I watch a bunch of old canceled dramas, cause they're on Hulu, and because you never know- Firefly was canceled, and it was awesome. Currently, I'm watching New Amsterdam. The second episode, I figured out whodunit in about 4 minutes.
The premise is John Amsterdam was ensorcelled in the 1600s to live until he found his true love and his soul joined with hers, at which point he would become mortal again. Obviously, he's only just now found her, and he's a detective in the NYPD. Yeah, seemed like a shitty romantic action movie plot to me, too; especially when his true love turns out to be a down-and-out-on-love separated ER Doc.
I'm on episode 4. They're talking to a rape victim who escaped before she was killed. It's about as convincing as Santa Claus. And the FEMALE DETECTIVE, when the rape victim says "and then he did it" says "He penetrated you." Not a question, a statement. She had to spell it out to the victim at the hospital! So not a minute later the victim says "I kneed him in his... you-know." Does the Female Detective, whom we know to be concerned she understands the victim correctly given the earlier statement, spell out that the "you-know" is a PENIS? Nope.
So glad this show got canceled, I hope whoever wrote that scene died after a long and excruciating bout of dick cancer.
(I told my sister about it, she asked if they were going to use that bit to illustrate something. I said they wouldn't. They didn't.)
Read More...
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Skepticism, Atheism, and New Keyboards
Giving the new keyboard a whirl- let's hope the old keyboard was the problem, and not the port...
In a recent episode of HOUSE, a patient says "If there's no reason for all the bad things that have happened to me, this isn't a world I want to live in." House calls her an "idiot", which is right and wrong.
The episode deals with the Death Cat phenomenon. The episode does a good-ish job of explaining the "phenomenon"- the explanation being the cat seeking warmth. I'd like to extend this a bit.
DEATH CAT is a common happening, look online and you'll run into a psychic cat who can predict death. The problems with this reasoning are many. One, everyone dies, so anyone the cat lays down next to will die, eventually. Second, it's usually at a nursing home, a leper colony, or somewhere else where the likelihood of dying is vastly greater than normal- meaning the likelihood of randomly "predicting" deaths will be higher, too. Third, confirmation bias rears its ugly head- who remember everyone the cat lays down next to? So, the cat lays down to poor old Mrs Murphy and she dies three days leter, it's spooky. The cat then lays near old Werner Von Bruneiner, and he dies a week later. The cat next lies near Peggy for a night, and Penny for a night, and Gladus for a night, and nothing happens- but Peggy dies three years later, and Penny four and a half years later, and Gladus dies a decade later (because they're fucking old and decrepit enough to be in a Nursing Home!). Those three are non-events, when six months later, the cat lays next to Jonas McGrery and he dies the next day, everyone remembers Werner and Mrs Murphy; but they forget about Peggy and Penny. Or when the cat has a night by Mr. Davidson, and then he dies 3 months later, they remember the night the DEATH CAT slept with him. These aren't "predictions" they're coincidences, and the logical fallacy is confusing chronology (the order of events) with causality (how events influence one another).
Causality and chronology are different, somewhat obviously. The cat lays down next to the Elderly, then (on an ambiguous time line) the Elderly die, and it's less obvious for some people. Just because someone spilled salt (a widely used seasoning, used billions of times a day by people around the world) today, doesn't mean that's what caused them to break a finger the next day. What about the other hundreds of millions who didn't break finger, or the tens of millions that nothing very bad happened to, after they spilled salt? The fact is that bad things happen, and there are a lot of seconds in the day, and a lot of people in the world, for bad things to happen to for no reason. House says, about the cat, it's not really a phenomenon as there are millions of nursing homes, and tens of millions of cats at nursing homes, and it's no wonder that one of them coincidentally sleeps next to a couple of people who die.
Same goes for all superstitions- or other supernatural reasons (i.e. God, Satan, prayer)- for why good/bad things happen. The math is pretty convincing:
More than 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000) people on the planet, at the moment.
86,400 seconds in one 24 hour period (somewhat less than an actual day, astronomically speaking; but still)
That means, there are (# of People TIMES # of possible seconds for something to go bad) 518,400,000,000,000 chances for something to happen to any one person any one second, each day. (518.4 TRILLION)
If there's a 0.000000001 (that's one billionth) chance that something "unimaginably" horrible happens to any one person, any one second. (This would be extremely rarely bad: 1 in 1 billion chance.)
Which would mean, it could happen 518,400 times EVERY DAY.
Half a million horribly unimaginable events Every Day.
