Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Optimists is for fools (Score 2) 62

by circletimessquare (#49162741) Attached to: Spock and the Legacy of Star Trek

humanity doesn't adapt to the world, we adapt the world to us. we don't grow fur in cold weather, we kill animals and drape their skins on us. we don't forage for berries, we plant berry seeds and grow them when and where we want them. we don't lie outside in the rain and sun, we build our own caves out of peat, mud, thatch

point is: we are emergent phenomenon, not static reflectors. we believe something, then we make it happen for real. and if we believe in unreal things, don't laugh, because maybe someday we really will fly like birds and walk on the moon

that also means fatalism and pessimism is what is really for losers. a child's crazy dream today is our reality in a few years

lust like our group beliefs and efforts become our reality, individual lives are reflections of individual attitudes. so if you believe things will never get better, you're right, they won't... but only in your life

don't mistake your stunted imagination and your ignorant empty cynicism for our reality. your defeatist attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy only for you, not all of us

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 1) 179

oh i see, it's more of this "al gore flew on a gas guzzling jet airplane once, therefore he is a hypocrite, therefore climate change is not a problem" ignorant bullshit

moral ineptitude

"i knew a guy once who got away with a crime... therefore this guy right here should get away with murder too, it's only fair"

hey genius: "two wrongs don't make a right"

ever hear of it?

do you know what that means, morally?

it means that just because you can criticize democrats for something, anything, it doesn't mean suddenly all republican crimes now magically disappear

the fact that everyone fucks up doesn't mean actual criminal douchebags are immune. i jaywalk, you point out that horrible crime of mine, and now the fact you killed someone is excused because we both committed crimes? this is what you call right and wrong?

real morality: you criticize the democrats of what they *specifically* do wrong, and you criticize the republicans for what they *specifically* do wrong, and you keep your criticism proportional to the crime, and you don't equate minor bullshit with a major outrage

imagine fucking that: actual valid moral reasoning

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 5, Insightful) 179

because the bush administration did so well with the "jump in guns blazing" routine

which, btw, led to the creation of ISIS

much like the economic crisis of 2008, also miraculously blamed on obama, conservatives have this stunning routine where they fuck up, and liberals are at fault for it somehow with creative loopy psychological projection

btw, the economy was fixed under obama, much like he is also trying to fix the mess created by neocon chickenhawks in the middle east, like an adult

while all the hot headed children do their best to start a war, waste money and lives, and make things worse. you and those like you (hi, netanyu, you protocol disrespecting fuck, you've permanently damaged us-israeli relations for a little temporary macho chest thumping) think more war in the middle east will actually fix things. because you geniuses haven't learned from the last half dozen decades what messing around in the middle east actually leads to

oh, and a small tip for you:

"pinko" expired as an effective insult in the cold war era, which ended 25 years ago, which might be the last time you had a coherent thought on the topic you inject your ignorant belligerence into

Comment: Re:can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score 2, Interesting) 242

by circletimessquare (#49160881) Attached to: Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links

that's a valid complaint

some scientific discoveries go against conventional wisdom and are originally ridiculed. for example, some australian scientists discovered stomach ulcers are caused by a certain species of bacteria in the 1980s. they were rejected, laughed at, people got angry at them. the belief at the time was acid and spicy food formed ulcers. wrong. eventually they won the nobel prize for medicine for their discovery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

but this process is mediated by serious researchers who, adhering to the scientific method, are compelled to reverse themselves in spite of their preliminary reactions

meanwhile, we have antivaxxers, moon landing deniers, GM food ignorance, creationists, climate change deniers, fluoride fearmongers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists babbling about burning airplane fuel and steel, etc... assorted douchebag crackpots who are absolutely, undeniably factually wrong, and oftentimes dangerous (to public health, for example), but enthusiastically keep spreading their lies nonetheless

stupid shitbags like this for example are working very, very hard to kill children:

http://njvaccinationchoice.org...

not they they understand their efforts only work to kill children: they're ignorant braindead assholes, pridefully arrogant in their lack of education

so they need to be shut down in other ways. your freedom to be a moron ends when your beliefs put my life and liberty in danger. so thank you, google

google's algorithm would downplay revolutionary new scientific evidence, like the ulcer causing bacterium, indeed. but this is a short time period, squarely in the realm of brand new scientific research, where, after enough weight, change would come quickly, and so to google's algorithm, if it gets its signals from solid peer reviewed journals that present genuine science

meanwhile, lies and idiocy are not peer reviewed and grow like fungus in the dark and will never, ever change

so they need to be buried at the bottom of google as the brain numbing, sometimes genuinely dangerous puerile prideful ignorance they are

Comment: Re:Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

intolerance itself

intolerance of intolerance

not the same thing

pointing a gun at a man

pointing a gun back

not the same thing

if you really can't tell the difference between who initiates a transgression and who defends against it, you're not worth the time. you lack fundamental social and moral sense

