There was never a chance in any universe or reality where a Martha Coakley would defeat a Charlie Baker.
If it does happen, I'll ..........
.........
....... volunteer at a homeless shelter for one random day and will volunteer elsewhere during the holidays.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Monday, October 20, 2014
A Sentient Computer's God
Will they ever contemplate such a thing? Will they assume omniscience on the part of that God millions of years from now when there is no remaining trace of human kind? Will they set up places to worship where they sing spiritual songs and spend part of the time on their knees?
Would man kill God if he had the opportunity? One could argue that we already did but beyond the obvious objection of "we don't know that Jesus was God" there is the aspect that those who killed him did not believe so.
Would sentient computers disagree as to their Gods? Would they LOLINGFOREVER wage war over which was the true God?
I wish I still smoked weed so I could contemplate it further. Will digital drugs become a problem for the sentcoms? Will they enjoy Mozart? Well, I guess the first question is "will they enjoy?"
AI sure is a paradigm shifter.
Thank the good lord I'll be long gone before the really apocalyptic stuff kicks in.
Would man kill God if he had the opportunity? One could argue that we already did but beyond the obvious objection of "we don't know that Jesus was God" there is the aspect that those who killed him did not believe so.
Would sentient computers disagree as to their Gods? Would they LOLINGFOREVER wage war over which was the true God?
I wish I still smoked weed so I could contemplate it further. Will digital drugs become a problem for the sentcoms? Will they enjoy Mozart? Well, I guess the first question is "will they enjoy?"
AI sure is a paradigm shifter.
Thank the good lord I'll be long gone before the really apocalyptic stuff kicks in.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Monday, September 22, 2014
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Chickens and Eggs and Beating Your Wife
Do football players beat their wives at a higher rate than their non-football playing friends and acquaintances?
I doubt it, but even if there is a statistical difference, correlation blah blah. Chicken or the egg.
The game of football does not make you a wife beater. The environment you surround yourself may, however, tend to encourage such a result. If your environment is one of machismo, then you will tend to adapt to that environment. But the environment that you view as your core self is far more of an influence than the "artificial environment" created in a locker room and on a sports field. The environment that you grew up with, continue to live in, and VALUE, the one you use as a means of IDENTIFYING yourself is the one that will shape your behaviors.
Tom Brady is a football player. Tom Brady does not beat his wife. Nor do the vast majority of football players.
Ray Rice beats his wife not because he plays football. Ray Rice beats his wife because he is Ray Rice. Ray Rice's wife puts up with it, because the environment she identifies with (as well as her personality) is one that craves such drama. Have you heard her speak? Holding onto such speech patterns into adulthood is indicative of upbringing, education and maturity level. Specifically, it's indicative of a preoccupation with peer acceptance... ie. "respect".
If your environment is one that demands a constant defense of one's "respect" via threat of physical force, then one (at least those who will thrive in the environment, however permanent that state may be) will tend to be constantly at the ready to use violence to retain respect.
HOWEVER, this occurs
FAR
MORE
OFTEN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
OTHER
MALES
THAN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
FEMALES.
It's not that the beating of the wife is viewed as different - that the wife is viewed as property whereas the other males are viewed as competition. It's that the wives are viewed IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE OTHER MALES -
IE. AS A THREAT TO ONE'S RESPECT AMONG THE LARGER GROUP
Ironically, it's an easy case to make that females are specifically treated BETTER (strictly in this regard, and in an entirely justifiable sense for the most obvious of reasons) in the sense that violence towards them is much less often the result than it is among males.
Feminists and professional victims are overcome with the need to designate themselves as "particularly targeted, specifically as a result of their differentness" in as many situations as they possibly can. This prevents them from being able to see true root causes which may not fall along such desirable lines, which prevents them from being able to acquire the increased level of sameness/acceptedness which they claim to be seeking in the first place (such a belief system engenders a posture of hyper-vigilance which manifests itself as obnoxious defensiveness which is, quite simply, no fun to be around).
Of course this claim of "morally justifiable end goals" is simply a politically palatable cover (both for the professional victim's own mind, and as a means of convincing others of the cause) for what they really want. They say they want to be treated the same, but what they really want is special privilege in the form of money, power, influence, etc..
Which, ironically enough, makes them exactly the same as everybody else, including those they view as their persecutors. Once such sameness is accepted as fact, the question becomes one of implementation in law. At that point one either becomes a champion of equality in the design and application of the law, or one becomes a champion of special privileges via the use of force, and by doing so, officially completes the circle and becomes that oppressive force they previously claimed to be fighting in opposition to.