That's completely ignoring intelligent motivators- people wearing seatbelts, people using condoms, people generally doing things to consciously avoid horribly bad accidents; and the people actively trying to force unimaginably bad events onto someone else, by shooting them, for example.
Still, the sheer numbers are staggering. Even if it must take a full minute, there are 8.6 trillion chances; an hour makes it 144 billion; a day makes it 6 billion...
In other words, for an event that takes a whole 24 hours, if it's a 1 in 1 billion event, it happens 6 times every day, on average.
Whether that's a lot or a little would seem to be an extension of "the glass half full" debate.
House was wrong on one point, the girl isn't an idiot. She's stupid. Willfully, or perhaps even unintentionally, incapable of understanding- House gives her multiple examples and explanations throughout the show, which she then dismisses with some hokey bullshit.
I believe House is wrong on another point- he gives her shit, provides facts to refute her bullshit, and then makes his point, at which time she essentially says "but I still believe" and he just looks at her mysteriously and leaves. Why not say "So, what you're saying is 'Despite your facts and proof, I refuse to acknowledge reality?' Okay, that's fine, stupid. I refuse to believe you're sick, despite all the evidence to the contrary." Obviously that fucks up the narrative, a little, but he doesn't even begin the rebuttal, he lets her slide, giving her the last word. Which is chicken-shit true-believer pandering by another name, in my view.
Finally, I'd like to address her actual statement...
Uhm, holy fucking cock-smack by the penis of a million foot tall Zeus, Batman!?
It would be astounding if it was just a bit of "poetic" dialog on a TV show I watch. It's fucking unbelievably retarded, and scary, that I've heard people say that before. It's worse that they were proud of saying it!
How narcissistic do you have to be to refuse to live in a word that isn't about you? How selfish to need all of reality to be focused on you!
And don't give me that shit about "I don't think it's about me, I think it's about all of us!" or the more science-fictiony "I think it's about all conscious living beings" or the even more hippy "I think it's about all living things". That's not altruistic sentiment, because by being about a group (life, or conscious living things, or us) the speaker is a part of, it's about the speaker.
I swear these people don't go back and think about things even AFTER they spew them out of their pecker checkers! ("Mmmm, mmm, this one tastes fine!" for anyone lacking the proper mental visual.)
It's bad enough not to THINK BEFORE SPEAKING; how much worse is it to not think even AFTER speaking?
The people who say that kind of shit aren't serene peaceful supplicants, yearning for truth. They're arrogant fucking whores, demanding reality conform to their wishes. They're spoiled brats who never really understood that "Life isn't fair", and they are not princes/ses. These are people who don't fundamentally understand the difference between make-believe and reality. The exact same kind of people who strap bombs to their chests for some arbitrary number of sexually inexperienced children to molest in their fantasy cloud palaces.
I advocate not letting these people get away with feeling good about themselves. I advocate sticking it to them, and forcing people to deal with reality, not their misguided and warped perception of it. I advocate ridicule of anyone who refuses to acknowledge objective evidence and rigorous proof. I advocate scorning those who are too intellectually lazy, and/or dishonest, to try understanding the crap they are spewing.
There's a reason "god is in the gaps" and it ain't 'cause he makes sense...
Read More...
In a recent episode of HOUSE, a patient says "If there's no reason for all the bad things that have happened to me, this isn't a world I want to live in." House calls her an "idiot", which is right and wrong.
The episode deals with the Death Cat phenomenon. The episode does a good-ish job of explaining the "phenomenon"- the explanation being the cat seeking warmth. I'd like to extend this a bit.
DEATH CAT is a common happening, look online and you'll run into a psychic cat who can predict death. The problems with this reasoning are many. One, everyone dies, so anyone the cat lays down next to will die, eventually. Second, it's usually at a nursing home, a leper colony, or somewhere else where the likelihood of dying is vastly greater than normal- meaning the likelihood of randomly "predicting" deaths will be higher, too. Third, confirmation bias rears its ugly head- who remember everyone the cat lays down next to? So, the cat lays down to poor old Mrs Murphy and she dies three days leter, it's spooky. The cat then lays near old Werner Von Bruneiner, and he dies a week later. The cat next lies near Peggy for a night, and Penny for a night, and Gladus for a night, and nothing happens- but Peggy dies three years later, and Penny four and a half years later, and Gladus dies a decade later (because they're fucking old and decrepit enough to be in a Nursing Home!). Those three are non-events, when six months later, the cat lays next to Jonas McGrery and he dies the next day, everyone remembers Werner and Mrs Murphy; but they forget about Peggy and Penny. Or when the cat has a night by Mr. Davidson, and then he dies 3 months later, they remember the night the DEATH CAT slept with him. These aren't "predictions" they're coincidences, and the logical fallacy is confusing chronology (the order of events) with causality (how events influence one another).
