http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Football is simply unwatchable now.
I can't deal with all the interruptions. I just can't. Delayed start in order to fit in commercials (to be fair, all sports do this now). Commercial after a kickoff, before the first play is run. Commercial on change of possession. Commercial on instant replay review. Commercial for timeout. Commercial in between quarters. Automatic review on turnovers. Commercial for timeout. Automatic review on all scoring plays. "External review" for the last 2 minutes. Commercial after a score. Commercial after the kickoff after a score, even if it's a touchback. Commercial for timeout. Commercial for injury. Commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial, commercial.
I refuse to sit through it all so I end up flicking back and forth between the game and something else. It's comical once you start to see exactly how much time is actually involved in playing the game. It can't be more than 10% of the entire broadcast.
Afaiac, that constitutes "unwatchable". I shudder to think what the experience will be like in person in a few weeks when, instead of the relatively enjoyable experience of watching television commercials (or flicking to another program), you get to stand still, in the freezing cold, perhaps drinking an $8 beer, watching a field full of people standing around doing nothing, but doing nothing in front of massive heating devices.
I wish I had said "no, thanks."
Update: the downtime is much more tolerable in person. perhaps it's simply being surrounded by so many people who are in such a good mood, or perhaps it's the in-between goings on that keep it interesting, or perhaps it's simply more tolerable to be able to watch the players going about their business during the delays. i don't know for sure, but the experience sure was fun, even with the 20 degree temperatures and 10 degree wind chill.
I refuse to sit through it all so I end up flicking back and forth between the game and something else. It's comical once you start to see exactly how much time is actually involved in playing the game. It can't be more than 10% of the entire broadcast.
Afaiac, that constitutes "unwatchable". I shudder to think what the experience will be like in person in a few weeks when, instead of the relatively enjoyable experience of watching television commercials (or flicking to another program), you get to stand still, in the freezing cold, perhaps drinking an $8 beer, watching a field full of people standing around doing nothing, but doing nothing in front of massive heating devices.
I wish I had said "no, thanks."
Update: the downtime is much more tolerable in person. perhaps it's simply being surrounded by so many people who are in such a good mood, or perhaps it's the in-between goings on that keep it interesting, or perhaps it's simply more tolerable to be able to watch the players going about their business during the delays. i don't know for sure, but the experience sure was fun, even with the 20 degree temperatures and 10 degree wind chill.
So Tyson was "on drugs" during some fights...
Which leads us to the following question:
Why the hell does anyone care if a fighter smokes marijuana before, during, or after a fight?
Same goes for something like heroin, or acid.
Why would anyone care, other than bettors who bet on that specific fighter?
Cocaine, or other stimulants are a different story. Steroids, of course. But marijuana?
What a ridiculous waste of time and money.
Why the hell does anyone care if a fighter smokes marijuana before, during, or after a fight?
Same goes for something like heroin, or acid.
Why would anyone care, other than bettors who bet on that specific fighter?
Cocaine, or other stimulants are a different story. Steroids, of course. But marijuana?
What a ridiculous waste of time and money.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Russia proved me very wrong.
I was adamant that the members of Pussy Riot would never serve out their entire terms, and that they would all likely be released within 6 months.
I was adamant that western media was playing up the angle of the hard-line Russian government cracking down on free expression in the country, and that Russia would prove that "they are just like us" by showing leniency after making a public display, essentially to "prove a point and send a message".
Nope.
Looks like at least one of those girls is still in prison to this day. Shame on you, Russians. I'm disappointed in you.
I was adamant that western media was playing up the angle of the hard-line Russian government cracking down on free expression in the country, and that Russia would prove that "they are just like us" by showing leniency after making a public display, essentially to "prove a point and send a message".
Nope.
Looks like at least one of those girls is still in prison to this day. Shame on you, Russians. I'm disappointed in you.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Condolences
Andy, I'm sorry to hear about your dad. He lived a very full, productive life and raised 3 great kids. I know he was very proud of you. I wish you, your mother, your sister and your brother peace. I know I eventually proved unworthy of your friendship, but I'm grateful for those early years. I can honestly say I never had a better friend and I know I never will.
