http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger_pr.html
No, seriously, external EM stimulation of emotion. The entertainment possibilities are endless. Then you start thinking about the fun you could have combining this with music, video, etc..
When I first was learning unix, I was far too impressed to criticize – after all, here was a operating system that made it possible for hundreds of users to share, mostly peacefully, a computer!
Now that I’ve been a unix administrator for a while – and administered a number of flavors of unix – I do have a few, um, questions about it.
The biggest one is WHY are all the configuration files in a directory called etc? Wouldn’t conf or config make more sense?
Actually, one can apply that criticism to /var – wouldn’t /data make more sense?
Of course, mine is not to reason why. At this point, changing would be painful – all of the directories are hardcoded in thousands of different applications.
If I were immortal, I would want to write a operating system at some point. Being limited to – at least on the surface of things – a 100,000 hour MTBF makes me inclined to just be grateful that other people have put together such nice ones. (Even though I complain bitterly about them, I love Linux and am pretty fond of 2000 and even XP. Give me another ten years and I’ll probably like Vista. As usual, I’m not yet running it anywhere. I should get a workstation with vmware set up so I can play with five or six operating systems painlessly.. )
while I’ve been off writing web 2.0 applications, apparently the rest of you all have been off *using* them. Today, I learned just how out of touch I am. I’d never heard of pownce, twitter frankly frightens me, I had no idea that you could now stream realtime video from your cell phone to the net, I’m still reeling from learning that someone wrote a virtual television studio in Flex, and I feel terribly uncool. Even as a geek, I’m a failure. 😉
1) Claiming to disapprove of being judgmental and simultaneously judging another group of people (i.e. saying they should grow up) is more than a little hypocritical. Probably I would strike the last paragraph entirely. I apologize if anyone had their feelings hurt by it
2) I do think that the people who recorded ‘God Hates The World’ are either a: trolls or b: examples of the very worst kind of Christian fundamentalism. Christianity is a extrordinarily broad group – as is any religion, comprising so many sub-factions that it’s difficult to find ANY statement that’s true of all it’s members.
3) Probably the people posting hate speech on Clint’s blog are examples of a few extreme viewpoints, and not representative of all Christians anywhere.
4) I still believe that I was right in thinking that I shouldn’t continue to think about, talk about, or write about Christianity. There’s nothing I would have to say that hasn’t been said better by many, many others, and it is far better for my happiness and mental – and I suspect spiritual – health not to think about it, as I just get angry and feel frustrated that so much harm is being done and there’s nothing I can do about it. (Not to mention that there’s a subset of humanity that are okay with the idea that I be tortured for eternity. #include <christian_rant.h>)
5) Yes, I know that C is horribly dated. I still like it.
but my friend Clint has been drawing a lot of Christian – or at least self-identified-as-Christian – hate speech on his blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/onward-christian-soldiers/#comment-80202.
I wrote a response which I feel like is both Vintage Sheer and some of my better writing, so I include it here:
I have a number of comments.
First of all, in reaction to ‘God hates the world’:
Christians claim God is the superuser, the almighty Root in the sky. They claim he created everything (although they haven’t come up with a good explanation for where HE came from. Apparently it’s okay for God to have always existed, but not for everything to have always existed).
As the superuser, God sets things like physical laws. God doesn’t want you breaking the law of gravity, and he makes sure it’s enforced. Then religious people CLAIM that God sets spiritual laws as well. Interestingly, God doesn’t directly communicate those to us. Essentually, in order to believe that I’ve broken God’s Law, I have to believe that the bible IS God’s Law. That’s rather hard, because God is claimed to be a ethical being, and the bible shows God behaving in clearly unethical ways.
I have a very clear sense of what *I* feel good and evil is – and I feel being judgemental, speaking of torturing people for eternity, speaking of wrath instead of forgiveness, and speaking of the world as a evil place are all signs of, well, evil. Clearly my moral compass doesn’t have the same alignment as the people who are joyfully singing about how the rest of us are going to suffer, suffer, suffer for being who and what we are – presumably, if you believe in God, who and what we were created to be.
When I was young, I went to raves and was told about peace, love, unity, and respect. I naively believed that this is what all the world’s religions were about – I mean, clearly, it feels so right, it must be what everyone’s been talking about. What’s interesting in this is that I had already had – and rejected – a Christian upbringing, so some part of my subconscious knew better. But still, I talked with my friends about this whole peace & love thing, seriously thinking that that’s what Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc were all about. (In fact, Buddhism IS about peace & love – it’s interesting how much my mom, a very Christian sort of person, hates & fears it)
Now I have read the bible – or at least large chunks of it – and now I know. The bible is not about just peace & love. The bible is, as far as I can tell, white noise. It contains a little bit of everything, all translated until the original grains of truth are just barely visible and the dark lies are far stronger. You have to strain your mental eyes to find the PLUR in the bible – or just read certain, selected passages. It is there, of course, but it’s largely overshadowed by far darker things like the homicidal tendancies of God in the old testiment, or the mysogeny of Jesus’s early followers in the NT.