Causality and chronology are different, somewhat obviously. The cat lays down next to the Elderly, then (on an ambiguous time line) the Elderly die, and it's less obvious for some people. Just because someone spilled salt (a widely used seasoning, used billions of times a day by people around the world) today, doesn't mean that's what caused them to break a finger the next day. What about the other hundreds of millions who didn't break finger, or the tens of millions that nothing very bad happened to, after they spilled salt? The fact is that bad things happen, and there are a lot of seconds in the day, and a lot of people in the world, for bad things to happen to for no reason. House says, about the cat, it's not really a phenomenon as there are millions of nursing homes, and tens of millions of cats at nursing homes, and it's no wonder that one of them coincidentally sleeps next to a couple of people who die.
Same goes for all superstitions- or other supernatural reasons (i.e. God, Satan, prayer)- for why good/bad things happen. The math is pretty convincing:
More than 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000) people on the planet, at the moment.
86,400 seconds in one 24 hour period (somewhat less than an actual day, astronomically speaking; but still)
That means, there are (# of People TIMES # of possible seconds for something to go bad) 518,400,000,000,000 chances for something to happen to any one person any one second, each day. (518.4 TRILLION)
If there's a 0.000000001 (that's one billionth) chance that something "unimaginably" horrible happens to any one person, any one second. (This would be extremely rarely bad: 1 in 1 billion chance.)
Which would mean, it could happen 518,400 times EVERY DAY.
Half a million horribly unimaginable events Every Day.
That's completely ignoring intelligent motivators- people wearing seatbelts, people using condoms, people generally doing things to consciously avoid horribly bad accidents; and the people actively trying to force unimaginably bad events onto someone else, by shooting them, for example.
Still, the sheer numbers are staggering. Even if it must take a full minute, there are 8.6 trillion chances; an hour makes it 144 billion; a day makes it 6 billion...
In other words, for an event that takes a whole 24 hours, if it's a 1 in 1 billion event, it happens 6 times every day, on average.
Whether that's a lot or a little would seem to be an extension of "the glass half full" debate.
House was wrong on one point, the girl isn't an idiot. She's stupid. Willfully, or perhaps even unintentionally, incapable of understanding- House gives her multiple examples and explanations throughout the show, which she then dismisses with some hokey bullshit.
I believe House is wrong on another point- he gives her shit, provides facts to refute her bullshit, and then makes his point, at which time she essentially says "but I still believe" and he just looks at her mysteriously and leaves. Why not say "So, what you're saying is 'Despite your facts and proof, I refuse to acknowledge reality?' Okay, that's fine, stupid. I refuse to believe you're sick, despite all the evidence to the contrary." Obviously that fucks up the narrative, a little, but he doesn't even begin the rebuttal, he lets her slide, giving her the last word. Which is chicken-shit true-believer pandering by another name, in my view.
Finally, I'd like to address her actual statement...
Uhm, holy fucking cock-smack by the penis of a million foot tall Zeus, Batman!?
It would be astounding if it was just a bit of "poetic" dialog on a TV show I watch. It's fucking unbelievably retarded, and scary, that I've heard people say that before. It's worse that they were proud of saying it!
How narcissistic do you have to be to refuse to live in a word that isn't about you? How selfish to need all of reality to be focused on you!
And don't give me that shit about "I don't think it's about me, I think it's about all of us!" or the more science-fictiony "I think it's about all conscious living beings" or the even more hippy "I think it's about all living things". That's not altruistic sentiment, because by being about a group (life, or conscious living things, or us) the speaker is a part of, it's about the speaker.
I swear these people don't go back and think about things even AFTER they spew them out of their pecker checkers! ("Mmmm, mmm, this one tastes fine!" for anyone lacking the proper mental visual.)
It's bad enough not to THINK BEFORE SPEAKING; how much worse is it to not think even AFTER speaking?
The people who say that kind of shit aren't serene peaceful supplicants, yearning for truth. They're arrogant fucking whores, demanding reality conform to their wishes. They're spoiled brats who never really understood that "Life isn't fair", and they are not princes/ses. These are people who don't fundamentally understand the difference between make-believe and reality. The exact same kind of people who strap bombs to their chests for some arbitrary number of sexually inexperienced children to molest in their fantasy cloud palaces.