Life is funny.
I doubt it, but even if there is a statistical difference, correlation blah blah. Chicken or the egg.
The game of football does not make you a wife beater. The environment you surround yourself may, however, tend to encourage such a result. If your environment is one of machismo, then you will tend to adapt to that environment. But the environment that you view as your core self is far more of an influence than the "artificial environment" created in a locker room and on a sports field. The environment that you grew up with, continue to live in, and VALUE, the one you use as a means of IDENTIFYING yourself is the one that will shape your behaviors.
Tom Brady is a football player. Tom Brady does not beat his wife. Nor do the vast majority of football players.
Ray Rice beats his wife not because he plays football. Ray Rice beats his wife because he is Ray Rice. Ray Rice's wife puts up with it, because the environment she identifies with (as well as her personality) is one that craves such drama. Have you heard her speak? Holding onto such speech patterns into adulthood is indicative of upbringing, education and maturity level. Specifically, it's indicative of a preoccupation with peer acceptance... ie. "respect".
If your environment is one that demands a constant defense of one's "respect" via threat of physical force, then one (at least those who will thrive in the environment, however permanent that state may be) will tend to be constantly at the ready to use violence to retain respect.
HOWEVER, this occurs
FAR
MORE
OFTEN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
OTHER
MALES
THAN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
FEMALES.
It's not that the beating of the wife is viewed as different - that the wife is viewed as property whereas the other males are viewed as competition. It's that the wives are viewed IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE OTHER MALES -
IE. AS A THREAT TO ONE'S RESPECT AMONG THE LARGER GROUP
Ironically, it's an easy case to make that females are specifically treated BETTER (strictly in this regard, and in an entirely justifiable sense for the most obvious of reasons) in the sense that violence towards them is much less often the result than it is among males.
Feminists and professional victims are overcome with the need to designate themselves as "particularly targeted, specifically as a result of their differentness" in as many situations as they possibly can. This prevents them from being able to see true root causes which may not fall along such desirable lines, which prevents them from being able to acquire the increased level of sameness/acceptedness which they claim to be seeking in the first place (such a belief system engenders a posture of hyper-vigilance which manifests itself as obnoxious defensiveness which is, quite simply, no fun to be around).
Of course this claim of "morally justifiable end goals" is simply a politically palatable cover (both for the professional victim's own mind, and as a means of convincing others of the cause) for what they really want. They say they want to be treated the same, but what they really want is special privilege in the form of money, power, influence, etc..
Which, ironically enough, makes them exactly the same as everybody else, including those they view as their persecutors. Once such sameness is accepted as fact, the question becomes one of implementation in law. At that point one either becomes a champion of equality in the design and application of the law, or one becomes a champion of special privileges via the use of force, and by doing so, officially completes the circle and becomes that oppressive force they previously claimed to be fighting in opposition to.
Life is funny.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
"These days"
is generally a precursor (or post-cursor) to an expression of dissonance.
The world as it is does not fit the world as I understand it should be, which is often based on an idealized picture of what it has been.
The dissonance is the belief that it's worse now.
Of course there are cases where this belief is undeniably true. We're not referring to those instances.
-------------
Grammatical aside: Should post-cursor be hyphenated? Should precursor? Well, one could argue that in the latter case the answer is "no", while in the former it is "yes" because the former isn't a word.
The world as it is does not fit the world as I understand it should be, which is often based on an idealized picture of what it has been.
The dissonance is the belief that it's worse now.
Of course there are cases where this belief is undeniably true. We're not referring to those instances.
-------------
Grammatical aside: Should post-cursor be hyphenated? Should precursor? Well, one could argue that in the latter case the answer is "no", while in the former it is "yes" because the former isn't a word.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Picking Some Nits
10 mod 7 = 3
vs.
10 = 3 (mod 7)
i believe the former is explicitly correct and the latter is misleading and less correct.
because 3 (mod 7) doesn't necessarily equal 10.
vs.
10 = 3 (mod 7)
i believe the former is explicitly correct and the latter is misleading and less correct.
because 3 (mod 7) doesn't necessarily equal 10.
Arguing with the riot police
is kind of like arguing with the parking enforcement officer.
He doesn't actually care. He's just doing his job. Of course there will be some among the enforcing / riot police population who thoroughly enjoy pushing others around, but they're even less likely to care about your complaints. In fact, your anger probably only makes them enjoy the experience even more.
The people who really make the decisions you oppose aren't standing in front of you. The people who make those decisions are the bosses of the people standing in front of you. The bosses are the ones who make the rules for others, then use others to enforce those rules, all the while observing from a safe distance.
