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.

Once every couple of days. That seems to be comfortable. If I show up more often, it seems that I'm done too quickly. And I value the slower pace. I did not see that coming, by the way.

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

OTO, Toffler kinda predicted this...

Well, certain shamanic aspects forced their way in. Oddly enough. I'm trying to be more lighthearted than Lovecraft. But the primary character becomes fused with a synthetic symbiotic; an artificial organism with magical-seeming powers that even they don't understand. The ignorance seems to be part of the plan, whatever the hell the plan might be. Oh, and the organism essentially gives voice to the host's subconscious.

So, yeah. it's an excuse to talk to myself and hope some pay copy happens.

This was my second shot at an SF story. The first was set in a far far far distant future - and all my incredible futuristic tech kept showing up on TechDirt.

That's what years of "small business conservatives" gets you.

The business.

Right now I'm working a novel that started out as a short story. The idea is simple; it's told (in part) from the perspective of a thumping great deus-ex-machina who is ignorant of their origin or purpose.

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.

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.

Channeling a dead grandmother!

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.

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

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 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'm not much of a fashionista but it has to fit me and then, given that, I don't want to look absurd or a refugee from some oddball cult.

And that last isn't random snark - a great deal of fashion was intended to show class, status and social role. That's been making less and less sense, but some factions of our culture still cling to it. I tried to pick a good example to show rather than a bad example to mock. Having pointed to it, please notice what a narrow range of women would be flattered by those styles.

We all define ourselves with fashion to some extent - and why not, it's fun and we need pockets. But gender and social roles are very much in flux, so designs that don't get in the way very much have a place in the mix.

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?

Critical thinking skills would be great. I ran into them in high-school - but speech and debate is elective, and about as popular as Chess Club.

>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.

>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"?

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.

As described, I love the targeted ad model, particularly if hubski can remember my interests and preferences for me, so I can mine my own data for myself.

I'd like the ability to make it a push platform, rather than passive monitoring. I'd like it to be a two-way communication, in an explicit intentional way. It would be nice to work this in seamlessly. Reddit has sort have but not really done this, Yelp is a recommendation service with a social aspect. Well, given their extortionate business model, it's sort of an antisocial thing. But we are a society of consumers - of necessity - and we all love to talk about the things we like to consume, read and watch.

I think it would be a mistake to turn that into hubski's mission - but as an adjunct to something that should happen anyway - solid, in depth conversations about those particular things, things the creators and marketers really should be here talking about themselves - I think it should be possible to monetize/recognize/valuate. I can't think of any example of this being done; not in any way that works. That may be that it's difficult, but I wonder if it's just that marketers are so used to talking at us, without considering any feedback other than sales.

That, and the numbers themselves would be interesting. I'd love to see an open-source repository of those sorts of numbers and discussion of what they mean. That would be worth considering a tradeoff of privacy.

I think the PBS model is interesting as a means by which people could contribute to the site. There are any numbers of ways this could be done - but let's say for example I find an interesting thing, make a cool thing or draw a wonderful picture. Perhaps I could put it up for auction to benefit the site. This might be a better way for low-income persons to contribute, but there's also more sense of participation and contribution.

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.

Exactly this. I'd be prepared to grudgingly tolerate "fringe" views if that favor were returned. But it never is. There are certain threads on reddit - really, anything that looks like race might be involved in, or if "feminism" or "rape" is in the title - that I simply will not go. (unless it's a strictly moderated subreddit.)

OTOH, there are forums that seem perfectly reasonable, like /r/politics, until you raise an issue - and then you are banned. I was and I still have no idea for what reason. For all I know, it could be valid. It would have been nice to have a chance to respond.

It feels like walking on eggshells and I don't care to do that.