I advocate not letting these people get away with feeling good about themselves. I advocate sticking it to them, and forcing people to deal with reality, not their misguided and warped perception of it. I advocate ridicule of anyone who refuses to acknowledge objective evidence and rigorous proof. I advocate scorning those who are too intellectually lazy, and/or dishonest, to try understanding the crap they are spewing.
There's a reason "god is in the gaps" and it ain't 'cause he makes sense...
Read More...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Culture for the Masstards
On this addition of the attempt to bring us all to the same baseline, Abbot and Costello. (A treat to make up for an all-text CftM earlier this week).
According to the Wiki-goodness:
Abbot (the tall skinny straight man) and Costello (the shorter plumper laugh getter) came out of burlesque*. Each had spent many years in comedy before they met. They first worked together in 1935, when other performers in the show- including Abbott's wife- advised a permanent pairing. In 1938 the appeared on Radio, the next a month their most popular sketch, "Who's on First?", debuted for a national radio audience.
In 1941, their second movie, Buck Privates, made them stars. In 1942, Abbott and Costello were the top box office draw with a reported take of $10 million. They would remain a top ten box office attraction until 1952.
All the classics:
And for those that just wanna see it: (from the above)
* Burlesque was a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration. Prior to Burlesque becoming associated with striptease, it was a form of musical and theatrical parody in which an opera or piece of classical theatre is adapted in a broad, often risqué style very different from that for which it was originally known
Read More...
According to the Wiki-goodness:
Abbot (the tall skinny straight man) and Costello (the shorter plumper laugh getter) came out of burlesque*. Each had spent many years in comedy before they met. They first worked together in 1935, when other performers in the show- including Abbott's wife- advised a permanent pairing. In 1938 the appeared on Radio, the next a month their most popular sketch, "Who's on First?", debuted for a national radio audience.
In 1941, their second movie, Buck Privates, made them stars. In 1942, Abbott and Costello were the top box office draw with a reported take of $10 million. They would remain a top ten box office attraction until 1952.
All the classics:
And for those that just wanna see it: (from the above)
* Burlesque was a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration. Prior to Burlesque becoming associated with striptease, it was a form of musical and theatrical parody in which an opera or piece of classical theatre is adapted in a broad, often risqué style very different from that for which it was originally known
Read More...
Friday, March 20, 2009
Quote
Again, just a quote I want to keep somewhere searchable, not one I agree with per se.
one of my professors once said, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." To which I would add, any faith that can be undermined should be undermined. A God or a faith that needs you or me to prop it up has already died long ago. You do not need to defend a living God. Only dead gods seem to require that.
– John Shelby Spong
Read More...
one of my professors once said, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." To which I would add, any faith that can be undermined should be undermined. A God or a faith that needs you or me to prop it up has already died long ago. You do not need to defend a living God. Only dead gods seem to require that.
– John Shelby Spong
Read More...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Before the Music Dies
I just finished watching the documentary BEFORE THE MUSIC DIES, on Hulu. It's a look at the state of the "Music Industry" circa 2005/6. As always, there are some points I disagree with; but overall it's an excellent film. Go watch it.
Some points/thoughts I had while watching:
Watch this movie, Before the Music Dies, and watch how people curse. Cursing is normal and natural. Restriction of cursing is understandable, I suppose, but absolute prohibition of it is stupid.
Radio is about percentages: if you retain 51% of the population, you're a winner. As you make a profit, you can lose that percentage. It's the dollars, stupid.
Brendan Marsalis makes the point that Coltrane and others came out and were hated for 5 yrs. Today, you don't have 5 years for your sound to catch on, gain fans, and become something-through the radio markets and "traditional" Record Company Route. "If it's really new, the people won't like it because they won't know what it is."
First half is "Why is it shitty, right now?" Second is, "Why it doesn't have to be, and how it isn't."
Here's the sad fact: Radio, that industry the record execs once loved for getting their content out to the masses, taught us all that music was free. The consumer knows why ads are there; but ads are an annoyance, not a means of funding the radio station. Sure, we all know the deal; but it takes thought to connect from These Annoying Ass Ads to "Oh, that annoyance is okay, because without it, we wouldn't have the radio." In fact, that's not the case, exactly; look at Public Radio, after all. That instruction "Radio is Free (ish)" became music is free, and with the availability of easy copying it became downloading/sharing without guilt.