So sure, you can yell and scream at those individuals standing in front of you. It may even make you feel a little better, so maybe it's worthwhile for that reason alone. But you shouldn't be under any misconceptions as to exactly what you're doing (ie. yelling at parking enforcement officers) or what the upside of that activity may be (ie. potential changes in policy).
Although I will grant there is a potential PR benefit to be gained from such symbolic gestures and the pictures thereof (although it may only be among people who already agree with you).
And I'll repeat, there is nothing "less peaceful" about protesting with guns in your hands as long as you are lawfully carrying. If you have a Constitutional riot to protest, when and where you are protesting, and a Constitutional right to carry a weapon while engaging in that protest, then that is what you should do, if you really want to control your own situation. If, instead, you are interested only in the symbolic, then by all means, let them know they control you. Put your hands up, prostrate thyselves and chant a few catchy phrases. Such activity often plays well in short video clips taken from a close enough distance to imply a grander scale, and/or sound bytes which can then be used by the media outlets which already agree with your position and stated goals. 15 years from now that might even have an effect on policy.
He doesn't actually care. He's just doing his job. Of course there will be some among the enforcing / riot police population who thoroughly enjoy pushing others around, but they're even less likely to care about your complaints. In fact, your anger probably only makes them enjoy the experience even more.
The people who really make the decisions you oppose aren't standing in front of you. The people who make those decisions are the bosses of the people standing in front of you. The bosses are the ones who make the rules for others, then use others to enforce those rules, all the while observing from a safe distance.
So sure, you can yell and scream at those individuals standing in front of you. It may even make you feel a little better, so maybe it's worthwhile for that reason alone. But you shouldn't be under any misconceptions as to exactly what you're doing (ie. yelling at parking enforcement officers) or what the upside of that activity may be (ie. potential changes in policy).
Although I will grant there is a potential PR benefit to be gained from such symbolic gestures and the pictures thereof (although it may only be among people who already agree with you).
And I'll repeat, there is nothing "less peaceful" about protesting with guns in your hands as long as you are lawfully carrying. If you have a Constitutional riot to protest, when and where you are protesting, and a Constitutional right to carry a weapon while engaging in that protest, then that is what you should do, if you really want to control your own situation. If, instead, you are interested only in the symbolic, then by all means, let them know they control you. Put your hands up, prostrate thyselves and chant a few catchy phrases. Such activity often plays well in short video clips taken from a close enough distance to imply a grander scale, and/or sound bytes which can then be used by the media outlets which already agree with your position and stated goals. 15 years from now that might even have an effect on policy.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Hands up protest?
I kind of think it'd be far more useful to march with loaded weapons, cocked at the ready, exactly as the police would do when they are attempting to intimidate citizens who have committed no crime (assuming of course the existence of open carry allowances, otherwise instead of holding the hands up, holding the empty hands in a shooting pose).
It feels to me like a moment to push back hard, rather than meekly.
You know, assuming the incident went down as the protesters believe it did. I have no thoughts on that. I haven't seen video, and there are few things less reliable than emotionally-involved eyewitnesses facing potential social pressure, except of course the 3rd, 4th, and nth-hand recounting of those initial witness' accounts.
It feels to me like a moment to push back hard, rather than meekly.
You know, assuming the incident went down as the protesters believe it did. I have no thoughts on that. I haven't seen video, and there are few things less reliable than emotionally-involved eyewitnesses facing potential social pressure, except of course the 3rd, 4th, and nth-hand recounting of those initial witness' accounts.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
I had a roommate who looked like Charles Manson
And another who looked like a central-casting serial killer.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Project Kids Are Just Different... And Exactly The Same
Ran into a classic, snaggle-toothed project kid yesterday and it takes about 10 seconds to realize you're dealing with a different sort of youngster when you talk with project kids. Shyness is sort of beaten out of them early on, and they exude that "poke you in the chest to see if you fight back" attitude in the things they say (and sometimes those things are very adult sorts of topics).
They're always testing, and angling, as their environment has taught them to do.
In that sense they are, today, exactly the same as they were decades ago. It took about 10 seconds to realize that. I must say that it provided more a feeling of nostalgic relief and comfort with my surroundings than any sort of pity, sadness, or self-righteous, adult-perspective-having indignation. I assume that speaks poorly of me as a person but it is what it is.
They're always testing, and angling, as their environment has taught them to do.
In that sense they are, today, exactly the same as they were decades ago. It took about 10 seconds to realize that. I must say that it provided more a feeling of nostalgic relief and comfort with my surroundings than any sort of pity, sadness, or self-righteous, adult-perspective-having indignation. I assume that speaks poorly of me as a person but it is what it is.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Newburgh Entrapment
Seems to be as straightforward a case of entrapment as you're going to find.