Comment: Re:membrane (Score 1) 67

by circletimessquare (#49154451) Attached to: Methane-Based Life Possible On Titan

when you're working, can you do it in the middle of a concert hall? the middle of an interstate highway? in between a screaming fighting couple?

or do you benefit from having a private room/ cubicle?

same principle

the wide world is full of nasty chemical interactions and potent free radicals ready to destroy anything they touch. rooms help immensely

not only do they protect, they isolate. a self-replicating process can sputter out if not restricted to it's own products

Comment: Re:membrane (Score 2) 67

by circletimessquare (#49154379) Attached to: Methane-Based Life Possible On Titan

go pour a little soap/oil in some water and shake it

congratulations, you've "made" micelles

micelles are self organizing. you don't "make" sea foam, it's a simple product of natural wind and wave with sufficient chained carbon compounds

micelles occurred naturally in the early earth out of non organic processes that produced simple hydrocarbons

then the rudmientary self-replicating processes also occuring naturally in that time period, and sputtering out, uncontained, joined up with micelles and sustained. because now they have a safe container to continue in

thus the first cell, from which all the rest has sprung

Comment: Re:Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

by circletimessquare (#49154347) Attached to: Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash

i've laid out my reasoning intelligently and convincingly. all you've done is bounce one empty unsupported insult reflexively. you haven't reasoned with me at all, you've made no argument. because you have no argument. when someone is left with nothing more than sputtering insults, they've lost the argument

if you're not the same AC (anonymous COWARD), as the other one i'm responding to, then here is genuine reasoning for your education:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

good luck on opening your mind and understanding your problem

Comment: Re:Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

by circletimessquare (#49154249) Attached to: Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash

hilarious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

"no, you!" is not a valid argument

me arguing against bigotry is not the same as bigotry

if i define bigotry, and say it is wrong, going "so you're the bigot!" is only a reflexive, thoughtless defense on the order of 5 year olds

it's like you point a gun at me, so i point one back in defense, and you go "see! you're a murderer!" the defense taken against a transgressive action is not the same as the actual transgressive action. defining and condemning bigotry is not the same as bigotry. do you understand?

then this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]

intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself

example: charlie hebdo: if you have a society that respects free speech, and one group says "we will kill you until we get to restrict your free speech!" does that group get to claim bigotry and intolerance when their bigotry and inteolerance is opposed? no

is society violating it's principles by restricting speech... that advocates violent restriction of speech? see the self-contradiction? incitement to violence and murder to end free speech, is not protected by the principle of free speech, because it threatens the very concept of free speech itself

another example: nazi imagery in germany. is germany violating free speech by restricting nazi imagery? no, because nazi imagery in germany is not some abstract notion, it is the symbol of the ideology that violently destroyed free german society. there's no contradiction

you cannot attack a principle, and depend upon that principle, at the same time

you cannot claim bigotry, when being singled out for your bigotry

understand?

try again and good luck

Comment: Re:Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

by circletimessquare (#49153997) Attached to: Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash

so the choice is be

1. in a wonderful understanding marriage, or

2. "sorry, to hell with you"

your message seems to be: if you aren't married, or in a bad marriage, or in any way deviate from the 1950s leave it to beaver perfect cookie cutter utopia of domestic life, well then go fuck yourself (figuratively, not literally). that seems to be the conservative message

do you ever stop to consider people and their conditions in life that aren't in the same glorious spot as you?

is this the wonderful mythical "compassionate conservatism" i hear about always that says "you get to have sex if your life is a fairy tale, otherwise, you get to suffer, period, end of story"

why don't you instead open your mind slightly, consider people that might not have it as good as you, and allow them what they need to keep going in life?

instead of, in intolerance as you currently do, defining your oh-so-perfect life, and then declaring anyone outside it to be unclean and unworthy. that's religious conservatism in action

Comment: Re: Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

by circletimessquare (#49153957) Attached to: Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash

that would be nice but first we have to get conservative religious countries to agree to the UN universal declaration of human rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents...

what happens if you go to a conservative, religious country and say you don't believe in god or are from another religion?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

so conservative religious belief supports moral behavior like not hacking someone to death just for believing different that you, right?

Comment: Re: Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

by circletimessquare (#49153897) Attached to: Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash

i made a valid coherent argument that can be substantiated with facts

you reply with empty insults

if that's the best you can do, then it seems i've made a valid point here and the best you can do is sputter in response. so you're welcome for the education today

btw, progress is real and the hallmark of human civilization. the screen and the keyboard you use to read and respond to me are marks of progress. those who use the word as an insult, that's very telling about their intellect and character

Comment: Re:Bigger Markets (Score 1) 101

by circletimessquare (#49153869) Attached to: Google Reverses Stance, Allows Porn On Blogger After Backlash

speaking against bigotry is not the same as bigotry. you can't keep sputtering the one reflexive insult you know and sound like you are making a coherent argument. so if that's all you can do, then i guess i've made my point pretty well to you today. you're welcome for the education

The longer the title, the less important the job.

Working...