How is this for a business model? Instead of a million people out there trying to get famous, get rich, and "be somebody" (whatever that means); artists being concerned with being artists. Musicians focused on making music; and when the record company comes and says "Hey, we can do something for you," saying "You can have this album, and distribute it, and do your thing, and leave us the hell alone." Basically, forcing the record company to accept your terms, and not vice versa. It takes a hell of a will to do; and I'm not saying it's the smartest move- but it's the way to remain "pure", "true", "uncorrupted" while still taking every authentic advantage that comes along.
"There are three types of artist. The first is the one who hurts to do what they do. ... The second is the type who tries to be like the first. The third type is one who does whatever they're told." -Erykha Badu
"I don't think that we need to panic; I just think we need to teach our children well." -Dave Mathhews
"It's important to sound like You, to feel like You, to be like You." -Erykha Badu
Read More...
Some points/thoughts I had while watching:
Watch this movie, Before the Music Dies, and watch how people curse. Cursing is normal and natural. Restriction of cursing is understandable, I suppose, but absolute prohibition of it is stupid.
Radio is about percentages: if you retain 51% of the population, you're a winner. As you make a profit, you can lose that percentage. It's the dollars, stupid.
Brendan Marsalis makes the point that Coltrane and others came out and were hated for 5 yrs. Today, you don't have 5 years for your sound to catch on, gain fans, and become something-through the radio markets and "traditional" Record Company Route. "If it's really new, the people won't like it because they won't know what it is."
First half is "Why is it shitty, right now?" Second is, "Why it doesn't have to be, and how it isn't."
Here's the sad fact: Radio, that industry the record execs once loved for getting their content out to the masses, taught us all that music was free. The consumer knows why ads are there; but ads are an annoyance, not a means of funding the radio station. Sure, we all know the deal; but it takes thought to connect from These Annoying Ass Ads to "Oh, that annoyance is okay, because without it, we wouldn't have the radio." In fact, that's not the case, exactly; look at Public Radio, after all. That instruction "Radio is Free (ish)" became music is free, and with the availability of easy copying it became downloading/sharing without guilt.
How is this for a business model? Instead of a million people out there trying to get famous, get rich, and "be somebody" (whatever that means); artists being concerned with being artists. Musicians focused on making music; and when the record company comes and says "Hey, we can do something for you," saying "You can have this album, and distribute it, and do your thing, and leave us the hell alone." Basically, forcing the record company to accept your terms, and not vice versa. It takes a hell of a will to do; and I'm not saying it's the smartest move- but it's the way to remain "pure", "true", "uncorrupted" while still taking every authentic advantage that comes along.
"There are three types of artist. The first is the one who hurts to do what they do. ... The second is the type who tries to be like the first. The third type is one who does whatever they're told." -Erykha Badu
"I don't think that we need to panic; I just think we need to teach our children well." -Dave Mathhews
"It's important to sound like You, to feel like You, to be like You." -Erykha Badu
Read More...
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Fuck.
Now, I don't think it's some coordinated movement against Climate Change Activists; but local police getting scared by the big smelly hippies? That seems plausible- after all, you never know how many of them have drugs, or gay porn.
(UPDATE/Clarity: I do imagine they may have been scared of some sort of eco-terrorism, and being spurred to ensure it didn't happen by wealthy business people. I still don't think it was a conspiracy; merely stupid.)
Read More...
Quotes
I need a place I can put quotes, for quick retrieval. I don't necessarily believe these quotes; but they interest me in some way. In other words, ignore this, it's just a brain dump.
from here.
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
- Theodore Roosevelt
"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks."
- John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
- Andrew Jackson
"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
- James Madison
"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."
- Andrew Jackson
"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion -- the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government -- would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
- Martin Van Buren, Eighth President of the United States
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
- Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
- Senator Daniel K. Inouye
"You don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the government, and neither do the American people. If they did, there would be a revolution in this country.”
- Texas governor and quintessential political insider John Connally
Read More...
from here.
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
- Theodore Roosevelt
"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks."
- John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
- Andrew Jackson
"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
- James Madison
"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."
- Andrew Jackson
"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion -- the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government -- would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
- Martin Van Buren, Eighth President of the United States
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
- Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
- Senator Daniel K. Inouye
"You don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the government, and neither do the American people. If they did, there would be a revolution in this country.”
- Texas governor and quintessential political insider John Connally
Read More...
Culture for the Masstards
In an on-going attempt to get everyone on the same baseline, I bring you another in the series:
This time, a double-header: Blogs vs Forums and Idiot vs Stupid. We'll look at them in reverse order. (A warning: kinda long)
Idiot vs Stupid
An idiot is someone who is ignorant or unskilled in knowledge. Stupid is the active inability to understand, comprehend, or apply knowledge/understanding/comprehension.
