On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:28:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 14/04/2011 09:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Scott Adams once said 'we're all idiots from time to time'.
> 
> "Every man is a damned fool for at least five minutes of every day.
> Wisdom consists of not exceeding that quota." (?)
> 
> "There are only two things which are infinite - the universe, and human
> stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the first one." (Einstein)
> 
> "In summary, people are a problem." (Adams)

Yep, all of those are relevant. :)  (The last being Douglas - rather than 
Scott - Adams.)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:31:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/14/2011 12:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:16:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
>>> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
>>> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them.
>>
>> Except that that didn't work in the appeal on Prop 8, as I understand
>> it - didn't the court find that those who claimed that gay marriage
>> harmed them didn't actually have standing to sue because they couldn't
>> demonstrate how they were harmed?
> 
> Oh, it doesn't *always* work. But certainly it convinced a whole
> boatload of people that their own marriages were at risk due to gays
> still being allowed to marry.

Absolutely.  But the court (rightly, IMNSHO) set them straight in ruling 
that they didn't have standing to sue over it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 14:07, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/14 14:53, Darren New a écrit :
>> On 4/14/2011 11:48, Warp wrote:
>>> And do you think burning coal is the solution?
>>
>> A solution to global warming? No. A solution to running out of oil?
>> Quite possibly. A solution to having a power generation technology tha
t
>> a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually killing
>> people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
>>
>
> Burning coal is very poluting. More than oil.

Yes. People are starting to conflate the beginning of this thread (global
 
warming) with a comment by Warp that oil will run out soon. Coal won't ru
n 
out nearly as soon as oil. That doesn't have anything to do with the glob
al 
warming question.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 14-4-2011 21:16, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 11:55, Warp wrote:
>> I don't understand how it can be legal to expel someone for the sole
>> reason of wearing a t-shirt that says you're an atheist.
>
> The authorities treated it the same as someone wearing a shirt that said
> "nigger" on it or something. Basically, it was insulting and harassing
> the people who aren't atheists. They treated it the same way as they
> would have treated someone religious preaching at you during class.
>
> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them. Of course, it *is* harmful
> to their beliefs, but they're not going to argue "it points out how
> wrong we are" as a bargaining point, so instead you get this generalize
> "offends me" kind of argument.
>

So you would advise against wearing my '98% Chimp' t-shirt in public in 
the states?



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 17:28, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:24 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take
>> the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from
>> abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".
>
> I don't really see the majority opinion being the 'melting pot', but
> rather an "adopt our way of doing things or get out".  The melting pot
> idea is more about integrating other cultures into ours and the US
> growing that way, and there's an apparently strong movement to move
> towards less integration of other cultures' ideas into US culture and a
> strong push towards "you moved here, you're American now, so act like
> it!" (obvious in statements like 'learn English if you move here' and the
> recent laws that have been passed banning Sharia law (which I really
> don't understand the need for, quite stupid and ignorant if you ask me)).
>
> Jim

My statement is more about the *perception* from outside the USA, not as 
it's realy appening.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 4:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 10:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 4/14/2011 1:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
>>> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>>
>> A very vocal and "powerful" minority
>
> I see.
>
>> Romans used to handle the situations: Make
>> sure your supporters are too ignorant to realize what is going on, then
>> distract them, as much as possible, with non-existent threats, and
>> pointless entertainments.
>>
>> There is hardly any point in being smart, if you are ignorant, your
>> history is handed to you by the very people that want to keep you that
>> way, and they know your fears, since they created many of them
>
> Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O
>
Well. This trend is always with us, but it has only really become a 
serious problem in the last few generations. The drive to find your own 
path has been lost in many people, replaced with ennui, belief in 
inevitable failure, and laziness. It doesn't help that rejection of 
these things would require rejecting whole swaths of fictional history, 
religious dogma, and political partisanship, which have become a heavy 
part of some people's identities.

> Consider the following conversation:
>
> "So what do all these scripts do then?"
> "This script reads some data from the database and builds this script
> from it. It then runs this script, which does the real work of backing
> up the database."
> "OK. So... this script creates that one?"
> "Yes."
> "Right. So you mean, like, if I were to just completely delete this
> script, that script would recreate it next time you run it?"
> "Yes."
> "Hmm, OK. So why do you need that script then if this one gets created
> automatically?"
> "Because that script is the one that creates it."
> "Right, I see. So I could literally delete this right now and that
> script would recreate it?"
> "Yes."
> "OK, got it. So why don't you just rerun this script each time? Why do
> you have to recreate it?"
> "Because the structure of the database could change, but mainly because
> it copies the files into a folder with today's date on it."
> "Right, cool. So, do you really need to have two scripts?"
> [Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally
> gives up trying to understand and asks me about something else.]
>
> Now if this was some random dude on the street, that would be fine. But
> it wasn't. It was the Senier Director of IT for the entire corporation.
> In other words, the guy in charge of all our IT.
>
> The fact that the Director of IT himself considers it necessary to
> personally understand how a minor piece of scripting works is either
>
> - taking an interest in employee talents
> - a reflection of the small size of our IT department
> - micromanagement / empire-building
>
> depending on your point of view. But the complete inability of the man
> to comprehend a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT even after having me explain it six
> different ways cannot be regarded as a good thing from any perspective.
>
> The other Americans I've worked with have all been similarly dense.
> Perhaps this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P

That would be the laziness and "partisanship" showing. One of the Faux 
elite, who imagine they need know nothing, understand nothing, and do 
nothing, except make sure other people know, and do things. The logic 
is, "Why should I have to know that, as long as someone else does, and 
it works?"