All the best.
All the best.
Monday, September 30, 2013
The word 'literally'
now, literally, means 'not literally', as well, of course, as 'literally'.
I'm just not sure where you go from there.
I'm just not sure where you go from there.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
I find it completely bizarre
that anyone would take "pride" in their ability to lift a certain amount of weight via their use of steroids.
it's a weird point of apparent divergence of the meaning of the terms "I" and "can" from their normally agreed upon definitions.
it's a weird point of apparent divergence of the meaning of the terms "I" and "can" from their normally agreed upon definitions.
As for Kerry's VP possibilities
well, in a "normal" world, his bumbling buffoonery in dealing with the Syria situation *should* disqualify him from consideration. But this is politics, and "normal" don't have nothin to do wit it.
Obama likes Biden for VP for the same reason Bill Clinton liked Gore and Reagan liked Bush. Their VP's ineptitude is not a threat to their power, and makes the presidents look better and more competent in comparison. For this reason, Kerry's odds of being Hillary's VP pick may still not be zero.
If he is not to be considered, I imagine that Hillary will choose someone of Latino origin, or, at the very least, a "White Hispanic". Two women would be too risky, and two pasty whites may be too off-putting to the liberal base. Hillary's niche will be as a white woman with male Latino VP. But who would fit this description and would qualify for consideration? I do not have any specific examples off the top of my head.
Obama likes Biden for VP for the same reason Bill Clinton liked Gore and Reagan liked Bush. Their VP's ineptitude is not a threat to their power, and makes the presidents look better and more competent in comparison. For this reason, Kerry's odds of being Hillary's VP pick may still not be zero.
If he is not to be considered, I imagine that Hillary will choose someone of Latino origin, or, at the very least, a "White Hispanic". Two women would be too risky, and two pasty whites may be too off-putting to the liberal base. Hillary's niche will be as a white woman with male Latino VP. But who would fit this description and would qualify for consideration? I do not have any specific examples off the top of my head.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
The funniest commercial I've ever heard
Amac.
God, country, family, and America. Let's stand together. Better for you. Better for America.
I initially assumed it was a parody. It appears not.
Too funny.
"We're going to target senile elderly folks and we're LITERALLY just going to mash together a bunch of patriotic words with no actual meaning behind anything we say."
You have to respect it on a certain level.
God, country, family, and America. Let's stand together. Better for you. Better for America.
I initially assumed it was a parody. It appears not.
Too funny.
"We're going to target senile elderly folks and we're LITERALLY just going to mash together a bunch of patriotic words with no actual meaning behind anything we say."
You have to respect it on a certain level.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Infuriating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ASbU7Qxug
and 100% worthy of criminal charges, as well as charges of civil rights violations if it is as it appears.
and 100% worthy of criminal charges, as well as charges of civil rights violations if it is as it appears.
On Today's Episode
of the Washington D.C. dog and shony po,
SYRIA...... will they? won't they? should they? will the American people stand for it? will the world community?
stay tuned....
LOLz
SYRIA...... will they? won't they? should they? will the American people stand for it? will the world community?
stay tuned....
LOLz
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Glenn Beck arguing for a "global test"
as John Kerry argues for unilateral intervention.
Life so funny.
Life so funny.
Monday, August 26, 2013
There is a tendency
to crave and desire for others to present palatable realities to you in the most appealing, and convincing manner possible.
On Anonymous Comments
The reason why they are important just crystallized.
What do they tell you to never discuss with polite company?
Religion and politics?
Why?
Should be self-explanatory, but is outside current scope.
Anonymous comments allow us to engage in these "discussions"/"debates"/"conversations" that we THINK we want to have, but the desire to have the "d"/"d"/"c"'s is usually rooted in a delusion regarding their potential usefulness and outcome.