Everyone is an idiot, someway, somehow, somewhere, somewhen. It's impossible to not be an idiot, and to communicate. Idiot is derogatory in our society; and it should be used with an understanding of that, lest the user be stupid or an Idiot.
Stupid is more equivalent to "Retarded" that idea of non-politically correct inability via deficiency- though, technically "stupid" makes no effort to determine why the person is stupid; but merely that the person is such.
See the difference? Good. If not, well...
Blogs vs Forums
Both are full of people spouting their particular brand of bullshit. Both often feature controversial topics. Both tend to be more full of opinions than facts. Both require login (some do allow anonymous posting) and tag comments/posts with a name/userID/what-have-you. Yet, there are differences.
A Forum is a group effort. There are group-blogs, but it is not, necessarily the same thing. In many ways, the difference is akin to the difference between "religion" and "cult". Those links don't do it justice, so I'll provide an example: Some people say that Mormonism is a cult, some say it's a religion. The fact is it's whatever the speaker wants it to be- it fits both definitions. There is a side of this argument that speaks to the idea "common usage", that if the majority of people say Mormonism (to continue the example) is a cult then it is a cult, if they say religion it is such.
The problems with that are "Who counts?" Literally, who counts up the people and takes their official opinion on the matter. Also, who should be counted, should Mormons get to effect the common usage of their beliefs as religion or cult? (How many cults are happy being called cults, and don't maintain that they are actually religions?)
This same sort of thing can apply to Forums vs Blogs- especially when we only look at the mechanism each use for displaying/disseminating their content. The software is VERY similar- if not outright the same (look to those websites that are essentially a piece of forum software that contains ways of handling front pages, blogs, news, forums, among other things). Yet, there do exist some differences.
Blogs are always a hierarchical setting. Forums can be, and may appear to be even when they aren't; but blogs are always hierarchical. Blogs say: there are posters and there are commenters, one creates topics and performs maintenance and administration, one can only comment on posted topics. Forums say: There are administrators and there are non-administrators, one is capable of actually performing maintenance and administrative functions, both can post new topics and post comments about created topics. Though there is a lingo (i.e. "OP" = "original poster") and some mutual conceptions (i.e."First Post/Reply!", "First Page!") to Forums, there is no significant* functional distinction between the post creator and the people who post replies. On (most) forums, everyone is equal; on Blogs the bloggers may be equal, but the commenters are not equal to the bloggers.
Look at it this way:
Genius and Genius#2 are on a forum, arguing. Neither is an administrator. Genius cannot edit/delete posts made by Genius#2, and vice versa. The administrators can, of course; but on good (read: professional) forums the reasons such a thing might happen are posted, reviewable, and often subject to appeal.
Genius and Genius#2 are on a blog, arguing. Genius is the blogger, Genius#2 is a commenter. Genius#2 cannot go open a new topic to discuss Genius or some aspect of the argument. Additionally, Genius can disemvowel or delete Genius#2's comments/posts. If it's Genius's Blog, the rules don't have to be posted, and Genius is the final arbitrator of what is okay, and what isn't.
So, here's the difference:
Forums are a group effort to talk and discuss things amongst the group. A Blog is a way of disseminating information (often opinion), and though discussions can happen, that is secondary to the fundamental nature of simply "putting it out there".
Either can fulfill the role of the other, of course. If a website could be either, try looking to see how the website refers to itself. Remember, this is a guideline, nothing is ever 100% cut and dried, especially on the internet.
* There can be a distinction, like the ability to add a "formal" poll to the topic; but that's not exactly significant.
------------------
To end, allow me to address the elephant in the room.
Yes, this is in lieu of explanations. Yes, this is my way of warning people (see link above) who may not already know: This is MY Blog, MY Opinion, MY Rules- and not a democracy/fair/etc.
Read More...
This time, a double-header: Blogs vs Forums and Idiot vs Stupid. We'll look at them in reverse order. (A warning: kinda long)
Idiot vs Stupid
An idiot is someone who is ignorant or unskilled in knowledge. Stupid is the active inability to understand, comprehend, or apply knowledge/understanding/comprehension.
Everyone is an idiot, someway, somehow, somewhere, somewhen. It's impossible to not be an idiot, and to communicate. Idiot is derogatory in our society; and it should be used with an understanding of that, lest the user be stupid or an Idiot.
