Re: Electronic interface options

[Warren Ockrassa]

Funny. Having seen this, I just searched you on g+ and added you to my Brin 
circle!

I wonder if there's a way to streamline or transparentize the process. 

• Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com •

On Sep 19, 2011, at 21:58, Doug Pensinger  wrote:

> I have a
> Brin-l circle on G+ but I only have something like 9 people in it.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Still here (Re: Br¡n: On Fracking and Earthquakes)

[Warren Ockrassa]

Yup. 

More seriously, why don't we set up circles on google plus? Then we'd still 
have that interaction via means like this one, with about the same openness, 
and the ability to choose correspondents ourselves?

That is, if each of us were to create a 'brin' circle in g+, and add each other 
to our own circles, in that way the conversation would still be live - and if 
someone got too obstreperous for a given person to tolerate, he'd be able to 
remove that person from his own 'brin' circle, without affecting anyone else. 

Strikes me as being pretty grassroots fair and flexible, anyway. 

• Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com •

On Sep 18, 2011, at 14:07, "Dan Minette"  wrote:

> I still
> see the trend of the internet is to go more and more to closed circles of
> folks who all agree and short sound byte discussions.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Solar Bankrupcy

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:14, "Dan Minette"  wrote:

> 
>> Is someone now foreclosing on the Sun?!
> 
> Yes, with newspaper readership down, ad rates are down, and the Sun is being
> foreclosed on.  Even the Grey Lady is at risk.
> 
> Dan M. 

Ah. It's a Sun of the Times, then. 

• Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com •
> 

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Br¡n: On Fracking and Earthquakes

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> At 06:57 AM Friday 8/26/2011, KZK wrote:
>> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/08/human-activity-can-cause-earthquakes/
> 
> I really like the instructions given for those who want to leave comments.

That's just beautiful.

-- Warren

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: The Taliban Fight Like Che.

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 2, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:

> http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Death-Toll-Now-at-95-in-Pakistan-Volleyball-Bombing--80498082.html
> 
> This is just dumb.  If you want to win a war, intimidating the people
> whose support you need is pretty stupid.
> 
> The West might not be able to win in Central Asia ... unless the Taliban
> keep helping us by alienating their own base.

Actually, the Taliban fight like Cheney.

We made a decades-long empire of intimidating others into siding with us. We 
were the first to alienate.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Gravity wells

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 31, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> http://xkcd.com/681/
> 
> (You will need to click to embiggen.)

Wait. Venus is more dense than Earth? But it's only fractionally larger.

Oo. Maybe that's because it didn't get creamed hard enough to calve its own 
moon. I wonder if Earth + Luna would equal Venus in mass.

At least I know it's not as deep as your mom, but still.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Recursion in C, as told by Kernigan, Ritchie, and Lovecraft

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Max Battcher wrote:

> Beyond that, it doesn't seem like proper Kernigan and Ritchie code because it 
> is not formatted properly in the K&R style... It almost looks more like GNU 
> code.

Well, the sign did declare that the place was called GCC...

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Recursion in C, as told by Kernigan, Ritchie, and Lovecraft

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Bryon Daly wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Warren Ockrassa  
> wrote:
> I really enjoyed this, but can't share it with my colleagues, since they 
> wouldn't get either reference.
> 
> Sometimes it's really a pain in the ass to be a programmer and English major 
> working in a PR department as the graphics guy.
> 
> http://www.bobhobbs.com/files/kr_lovecraft.html
> 
> "Their croaking, baying voices called out in the hideous language of the Old 
> Ones: "
>  
> awesome.

I suppose that would mean Assembly is the language of the Outer Gods. But what 
of FORTRAN?

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Recursion in C, as told by Kernigan, Ritchie, and Lovecraft

[Warren Ockrassa]

I really enjoyed this, but can't share it with my colleagues, since they 
wouldn't get either reference.

Sometimes it's really a pain in the ass to be a programmer and English major 
working in a PR department as the graphics guy.

http://www.bobhobbs.com/files/kr_lovecraft.html

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Google vs Bing

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Trent Shipley wrote:

> Google? Bing?  I don't care.