I think it’s really time to write a new one, but the Christians are convicned that this book is the Word Of God and doesn’t need fixed. Interestingly, the bible appears to be a informational virus.. just like those virii that appear on the net from time to time. It contains instructions that say “make a copy of me” and “don’t change me or awful things will happen to you”. This is bad because religion needs, very badly, to evolve with technology and social change.
I understand that there are a group of people that are fundamentally against ANY change – that the people who speak of our proud sinning in that song probably think the internet is wrong and evil, and aren’t really all that clear on whether they should really be using the microphones and video cameras with which they recorded it. For these people I feel mostly sadness – change is a constant that, if God is real, She built into the universe. By disliking this change instead of enjoying it, you’re setting yourselves at odds with the God that Is, and unhappiness almost has to result.
Also for the people who recorded that video: God hates the world, even though *e created it? God is, according to your doctrine, supposed to be perfect and eternally unchanging (even though *e clearly goes through a major design overhaul between the OT and the NT – or at least, our understanding of *e does). How could a perfect creator create a imperfect creation?
For my take on things, I continue to believe that God is the sum of all life, that we are all literally a part of God and thusly we get to decide, individually and every day, just how good God is or isn’t. And, in my opinion, we’ve come a long, long way since even the N.T. – but we have a long, long way yet to go.
I would like to encourage every Christian who is glorying in how much we will all suffer for our sin to look deep within their heart, and consider whether a perfect being would *want* others to suffer. The desire to see others unhappy, the action of taking joy from others misery, is in my opinion a fault, and something that we would all be better off without. Jesus never spoke of wanting to see anyone suffering in any of the parts of the bible I’ve read yet, and often spoke of ways to alleviate suffering, or performed actions that reduced it.
It is my belief also that the universe is neither matter nor energy, but entirely information. It’s convenient to call types of information matter, energy, atoms, elements, etc because it gives us mental models which allow us to manipulate the universe in fun and interesting ways, but in essence it is information. I sometimes think that the information is stored in digital form, and that the darkness in all of us is the zeros – needed to make the ones make any sense at all. After all, a digital computer without zero would be nothing but a paperweight.
So please, to the many Christians – or so-called Christians – attacking Clint & Carolyn: Grow up. Accept your responsability as part of God, and start working towards a better God – and a better self.
So, I listened to Barack Obama’s responses to his pastor’s comments – at http://pol.moveon.org/obamaspeech/?id=12333-8958592-DQ37Ln&t=545
At first, I was dissapointed with Obama for having condemned his pastor for having made such statements, since I feel that a lot of them have more than a grain of truth behind them. Then I came to realize what Obama was condemning. It’s not that he was saying that these things aren’t true – just that he was saying that getting angry about them, and making angry and inciting remarks, is pointless.
I suppose you could say that anger is a motivating force, and that as such, getting angry about the many things that suck in the universe is a good thing, because it leads to us making them suck less. However, it’s also true that getting angry and then giving up any hope on the situation getting any better is futile and a waste.
Anger is such a negative emotion – it leads to us doing all sorts of irrational things. Turned outward, it starts wars between entities. Turned inwards, it slowly destroys us, especially if the thing we’re angry over is something that we’re not in a position to change.
For a long time, I tried very hard to never feel anger over anything. Like jealousy, I thought that it was a mistake, a problem that resulted from designing a species using mostly evolutionary techniques, and that it could have nothing but bad effects. Then for a while, at the advice of some various professionals, I embraced my anger, and accepted feeling it as part of the human experience.
Ultimately, however, I think what I want is the ability to feel anger selectively. To feel anger when feeling anger will help motivate me to protect myself or to make the world suck less in general, and to not feel anger when feeling anger will make me feel hopeless, and unempowered, and bitter.
I feel as though I am a slave to my emotions in general, and I would prefer to be the master.
I can’t help but feel that this guy (Obama’s pastor) is not far off the mark… http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788
Of course, there’s a whole lot I don’t know. As usual.
A friend who lived in the USSR (or some client nation) during the cold war recently reminded me that things could be a lot worse than they are. Yes, I agree. Things can *always* be worse. But I think that there’s also a whole lot better they could be, and I think if we sit around all day accepting the way they are, or trying to change them through processes that have been demonstrated to be mostly ineffective, because they could be worse, then they are always going to be bad, and always going to head downhill.
I am NOT advocating going out and shooting everyone who works for Uncle Sam.. or even *anyone* who works for uncle sam. At most any revolution I would support would involve some destruction of property. Ideally, it would happen the same way the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation – people would recognize that the current system is broken beyond repair, and set up a series of systems for collaborating on a new and better system.