We know the thoughts we've had, and we think that if others hear them, they will certainly be convinced of them. When that does not happen, it may be as a result of a "legitimate opposing viewpoint" or an "illegitimate opposing viewpoint" at which point the presumption becomes recursive, but no less delusional.
Yes, there may be certain cases where we will convince others, but in most cases we will not. We simply want to hold onto that delusion because, like everyone else ever, we want to be the worshipped leader bringing salvation to a thankful people, helping them escape the ignorance they had suffered under due to the lies and myths they had been told.
So when that doesn't happen, we have to reconcile it, and, even in the case of "legitimate opposing viewpoint", dissonance is the natural verbal fight response.
As long as we are anonymous online, we can leave that blob of thought and conflict and frustration and embarrassment and ignorance and delusion behind when we venture out into the real world. And we'll never know when we're coming face to face with those we may have done battle with, allowing us to maintain cordiality which otherwise may not be possible.
Non-anonymous situations prevent this, and they are destined to fail, because they are implemented by people operating with the same sort of delusion that described above by individuals engaging directly in the "battle". But now they are saddling the participants with a paper trail of these interactions which they never
(and this word has rarely been used as legitimately as in this particular case), EVER can erase.
Is that a good thing? Of course not. If someone chooses to engage in this process under their real name of their own free will, God bless 'em. I think they'll regret that and I believe that partly because I believe the entire process is ridiculous and delusional. But even if they don't come to the same conclusions about the overall process, I expect most to regret that they are no longer able to get past the mistakes of their past in any sense, because those mistakes remain available to be investigated and uncovered by anyone who is motivated enough to look.
This is not to minimize the reality of the problem of trolling. It is real, and it is annoying, but it is not solved by "real name" commenting, and "real name" commenting has the far more legitimate danger of overflowing into offline life. You know, the one that actually matters. Obviously people run the risk of others tracking them down in order to do them harm.
But this brings us to the border cases.. In some cases, "trolls" are simply defined as "those who hold a different opinion from the one a specific organization is attempting to put forth". This, of course, is an entirely useful form of troll, as long as it involves genuine opposition focused on the topic at hand. People dislike these trolls because they infringe upon the comforting delusions of unanimity and omniscience. These "trolls" are actually the only thing that make comments sections useful. But there is also another borderline case.
We all liked to poke our brother or sister when we were young. We still like to do that, and we like to do it with others as well. Sometimes we feel a need to annoy someone else because they have annoyed us. Maybe we disagree with the way they dealt with someone else. Maybe we disagree with their overall outlook on life. So we needle them and we poke them a little to stir them up. We find it funny. Those who are least tolerant of such needling are probably least tolerant of the previous kind of troll as well, the eminently useful kind, and their motivation is usually the same. They don't like anyone saying anything that challenges their worldview and their ego. They want to control others.
The final kind of troll has absolutely no value and shouldn't be tolerated. These are online stalkers who carry on a habitual pattern of verbally abusing individuals who are internalizing the abuse. These people actually want to hurt others. When there is a threat of violence involved, that is not trolling. That is a threat of violence and is a completely different animal. But the troll who constantly attacks others, specifically those who can't defend themselves and are being emotionally hurt by the interaction, is a problem. On the one hand I think it's up to every single person who chooses to engage in this silly game of online banter to become immune to this variety of trolling, and as long as everyone stays anonymous, I believe this expectation is justified. But once a real identity is involved and others are intentionally engaging in hurtful activity, even without direct threats of violence, a line is crossed and the situation requires remedy.
So there is a line and it deserves recognition, but it is fairly easy to identify and the focus should be kept on incidents that clearly cross that line. Other than that, "trolling" is part of interaction. When we are online we feel a greater freedom to test ideas in a variety of ways, including possibly pushing them beyond where we currently believe they legitimately could go. By testing those boundaries and processing the responses, one can learn more about a topic, opinion, philosophy, etc. than they otherwise could if they simply wanted to remain within the framework of "accepted wisdom" and in the silly games of politics and debate, these opportunities to push boundaries are really the only useful part of the entire endeavor.