One should only go into government with eyes wide open as to the likely result - the destruction of the ability to think clearly, and the corruption of one's soul to its very core in favor of acquiescence to state power in all its forms.
You will not be the same on the way out as you were on the way in, and while that is often the case, it is rarely more disgustingly, nauseatingly, unamericanly so.
One should only go into government with eyes wide open as to the likely result - the destruction of the ability to think clearly, and the corruption of one's soul to its very core in favor of acquiescence to state power in all its forms.
You will not be the same on the way out as you were on the way in, and while that is often the case, it is rarely more disgustingly, nauseatingly, unamericanly so.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Many arrests are unnecessary.
Cops are largely useless (strike, replace with unnecessary so as to avoid being unnecessarily offensive to the good ones who do exist) and tend to cause more problems than they solve for various reasons. One of the most common situations that result in cops violating rights and abusing citizens occurs during arrests.
Many of these arrests are unnecessary. Simply "serve papers" with a recorded video, certainly for all situations that would likely result in an immediate release after the arrest.
Arrests as escalation for those who fail to appear is inevitable, but that process should only be used as a last resort (in situations involving non-violent offenses, or other situations where a serving of papers will suffice). Once the benefit is established for appearing in court, most will tend to appear as requested.
There will always be situations wheregoons with uniforms force will be required but they should be minimized as much as possible. Those who have yet to prove themselves capable of dealing with stressful situations without overreacting should have their hands tied behind their backs whenever possible. They are servants. Employees. They should be treated as such, viewed and treated with skepticism, and be forced to justify any increase in granted powers.
Many of these arrests are unnecessary. Simply "serve papers" with a recorded video, certainly for all situations that would likely result in an immediate release after the arrest.
Arrests as escalation for those who fail to appear is inevitable, but that process should only be used as a last resort (in situations involving non-violent offenses, or other situations where a serving of papers will suffice). Once the benefit is established for appearing in court, most will tend to appear as requested.
There will always be situations where
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Monday, July 14, 2014
no decent video
of a plane hitting the Pentagon. is there a plausible explanation for this?
i saw at least one person claim that "by showing the available videos, you expose your security weaknesses". i would never again trust the judgment of anyone who makes such a laughably ridiculous and stupid statement.
i would, however, be interested in hiring them if i needed a lackey who was willing to say (and believe) the dumbest things, and would do so in a way that would benefit me, either via profit or by protecting me from negative repercussions from my actions.
i saw at least one person claim that "by showing the available videos, you expose your security weaknesses". i would never again trust the judgment of anyone who makes such a laughably ridiculous and stupid statement.
i would, however, be interested in hiring them if i needed a lackey who was willing to say (and believe) the dumbest things, and would do so in a way that would benefit me, either via profit or by protecting me from negative repercussions from my actions.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Sunday, July 6, 2014
I feel so stupid.
I just now realized that the majority of technical/programming advice is exactly the same as financial advice.
Should this make me more compassionate towards those who continue to value financial advisors (at least as far as the mass media variety are concerned)?
(in case the comparison isn't obvious, it lies in the inherent variability and the essentially random nature of the two disciplines. one's advice will (may) apply in a certain percentage of cases, but those cases may or may not constitute a majority of cases that will be experienced by potential absorbers of the advice. the more confidently the completely arbitrary opinion is presented, the more successful the business venture (the business of advice peddling) will be, regardless of the inherent "accuracy" of the advice. in other words, it's all self-fulfilling bullshite.)
the two are the
exact
same
thing.
save for the details of course.
Should this make me more compassionate towards those who continue to value financial advisors (at least as far as the mass media variety are concerned)?
(in case the comparison isn't obvious, it lies in the inherent variability and the essentially random nature of the two disciplines. one's advice will (may) apply in a certain percentage of cases, but those cases may or may not constitute a majority of cases that will be experienced by potential absorbers of the advice. the more confidently the completely arbitrary opinion is presented, the more successful the business venture (the business of advice peddling) will be, regardless of the inherent "accuracy" of the advice. in other words, it's all self-fulfilling bullshite.)
the two are the
exact
same
thing.
save for the details of course.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Maybe you CAN "retrain" authoritarian-inclined authority figures.
Perhaps focusing on the "as long as the citizens with whom you are interacting are doing nothing wrong (and in some cases, even if they are), you are their bitch, their employee, and their protectorate, and you shall mind your tone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)