No, it's more about the deception and sheer irresponsibility.

The comparison is to tobacco but I think that asbestos is a better comparison. I mean, if you have to pick just one. When you think about it, there are many examples, and they all come from the same corporate mind-set.

Perhaps it's time to rethink how corporations function.

|Also, there's certainly no need to be disappointed when your invented tech comes out in real life, it just means you're a prophet :p

Only if the prediction comes true after publication. During the first draft - it's kind of awkward. However, I do plan to revisit it, once I'm a better writer.

The other issues was managing scale and travel times. I had not one but three McGuffins going for FTL - and there's good reasons for that - but it made the plot extremely complex and it all came tumbling down around my ears.

these days it hardly seems gradual, but maybe I'm just getting old.

OTO, Toffler kinda predicted this...

I've always been quietly amused at the people who seem to completely lose their minds when Occupy is mentioned.

"They didn't achieve anything! They didn't have any focus! No leadership! No goals!"

But this is their achievement. They are everywhere, it seems. It was kind of the Woodstock of politics. And from now on, even if you weren't there, you will have been when it comes time to write the old autobiography.

They figured out how to organize for a particular goal without any hierarchy or any leaders that could be co-opted. I think that's a pretty big deal. And I think that's a big part of the objection - the rejection of structure and hierarchy seems to be viscerally threatening. Honestly, I think that's part of it, because if they were as irrelevant as said - we wouldn't still be talking about them.

This is way above my head, but I've been following the topic to the degree I can. It seems that part of the problem is getting funding to properly test it while controlling for confounding factors and that data is slow to come because vacuum chambers tend to eat their electronics and they have to tune the thruster to have a enough thrust to be detected with the facility they hope to use.

I vaguely understand there's some strange non-linear stuff going on with the power in and the expected thrust and I think from what's said that the shape or nature of the cavity figures in here somehow. I was trying hard, but that's the best I could do. I may well be very smart, but this takes math and facts and stuff. So I'm frustrated. Because the science reporters explaining this don't really. I mean ... I can handle a few lumps in my pablum.

I wish I had the ability to casually throw a few hundred thousand dollars their way in the service of pure curiosity. Never mind what it means for space exploration although that's that's huge if it works. Maybe that's what has everyone scared, because once you are out of the atmosphere - the tech itself doesn't seem to be all that challenging. It's the implications.

But back to the testing and finding out if this is real or not, and what the hell is going on. No matter what the outcome, it has to be fundamentally interesting. You don't generally see a chance to resolve interesting questions like that for sums less than fractions of a gross domestic product. So the most confusing thing to me is why they aren't drowning someone in money.

Channeling a dead grandmother!

What a fascinating way of looking at the world! More sweet tea?

Oh, I hang in a state of constant oscillation between arrogance and self-doubt. But in general, I prefer to be correct and let "right" sort itself out.

But yes, I do get exceptionally annoyed with people who go on and on about things like ... well, 9/11 being an inside job. I consider that one of a range of possibilities - it's clear people had to conspire to make what happened happened - I don't feel that we can be sure about this.

It's kind of like people who talk about UFO's coming from Venus. "When you are unclear about what UFO means, we don't really need to talk about your grasp of the habitability of Venus, do we?"

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; "assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without proof." There's a considerable number of tools to filter out the bullshit you don't need to deal with.

Not wanting to deal with the remainder, though - well, you may have every right to not deal with it - but not dealing it is rarely the most productive course.

I don't really think this is about the edge cases, though. This is about the people that respond to the geological record with "Well, that's just your opinion."

It's a thought-stopping technique, a way of not thinking about evidence that might contradict an unfounded belief/opinion.

I definitely agree there's subtlety and nuance to the word and the idea of subjective opinion in proper use - but the article is about whacking people who aren't using it properly to begin with, and not being inappropriately courteous in letting those moments pass unremarked.

"Well, isn't that just special!"

I prefer Harlan Ellison's formulation: “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

I agree with Dan Savage's comments up to a point. I think his observation about the paternalistic, classist justifications made by Gawker were very much on point.

I recall exactly when the GOP got really, really pissed at Hillary. It's when she didn't divorce Bill, even though it was pretty darn clear by that point that she couldn't possibly have not known who she married. No, she was shunned for not holding up their ideal of proper marriage. (which apparently demands divorce, in her particular case.)

However, both cases point out that the consequences for behavior that is actually bad and behavior that some interventionist fiddle-wit thinks is bad are the same, because they come from the same place and the same people. I shall be pointing to this as a good example when speaking of consequential ethics for years to come. It doesn't really matter if a private behavior is inherently harmful - if you can't arrange any way of making it safe to be "out" and do that thing - involving other people in "that thing" is particularly problematic.

Now, sometimes you just go and do it anyway - clearly, many millions do. But the people harmed that I'm concerned about are those who were involved without being consulted. One thing about a site like Ashley Madison - you can be pretty sure that there aren't many folks there against their will - so presumably they assessed the risks as well as they could. Whether this could be said of their partners and any children is quite another thing.

it just makes me sad. Oh, I have no doubt there could be a nuclear TBM (I've run across these ideas before) . but ... but ... so many many buts!

Like, for instance, what's wrong with surface rail, air deployment and trucks? What makes them think the government is that scared that it has to do a stealth invasion?

>The full opinion was a fairly interesting read for anyone who is into that kind of thing. There were some interesting arguments made and resolved by the court. I especially thought that the court's discussion of the plaintiff's alleged substantive Due Process right to "refrain from taking human life" and how they really drilled down to what was at issue was well done.

