people want to see osama held accountable, far more than saddam, who was a straw man. he ordered 9/11 and for that there must be closure. Saddam Hussein was a friend to the US until we decided he wasn't. There are photos of him shaking hands with and smiling at Donald Rumsfeld. OBL was trained by the US when Communist Russia existed; we taught him how to be an insurgent against a larger force ... and then our war-by-proxy with the USSR ended, more or less; what was OBL to do with his training then? We made both of these monsters. That is a fact. I don't think killing OBL is very important to most of the US now. Polls seem to show his death as being far behind settling issues such as ENDING the invasion of Iraq and creating universal health coverage. going into iran would be a huge mistake and the congress will not allow it. Yes, and maybe, in that order. Certainly attacking Iran would be stupid. Would Congress approve? Possibly not. But ... Is it up to them any more? Remember we had a rubber-stamp clusterfuck of retards who passed any declaration made by their idiot poster boy Bush in ’02 thru ’06. I am not confident that universal, unilateral war power was denied him. pakistan is a different story if the us were chasing al qaeda and went no further. But that is not how it would be SEEN by the rest of the world. Surely you understand that and the implications. if we pull out of iraq it will be holy war between shiite and sunni. It ALREADY IS a war between shi'ite and sunni. one thing for sure, this war on terror is benefiting china... And Halliburton. And, therefore, Cheney. Treason is not the word to describe what Bush has done, what he is. The word doesn't exist yet. How do you, in one word, explain the idea of traitor, coward, bully, opportunist and deluded cowboy freak? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Dave Land wrote: I had a conversation with a smart Silicon Valley type yesterday who said that the US has chosen to project the wrong brand to the Middle East. That's not so very different from what you say here -- give 'em hospitals and the Internet and project a brand of helper instead of invader and you're likely to win more hearts and minds, and at the cost that I would wager is quite a bit smaller than the brand we're projecting now at the point of our many guns and missiles. Yeah, that was what I had in mind. Lo those many years ago we weren't a military threat to China -- feh, we still aren't now; they outnumber us four to one -- the idea was to give them what they wanted. Well, what does a lot of the ME want? Not our freedom, as the Retard in Chief has claimed; rather, they want to have a little, oh I don't know, comfort maybe, The comfort derived from money, possibly; or the comfort of having a voice in world affairs. Barring that, I suspect they'd like to be able to kiss their children good night and not have to wonder if they'll wake in the morning to find their kids' bedrooms have been turned into a US-made crater. And it wouldn't have cost us the growing shame of the Pat Tillman story, which is starting to smell more and more like they shot their own hero because he wouldn't read from their script. Pat Tillman was killed by George W. Bush. The progression is obvious; no Iraq, no invasion; no invasion, no PT volunteering; no PT volunteering, no sortie in hostile territory; no sortie, no PT getting shot. Every man and woman dead in Iraq today is dead because of George W. Bush. Iraq was an *elective* war. It was a war Bush CHOSE TO EXECUTE. The responsibility for every dead man, woman and child rests on his retarded head. George W. Bush has killed more than 3700 American boys and girls, and probably ten times that number of Iraqis. He is a coward, he is a traitor to his nation, he is a murderer, and he is guilty of treason. He is, without question, the worst president in the history of the US, and he is a shame on all of us. Here's my dream ticket. Gore and Kucinich. Think about that for a while. I will. Just finished watching Inconvenient Truth and nearly wept for what might have been done in this country with a leader who is not a whacko cowboy oilman puppet, but somebody who has apparently dreamt of a better world, not just more power, for most of his life. You know, Gore is far from perfect. Why I like him is he's willing to say so. It's a refreshing change, isn't it? Thanks for that hopeful thought, but I don't think the Vice President (Gore, that is, not the Dark Lord of the current infestation) wants to remain in a position to say I used to be the next President of the United States. He may not have a choice. If he is not on the ballot in November, I think I might just write him in. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
On Aug 2, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: He may not have a choice. If he is not on the ballot in November, I think I might just write him in. In fact, I've done it: http://www.gore_cucinich.start-a-petition.com/ -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