Stupid is more equivalent to "Retarded" that idea of non-politically correct inability via deficiency- though, technically "stupid" makes no effort to determine why the person is stupid; but merely that the person is such.
See the difference? Good. If not, well...
Blogs vs Forums
Both are full of people spouting their particular brand of bullshit. Both often feature controversial topics. Both tend to be more full of opinions than facts. Both require login (some do allow anonymous posting) and tag comments/posts with a name/userID/what-have-you. Yet, there are differences.
A Forum is a group effort. There are group-blogs, but it is not, necessarily the same thing. In many ways, the difference is akin to the difference between "religion" and "cult". Those links don't do it justice, so I'll provide an example: Some people say that Mormonism is a cult, some say it's a religion. The fact is it's whatever the speaker wants it to be- it fits both definitions. There is a side of this argument that speaks to the idea "common usage", that if the majority of people say Mormonism (to continue the example) is a cult then it is a cult, if they say religion it is such.
The problems with that are "Who counts?" Literally, who counts up the people and takes their official opinion on the matter. Also, who should be counted, should Mormons get to effect the common usage of their beliefs as religion or cult? (How many cults are happy being called cults, and don't maintain that they are actually religions?)
This same sort of thing can apply to Forums vs Blogs- especially when we only look at the mechanism each use for displaying/disseminating their content. The software is VERY similar- if not outright the same (look to those websites that are essentially a piece of forum software that contains ways of handling front pages, blogs, news, forums, among other things). Yet, there do exist some differences.
Blogs are always a hierarchical setting. Forums can be, and may appear to be even when they aren't; but blogs are always hierarchical. Blogs say: there are posters and there are commenters, one creates topics and performs maintenance and administration, one can only comment on posted topics. Forums say: There are administrators and there are non-administrators, one is capable of actually performing maintenance and administrative functions, both can post new topics and post comments about created topics. Though there is a lingo (i.e. "OP" = "original poster") and some mutual conceptions (i.e."First Post/Reply!", "First Page!") to Forums, there is no significant* functional distinction between the post creator and the people who post replies. On (most) forums, everyone is equal; on Blogs the bloggers may be equal, but the commenters are not equal to the bloggers.
Look at it this way:
Genius and Genius#2 are on a forum, arguing. Neither is an administrator. Genius cannot edit/delete posts made by Genius#2, and vice versa. The administrators can, of course; but on good (read: professional) forums the reasons such a thing might happen are posted, reviewable, and often subject to appeal.
Genius and Genius#2 are on a blog, arguing. Genius is the blogger, Genius#2 is a commenter. Genius#2 cannot go open a new topic to discuss Genius or some aspect of the argument. Additionally, Genius can disemvowel or delete Genius#2's comments/posts. If it's Genius's Blog, the rules don't have to be posted, and Genius is the final arbitrator of what is okay, and what isn't.
So, here's the difference:
Forums are a group effort to talk and discuss things amongst the group. A Blog is a way of disseminating information (often opinion), and though discussions can happen, that is secondary to the fundamental nature of simply "putting it out there".
Either can fulfill the role of the other, of course. If a website could be either, try looking to see how the website refers to itself. Remember, this is a guideline, nothing is ever 100% cut and dried, especially on the internet.
* There can be a distinction, like the ability to add a "formal" poll to the topic; but that's not exactly significant.
------------------
To end, allow me to address the elephant in the room.
Yes, this is in lieu of explanations. Yes, this is my way of warning people (see link above) who may not already know: This is MY Blog, MY Opinion, MY Rules- and not a democracy/fair/etc.
Read More...
Sunday, March 15, 2009
I wiki, you wiki, we all wiki on the wiki-goodness!
Get on the internets and you'll see some genius post a link to wikipedia.org. Not long after, Genius #2 will disagree with something int he wikipedia article and call all of wikipedia into question.
Let's use a real world example:
Genius: "A wikipedia article on expertise says it takes 10 years or 10,000 hours to become an expert."
Genius #2: "Yeah right. You know anyone can edit wikipedia, right? It's all crap."
Often that last sentence is implied, rather than stated.
But does Genius #2 have a point?
The quick answer is "Almost; but not really; but it depends on the article." ("Quick" not "simple", the simple answer is: "not really".)
The definitive study for the reliability of wikipedia is... three guesses, and the first two don't count... that's right: wi ki pedia.
And if you read all those articles, you can go home now; I won't say anything you can't find there. Except: The argument that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on a webpage. It's spurious, bullshit, not-logical, some might say "stupid". I'd say "stupid"; but I'm an asshole.