I think I'll just post this without proof reading because it's so fucking long and I don't feel like it and I think it will be an interesting test, as I will probably have the most vile things to say to the author upon reading it again and finding the various grammatical and logical mistakes that certainly exist therein. And then I can practice the art of conveying the information in the least offensive, most productive manner possible because that should probably always be the goal, but I certainly don't want anyone else determining for me where that line should be drawn.
Or knocking on my door when they think I've crossed it.
What do they tell you to never discuss with polite company?
Religion and politics?
Why?
Should be self-explanatory, but is outside current scope.
Anonymous comments allow us to engage in these "discussions"/"debates"/"conversations" that we THINK we want to have, but the desire to have the "d"/"d"/"c"'s is usually rooted in a delusion regarding their potential usefulness and outcome.
We know the thoughts we've had, and we think that if others hear them, they will certainly be convinced of them. When that does not happen, it may be as a result of a "legitimate opposing viewpoint" or an "illegitimate opposing viewpoint" at which point the presumption becomes recursive, but no less delusional.
Yes, there may be certain cases where we will convince others, but in most cases we will not. We simply want to hold onto that delusion because, like everyone else ever, we want to be the worshipped leader bringing salvation to a thankful people, helping them escape the ignorance they had suffered under due to the lies and myths they had been told.
So when that doesn't happen, we have to reconcile it, and, even in the case of "legitimate opposing viewpoint", dissonance is the natural verbal fight response.
As long as we are anonymous online, we can leave that blob of thought and conflict and frustration and embarrassment and ignorance and delusion behind when we venture out into the real world. And we'll never know when we're coming face to face with those we may have done battle with, allowing us to maintain cordiality which otherwise may not be possible.
Non-anonymous situations prevent this, and they are destined to fail, because they are implemented by people operating with the same sort of delusion that described above by individuals engaging directly in the "battle". But now they are saddling the participants with a paper trail of these interactions which they never
(and this word has rarely been used as legitimately as in this particular case), EVER can erase.
Is that a good thing? Of course not. If someone chooses to engage in this process under their real name of their own free will, God bless 'em. I think they'll regret that and I believe that partly because I believe the entire process is ridiculous and delusional. But even if they don't come to the same conclusions about the overall process, I expect most to regret that they are no longer able to get past the mistakes of their past in any sense, because those mistakes remain available to be investigated and uncovered by anyone who is motivated enough to look.
This is not to minimize the reality of the problem of trolling. It is real, and it is annoying, but it is not solved by "real name" commenting, and "real name" commenting has the far more legitimate danger of overflowing into offline life. You know, the one that actually matters. Obviously people run the risk of others tracking them down in order to do them harm.
But this brings us to the border cases.. In some cases, "trolls" are simply defined as "those who hold a different opinion from the one a specific organization is attempting to put forth". This, of course, is an entirely useful form of troll, as long as it involves genuine opposition focused on the topic at hand. People dislike these trolls because they infringe upon the comforting delusions of unanimity and omniscience. These "trolls" are actually the only thing that make comments sections useful. But there is also another borderline case.
We all liked to poke our brother or sister when we were young. We still like to do that, and we like to do it with others as well. Sometimes we feel a need to annoy someone else because they have annoyed us. Maybe we disagree with the way they dealt with someone else. Maybe we disagree with their overall outlook on life. So we needle them and we poke them a little to stir them up. We find it funny. Those who are least tolerant of such needling are probably least tolerant of the previous kind of troll as well, the eminently useful kind, and their motivation is usually the same. They don't like anyone saying anything that challenges their worldview and their ego. They want to control others.
The final kind of troll has absolutely no value and shouldn't be tolerated. These are online stalkers who carry on a habitual pattern of verbally abusing individuals who are internalizing the abuse. These people actually want to hurt others. When there is a threat of violence involved, that is not trolling. That is a threat of violence and is a completely different animal. But the troll who constantly attacks others, specifically those who can't defend themselves and are being emotionally hurt by the interaction, is a problem. On the one hand I think it's up to every single person who chooses to engage in this silly game of online banter to become immune to this variety of trolling, and as long as everyone stays anonymous, I believe this expectation is justified. But once a real identity is involved and others are intentionally engaging in hurtful activity, even without direct threats of violence, a line is crossed and the situation requires remedy.