Neither do I, which makes me wonder why you bothered to write anything else.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Spellcheckers

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 5, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


At least he didn't compare apples to oranges.


Or to Ubuntu.

-- W

___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: On the Occasion of a Seventeenth Birthday

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Dave Land wrote:


Allow me to offer some additional advice:


You know, that's some very good content. Thanks for passing it along  
-- but I was being a little wry, and the thing is that this particular  
kid is doing pretty well for himself, at least so far. He's bright,  
funny, sweet and rather level-headed; if I could choose a son for  
myself, it would be him or a near copy. He's done pretty well at  
avoiding the obvious problems, and seems to be navigating the hormonal  
years with quite a lot of success overall.


So my three things were meant to be a bit upscale in maturity, sort of  
man-to-mannish but also ironic, and they wouldn't probably work with a  
lot of seventeen-year-olds. But for him I think they're just about  
right.


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: On the Occasion of a Seventeenth Birthday

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:21 AM, Martin Lewis wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Warren  
Ockrassa wrote:


Son of a friend is turning 17 Saturday. I think I've distilled my  
life's

wisdom (for 17-yer-olds anyway) down to three things.

1. You're too young to drink and too young to vote. But you're old  
enough to

be tried as an adult.
2. Always, always, ALWAYS use a condom.
3. Never say "I love you" until after you come.


So I'm not allowed to tell my wife I love her in the morning until
after I've fucked her? Does the same apply to my mum?


Hey, man, whatever your kink.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

On the Occasion of a Seventeenth Birthday

[Warren Ockrassa]

Son of a friend is turning 17 Saturday. I think I've distilled my  
life's wisdom (for 17-yer-olds anyway) down to three things.


1. You're too young to drink and too young to vote. But you're old  
enough to be tried as an adult.

2. Always, always, ALWAYS use a condom.
3. Never say "I love you" until after you come.

Anyone got anything else to pass along?

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

[Warren Ockrassa]

John:

I just don't live on the same planet that you do, I guess.

There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or  
compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're  
too different.


All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand  
worshippers haven't taken over yet, and I really hope they never do,  
because if it happens, we're doomed as a society. Obviously. Since the  
Libs and AR folks don't seem to know what "society" actually means.


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, John Williams wrote:

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren  
Ockrassa wrote:

On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:


I guess you've never visited an "herbal" healer then, or someone  
who used
"reiki" or "healing touch". You're not prevented from doing so. The  
free

market lets you.


Heh, being restricted from some things but not others is hardly free.


But you're not restricted from any of them.


Again, we had the "free market" model. Again, it *did not work*.


Again, I'd like to hear about this wondrous free market in health care
that we had. I'm certainly not aware of it.


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

Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options?  
I'd like to

know what they are.


Most of them. I think we are disagreeing over my terminology. Replace
"maintenance" with "predictable" or "mostly expected" if you wish.
Most cover routine check-ups, screenings, treatment and drugs for
minor ailments -- things that most people could budget for on a yearly
basis.


Can they? When was the last time you had to pay a full-billed price  
for a routine doctor's visit? Living on minimum wage?


And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a  
few

bucks to me.


It was worth $250 to you. But you did not actually pay the $250.
Someone(s) else did. It may have not been worth $250 to them.


It might not have been, but under the same coverage, someone else in  
my plan littered sextuplets, at a rough cost of a quarter of a million  
dollars. Was that worth it to me? Absolutely not. Nevertheless I keep  
the coverage, as she does, and I pay into it, as she does, to cover  
healthcare costs I will never have to face -- as she does.


Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level  
of care,

or not?


Worthy of care? I would not presume to determine who is worthy of
care.


No, you'd pass off responsibility to the "free market" system,  
wouldn't you?



But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care
should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating
your own time or money.


Yes. And that's what insurance is all about.


You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do.
My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like
as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom.


And you live that, every day, by every choice you make? How do you  
know that? How do you know that by giving a few pennies of your  
income, and turning that into government revenue for the internet,  
highways and the FDA, you are not actually working either for or  
against someone else's freedom?