It was an interesting read. And while I'm not a lawyer, I am betting that this is going to be widely cited for that distinction.

Now, I do wish someone would make the case that there is a general civil rights guarantee about having someone else's religion practiced upon them. But if that's happened, I haven't heard of it.

It may seem silly to say this, but it's also obvious; the best way to reduce crime is to criminalize as few things as humanly possible. However, this does require shifting away from a punitive approach to... well, everything. But I'm afraid this a hill Social Conservatives worldwide will choose to die on.

>Don't ramble on the internet like this as it's very counterproductive.

And yet, here we are....

I'm making a public commitment to myself to never write about writing. I've seen less toxic responses on reddit GamerGate threads.

This is something I framed and hung on the inside of my skull.

It's important to woodshed.

|We've been trained to turn to our phones to inform our followers of our somewhat witty observations. I think the instant validation of our apps is an enemy to producing the kind of writing that takes years to complete. That's why I advise anyone serious about writing books to spend at least a few years keeping it secret. If you're able to continue writing while embracing the assumption that no one will ever read your work, it will reward you in ways you never imagined

This is what keeps me writing (most every) morning. Becoming a writer is the goal. What I'm writing is the means to that end.

On the other, less highfalutin' side, if Cory Doctorow can stand living with some of his works being public, for whatever that's worth to him - maybe "Good enough to read on the bus" is a reasonable standard in this modern age of self publishing.

Didn't they publish "The Positive Power Of Wishful Thinking"?

The ones that you can't easily change, I'd say... the ones that you can't change without being someone else entirely, with or without the aid of surgery.

But to argue against myself, I think the most useful definition is "the voice that seems most expressive of who you naturally feel you are." A profoundly banal insight, that is.

The one time in history the NRA supported gun control was when the Black Panthers were advocating open carry, back in the 70's.

different - or rather, no different than it was in 1860 or, probably 1760.

I try to make one point from time to time. I feel there's too much focus on distinctions that make a difference.

I think the great problem with our current society is not racism, nor is it sexism, or class; consumerism or denialism. Those are all, rather, manifestations of one thing.

Assholes. Too many assholes. Or, Authoritarian Personalities, if you prefer. But I think "Asshole" is a better word - it's more difficult to argue that it's a feature instead of a bug.

Excellent points. And any trained actor could confirm this - voice pitch, phrasing, rising or falling tones, enunciation, pace, pronunciation - all of these things added together can very precisely define who we are - and yet, we can (with just a bit of practice - significantly alter that perceived definition.

If these can be altered - then is there such a thing as an "original" or "natural" voice?

I think that's only true to the extent that one is limited by things like dentition, resonance and the structure of the vocal chords and windpipe. Psychology of course plays a role. Presentation naturally biases toward your preferred brand of salsa.

In other words - you might hate your "gay voice," but ... it's also your IRL shortcut and social filter.

I don't really think that stands up well against the reasons for flying it and adding it to state flags. (in response to the civil rights act, for god's sake). It's been pretty well covered on reddit - but the AskHistorians threads and faq were the most persuasive to me.

I was inclined to believe as you do. Now I view it quite differently. Certainly the idea of embracing a symbol that's deeply offensive to many when there are many other symbols that could have been used that would have been equally evocative.

well, there are a number.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=confederate+flag&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

And some actually support your view. --- https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cg2sq/ama_john_coski_author_of_the_confederate_battle/

Sorry, can't format links properly, my eyes are drifting in different directions atm. Must sleep. :)

I had one show up in badged feeds.

I'm torn, it would have made the badged comment pretty context-less. But then the entire thread was clearly visible once I clicked through to the badged comment.

Perhaps a notification that it's a response to a filtered user would be useful? Because I already see that badged comments should probably be treated somewhat differently.

Particularly if it's a badge granted to someone I'm ignoring. Perhaps I was hasty.

Not in this case, though. This case was making me reach for the periwinkle arrow.

I was reading an example above. It seemed to be written for dudebros with a really high tolerance for design triumphing over readability.

Sorry, not going to read anyone's 18pt italic text when it's pale grey against white.

Well, that's just annoying. What am I missing that I have never noticed having missed?

Ah, thank you.

That's possibly the single most obscure insult I've even been affronted by.

It's the pseudo-academic part that puts me off; reeking as it does of patchouli and overpriced small-press books. :}

I've been made aware of this before; it's a very old spiritual practice, after all - but it's non-trivial and way beyond my level of interest. I really don't encourage people to hack their own wetware just because it's cool, and I doubt it's encouraged in responsible spiritual traditions, either.

Still, there are other things that point to this as being within the range of normal cognitive function. Dissociation is certainly a well-recognized phenomenon, in both traumatic and what we consider "functional" contexts, such as in an emergency room. The third man factor is recognized, if not well-studied. Authors report having arguments with main characters and losing all the time.

Then of course there is the classical Multiple Personality - which is usually thought of as the product of Traumatic Dissociation. I could go on and on about that, but I won't, at least not at the moment. Suffice it to say that there is good reason to think that the ability to "hive off" a functional personality is pretty common and may well be part of ordinary brain function. FMRI studies confirm that it's a real thing in some sense. That is to say, if there is a disorder involved, it's more along the line of having the case removed from your computer and thinking that it's somehow a different thing than it was before. Nope. Same thing. Same tired power supply, same motherboard with a few tired capacitors. And that's why it's not working well.

Oh, I'm sure the tumblr types are annoying. It used to be on Livejournal. But annoying things can still be real. I mean, purely for illustrative purposes - Rush Limbaugh.