So there is a line and it deserves recognition, but it is fairly easy to identify and the focus should be kept on incidents that clearly cross that line. Other than that, "trolling" is part of interaction. When we are online we feel a greater freedom to test ideas in a variety of ways, including possibly pushing them beyond where we currently believe they legitimately could go. By testing those boundaries and processing the responses, one can learn more about a topic, opinion, philosophy, etc. than they otherwise could if they simply wanted to remain within the framework of "accepted wisdom" and in the silly games of politics and debate, these opportunities to push boundaries are really the only useful part of the entire endeavor.
I think I'll just post this without proof reading because it's so fucking long and I don't feel like it and I think it will be an interesting test, as I will probably have the most vile things to say to the author upon reading it again and finding the various grammatical and logical mistakes that certainly exist therein. And then I can practice the art of conveying the information in the least offensive, most productive manner possible because that should probably always be the goal, but I certainly don't want anyone else determining for me where that line should be drawn.
Or knocking on my door when they think I've crossed it.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
ASSUMING that
comedies are worth 4 stars, and I think they can be, "The World's End" gets 4 stars.
Fellas, well effing done.
Fellas, well effing done.
Friday, August 23, 2013
OH MY GOD IF OBAMA HAD A SON...
wwwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
http://libertyunyielding.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Luna.jpg
there is an even better picture that was just on CNN showing one of the turds with a fur hat on and at first glance i LITERALLY thought "DAMN, that looks JUST like Obama."
http://libertyunyielding.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Luna.jpg
there is an even better picture that was just on CNN showing one of the turds with a fur hat on and at first glance i LITERALLY thought "DAMN, that looks JUST like Obama."
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
I don't doubt that Bush...
"allowed 9/11 to happen". I just doubt that he knew exactly what kind of attack would be involved (the briefing aside).
All the available information indicates that he would have relished the opportunity to "react" to a terrorist attack given the additional power and stature he would be granted. He was, after all, a narcissistic dry drunk from the circles of power, harboring delusions of grandeur, with a plan to invade Iraq regardless. I just assume that he assumed it would be a small-scale attack with minimal casualties. The size of the attack was probably just gravy for that homicidal maniac and his surrounding cast of homicidal Zionist bureaucrat chickenhawk nerds.
"Now nobody's gonna say nothin to us.. if they do we'll fuckin destroy 'em," he most likely said.
Side note, anyone who argued in defense of his finishing the "My Pet Goat" photo op should never be listened to on any issue ever again. Defending his behavior that day is cognitive dissonance in the purest sense - similar to Obama voters who protested Bush spying as authoritarian and dictatorial but defend Obama spying and drone striking as perfectly justifiable. Is same. Is human brain making sense of the world in the most convenient ways possible. "This interpretation fits nicely." File->Save.
All the available information indicates that he would have relished the opportunity to "react" to a terrorist attack given the additional power and stature he would be granted. He was, after all, a narcissistic dry drunk from the circles of power, harboring delusions of grandeur, with a plan to invade Iraq regardless. I just assume that he assumed it would be a small-scale attack with minimal casualties. The size of the attack was probably just gravy for that homicidal maniac and his surrounding cast of homicidal Zionist bureaucrat chickenhawk nerds.
"Now nobody's gonna say nothin to us.. if they do we'll fuckin destroy 'em," he most likely said.
Side note, anyone who argued in defense of his finishing the "My Pet Goat" photo op should never be listened to on any issue ever again. Defending his behavior that day is cognitive dissonance in the purest sense - similar to Obama voters who protested Bush spying as authoritarian and dictatorial but defend Obama spying and drone striking as perfectly justifiable. Is same. Is human brain making sense of the world in the most convenient ways possible. "This interpretation fits nicely." File->Save.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)