Wikipedia has its faults. Jello Biafra's page and the Dead Kennedys page are prime examples of this. Look at the history and discussion tabs for each of those. At one point, Jello fans and Jello haters were waging wiki war. Edits were made on both pages- and others- with each side trying to slant the articles toward their viewpoint. Jello's fans were saying "Jello is awesome", Jello's detractors were saying "Jello is a fuckhead." At one point Jello's page became locked, due to the- essentially- vandalism being wrought on it. This had many sources/causes; but came down to stances on Dead Kennedys material and who said/did what to who about what. Each side sought to interpret the facts in a way that made their side seem the only logical side. It got bad.
However, note a couple of things: When this happened, the community responded by locking out edits to keep the bullshit out of the article. Note also that we can go look and see when/where/what was changed and sometimes even why it was changed. To put it another way, for every asshole who wants to vandalize wikipedia, there is an asshole who wants wikipedia to be prestine and accurate and full of TRUTH.
Lastly, James Randi, during the Amazing Show with James Randi and at other times, has said that, on occasion, someone will intentionally put blatantly false information into his wikipedia article. He then tells about how swiftly such information is discovered, removed (or removed to the talk page), and generally dealt with. Anecdotal, sure; but this isn't supposed to be definitive, it's supposed to be further evidence of how wikipedia can- and does- regulate itself.
In the end, wikipedia has its problems, but so does Britannica. If you're looking for information about people- especially little known or controversial figures- be careful. If you're looking up long established scientific principles, you're probably okay. Wikipedia is full of citations, use them to check facts. In the end, wikipedia may not be the most accurate encyclopedia in the world; but it's better than citing this livejournal post a friend of a friend once read.
And if you encounter Genius #2, feel free to give them the link to wikipedia's article on wikipedia's reliability, criticism, or simply itself. They deserve it for being a jelly-brained half-wit. ;-)
Read More...
Let's use a real world example:
Genius: "A wikipedia article on expertise says it takes 10 years or 10,000 hours to become an expert."
Genius #2: "Yeah right. You know anyone can edit wikipedia, right? It's all crap."
Often that last sentence is implied, rather than stated.
But does Genius #2 have a point?
The quick answer is "Almost; but not really; but it depends on the article." ("Quick" not "simple", the simple answer is: "not really".)
The definitive study for the reliability of wikipedia is... three guesses, and the first two don't count... that's right: wi ki pedia.
And if you read all those articles, you can go home now; I won't say anything you can't find there. Except: The argument that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on a webpage. It's spurious, bullshit, not-logical, some might say "stupid". I'd say "stupid"; but I'm an asshole.
Wikipedia has its faults. Jello Biafra's page and the Dead Kennedys page are prime examples of this. Look at the history and discussion tabs for each of those. At one point, Jello fans and Jello haters were waging wiki war. Edits were made on both pages- and others- with each side trying to slant the articles toward their viewpoint. Jello's fans were saying "Jello is awesome", Jello's detractors were saying "Jello is a fuckhead." At one point Jello's page became locked, due to the- essentially- vandalism being wrought on it. This had many sources/causes; but came down to stances on Dead Kennedys material and who said/did what to who about what. Each side sought to interpret the facts in a way that made their side seem the only logical side. It got bad.
However, note a couple of things: When this happened, the community responded by locking out edits to keep the bullshit out of the article. Note also that we can go look and see when/where/what was changed and sometimes even why it was changed. To put it another way, for every asshole who wants to vandalize wikipedia, there is an asshole who wants wikipedia to be prestine and accurate and full of TRUTH.
Lastly, James Randi, during the Amazing Show with James Randi and at other times, has said that, on occasion, someone will intentionally put blatantly false information into his wikipedia article. He then tells about how swiftly such information is discovered, removed (or removed to the talk page), and generally dealt with. Anecdotal, sure; but this isn't supposed to be definitive, it's supposed to be further evidence of how wikipedia can- and does- regulate itself.
In the end, wikipedia has its problems, but so does Britannica. If you're looking for information about people- especially little known or controversial figures- be careful. If you're looking up long established scientific principles, you're probably okay. Wikipedia is full of citations, use them to check facts. In the end, wikipedia may not be the most accurate encyclopedia in the world; but it's better than citing this livejournal post a friend of a friend once read.
And if you encounter Genius #2, feel free to give them the link to wikipedia's article on wikipedia's reliability, criticism, or simply itself. They deserve it for being a jelly-brained half-wit. ;-)
Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