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:31 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately, one that manages somehow to wield political power in
>> order to advance their agenda.
>
> I wonder how many people *actually* believe this insanity vs how many
> just go along with it because it benefits them.
>
If you want a hint on that, Glen Beck, the "madder than a hater" wacko 
that helped promote the Birther movement in the US was caught on the 
O'Reily show saying that he thought Donald Trump was completely insane, 
if he actually believed it, and that he and O'Reily where simply paid to 
be provocateurs, unlike someone that actually believed that nonsense.

Hell no a lot of them don't believe one bloody bit of it. Mind, depends 
on which "bit" you think they believe. They whine about, for example, 
the life of unborn babies, yet statistically the same right wingers are 
the ones "most commonly" using the services, in some parts of the 
country. So.. What is the real problem they have with it? Well, one Tea 
Party Nation email seemed to imply that it was fear of being out breed 
by non-white people, due to women being able to choose if they have 
children, and the same women being encouraged to have careers (instead 
of being mothers). So.. Which crazy assed stupidity is the one that is 
really driving it? Or is it some third insanity that isn't in either one 
of those objections? The only thing certain is, they know which buttons 
to push among the gullible and clueless, whether or not their real 
reason for wanting it bares any resemblance to that thing or not.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 12:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 11:52, Warp wrote:
>> When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
>> very well?
>
> Oh, I think we figured that out a while ago. (Actually, it's not a
> two-party system. It just devolved into that. There's nothing in the
> original constitution about political parties at all, and it was one of
> the early amendments that said the president and vice president had to
> come from the same party.)
>
Yeah, there was really no "parties" until about the time of the civil 
war. Then, a "Democrat" party rose in the south, in protest of their 
"civil right" to go any where they liked with their slaves, and other 
similar issues (where some northern states declared that slaves where 
flat out not allowed in them). They *wanted* a central government to 
have complete control over what those sorts of rules where. Some where 
along the line the Dems figured out they had been complete idiots, 
started fighting for real civil rights, while keeping the idea that you 
can't do that without a central authority to make it happen. The bigots, 
racists, etc., having no place else to go, changed sides to the 
"Republicans", and started whining about restoring the right of each 
state to screw over its people individually, without input from a 
federal government.

In a general sense, that is where the parties came from. One that 
believed in a nation, the other which, more or less, figured the US 
should be a bunch of individual nation states, with one sort of central 
watch dog, whose sole job was to coordinate things like wars, or the 
like, kind of like a king conscripting knights from other nobles, to 
fight someplace else, but otherwise letting the individual mini-kingdoms 
alone to do what they want. Personally, I can't comprehend, especially 
given some of the complete idiocy you see some states pass, how this 
"one nation divided" theory of government is supposed to work, even if I 
agree that the other system end up having a lot of useless waste, 
inefficiency and can sometimes oppose one "huge" stupidity over the 
whole, all at once. Neither is, I think, entirely workable, but you need 
a clear idea which stuff makes sense to run local and what has to be 
done globally, and not idiots screwing everything up by trying to 
micromanage the local stuff, from the center, or mismanage the global 
stuff, from 50 different states, with dozens to hundreds of different 
districts, all with different opinions on how much, for example, toxic 
waste, is "actually bad".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:53:05 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/14 17:28, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:24 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take
>>> the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from
>>> abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".
>>
>> I don't really see the majority opinion being the 'melting pot', but
>> rather an "adopt our way of doing things or get out".  The melting pot
>> idea is more about integrating other cultures into ours and the US
>> growing that way, and there's an apparently strong movement to move
>> towards less integration of other cultures' ideas into US culture and a
>> strong push towards "you moved here, you're American now, so act like
>> it!" (obvious in statements like 'learn English if you move here' and
>> the recent laws that have been passed banning Sharia law (which I
>> really don't understand the need for, quite stupid and ignorant if you
>> ask me)).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> My statement is more about the *perception* from outside the USA, not as
> it's realy appening.

That's fair - I'm also explaining my perception (which may or may not be 
completely accurate - the US is a big place, after all....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least
>> there's something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you
>> actually read the original source stuff.
>
> Certainly for those who believe science stands still - and that our
> understanding hasn't changed (or should I say 'evolved'? ;) ) since
> Darwin wrote about it.

Apparently Darwin didn't even *invent* the idea of evolution. He just 
made it popular by presenting a well-researched and compelling case for 
it, in a single large, self-contained document.

Post a reply to this message