I continue to push for a wikiGovernment. I think that it should be possible to author a series of documents that describe the working of a government that are:
1) written in plain english that anyone can understand
2) Easily searchable
3) written in such a way to make fluid changes and improvements easy, and make recording a history of what didn’t work in each case equally easy
4) Designed for direct democracy, with whenever possible the actual citizens interested in a issue doing research and writing code -er, laws- surrounding that issue]
5) Based on a core similar to the Bill of Rights, only more carefully worded to protect more freedoms, and even more limit the power of government
6) Designed to be intrensically open. My wikiGovernment would ideally have *no* secrets, or have secrets only in cases of weapons too powerful to be practical (but that some idiot might otherwise build anyway) (i.e. nukes, fusion weapons, neutron bombs, etc)
7) Designed to put the needs of the ‘average citizen’ first
8) Designed to use the KISS principle whenever possible.
9) Designed to have as small a ‘ruling class’ as possible
10) Designed to allocate resources according to the wishes of the citizens – it should not be *possible* for the government to spend my tax dollars on something I abhor. If this means the government can’t have something because no one wants to pay for it, then so be it.
I could think of more, but ten seemed like a nice round number to stop at.
What would fail if the federal government collapsed, but the state governments stayed?
I’m thinking it’s probably a pretty short list. I don’t believe anyone would invade the US – at least not successfully – even if the U.S. military was disbanded, because the civilians would still be able to repel invaders – and many of them are armed better than actual army members. (Nukes nonwithstanding – a nuke is a really lousy weapon for fighting off a invading force for what I hope are obvious reasons). I don’t believe that the lack of a DEA would result in anything more horrible happening than what is already. The DOE already seems obsessed on spending money on the dumbest things possible. The DOT could be replaced – I’m not at all convinced that the states couldn’t figure out how to maintain the interstate system without federal help – they’d simply raise state gasoline taxes to make up for the lack of federal funds, and places like Montana would start charging semis to use the roads in order to generate enough revenue to pay for them. The FBI and CIA do far more harm than good as far as I can tell.
Originally, the federal government existed.. I think, and I’m no student of history.. to do things that the aggregate nation needed as a whole (like printing money) and to ensure that the basic freedoms in the bill of rights were enforced. However, now the federal government does the opposite – it does bizarre things that no one needs, threatens the citizens (my mother just sent me a wonderful email about all the evil things the IRS does to those who can’t pay. I think she wants to get me to hate the government so much that I make a serious and prolonged attempt to destroy it), comes up with new and creative ways to abridge our freedoms, and in general is a source of much that is awful.
I think we need, as a collective of states, to overthrow the federal government. Talking about a election is beside the point – what we need is a constitutional convention, in which we write a constitution that avoids future incidents like:
1) Politicians who lie
2) A two party system
3) Preemptive war
4) A “representitive” government that fails to represent the interests of, for example, the gay community (who are 10% of us, you all will remember, but still can’t even get married)
5) A “free” country in which one lives in constant fear of the police and the government, in which free speech is steadily more abridged, in which it is known that people are being treated in ways that are sharply against the country’s constitution by the country in the names of ‘preventing terrorism’
6) The idea of a war on a behavior, or a idea. Wars on communism, wars on terrorism, wars on drugs
7) Laws that exist for “moral” reasons – not to protect us against each other, but just because some group of people thinks that something is “wrong”. Not wrong because it hurts me when you do it, but wrong because I think you shouldn’t do it because my god said so. (or because I decided it was so, or other similar varients)
8) I could go on for a while, but I won’t.
Why, one might ask, do I play with the stock market, given that I hate money? Doesn’t that make me part of the oppressors, or at least indicate that I condone a ruling system based on resource allocation?
N0. It’s just that I’m pragmatic enough to recognize that I’m never going to convince the rest of you to give up money, or replace it with a better and more accurate system of measuring the use of resources, or (ideally) replace it with technology that gives everyone access to nearly infinite resources. And, I would really like to be able to work on the things I want to work on (writing music, designing battery management systems, doing nifty art projects involving microcontrollers, building robots, recording friends’ bands, bowling, etc) instead of having to work on the things that people will pay me to work on, and the only way I can see to easily get to this position is to work inside the system that’s already there. I lack the resources to make a radical enough change in the world, so I – grudgingly – use the systems the world has in place instead.
In the meantime, there’s this part of me that thinks if I could just buy enough stock of certain companies, I could vote in shareholder elections in ways that would make a difference. Of course, I vote in only about 10% of the shareholder elections of the stocks I currently own, and the amount of stock I own is so small as to be meaningless, so that probably isn’t a realistic thing to hope for.