More significantly, how can you be sure that *keeping* those pennies  
will make a difference for you or anyone else?


Suppose for a moment you lived tax free. Your income would not be  
sucked down by, say, 20% on each paycheck. Suppose further that your  
annual income was a comfortable $50K per year. Suppose you put all of  
that 20% into the bank, for twenty years. That's a cool $100 grand.


Now suppose you went to the doctor one day, and he said, "Hmm."

You could afford less than one half of one day of radiation treatment  
-- on your life savings.


By paying into a semi- or demi-socialist system, you are not  
sacrificing your freedom; you are helping others to live a life a  
little more free of fear, or of destitution. You're not taking others'  
freedom by being given a therapy you could otherwise not possibly  
afford. You're just working on the cushion that everyone has paid into  
anyway.


Would I be willing to help pay for that? Yes, just as much as I was  
glad that "others" paid to help me learn why I was sneezing so much.


If the government takes money from me and uses it to pay for keeping  
an

87-year old alive and in pain for an additional month, when I would
have spent the money to help starving or sick children in third world
countries, that is definitely not freedom of choice.


Oh, so you can't do both? Why not?


Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving
treatments, is no more "interfering" than it is when it says you  
have to

build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper.


Both are interfering. The same goals could be accomplished non- 
coercively.


That has never been true in ten thousand years of human history.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Warren  
Ockrassa wrote:


But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades.


For healthcare? Free market as in, minimal government restrictions on
what consumers can buy and what providers can sell? I'd certainly like
to hear about such things.


I guess you've never visited an "herbal" healer then, or someone who  
used "reiki" or "healing touch". You're not prevented from doing so.  
The free market lets you.


There's a reason the FDA regulates treatments, and it's rooted in  
snake oil sales. I don't think the FDA, in insisting on evidence-based  
treatments, is overdoing things. (Well, not generally.) But with a  
"minimal government restriction" approach, that's precisely what we'd  
be left with: A deluge of quack cures.


Again, we had the "free market" model. Again, it *did not work*. I  
won't insult you by quoting Santayana here; there's no reason to.


The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their  
resources

together to lighten the burden of loss for a few.


The assumption being that you are INSURING against unexpected costs.
Most health care plans are not insurance in this sense, but are rather
cafeteria plans, since they cover a large chunk of yearly health
maintenance costs that are not particularly unexpected.


Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd  
like to know what they are. The ones I know of don't pay for smoking  
cessation, for instance; they only pay to treat lung cancer. They  
don't pay for health club memberships; but they'll pony up for  
bariatric surgery.


Just a few months ago I went to the allergist and had a scratch  
test, and the $250 or

so bill cost me nothing. At all.


It cost somebody $250. Was it worth $250 to you if you had to pay it
yourself? Or is it only worth it if you are spending someone else's
money.


It would have cost that, under the "free market" model, yes. Was it  
worth it? To my nose, sure. After all it was the "free market" that  
set the cost. And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch  
was worth a few bucks to me.


But you're missing the point, which is that I didn't have to pay to  
find out what was costing me in terms of happiness, comfort -- and  
*productivity*. By feeling more comfortable after the scratch test, I  
was a much more useful citizen in the economic pool and that dividend  
has paid off rather well since then.


Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of  
care, or not?


They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option  
is not

available to them.


Unfortunately, the market in health care is far from free.


Oh horseapples. If I feel bad I can go to a doctor, herbalist,  
homeopathic chirurgeon, or a Tai Chi master. Only one will provide me  
with the fact- and evidence-based treatments I need. But the market  
is, undeniably, a "free" one.


Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving  
treatments, is no more "interfering" than it is when it says you have  
to build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper.


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Why not discuss the topic?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:


There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free
market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts  
don't

exist.


But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for  
many, those solutions don't work.


The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their  
resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. (This is,  
in essence, socialism.) Many of us will never need intervention for  
catastrophic events; some will. By putting our strengths into a pool,  
we're all able to float when we need to. (This is hardly a new idea.  
It originated with none other than Benjamin Franklin. It's also a very  
Christian concept, for those who are of that mind. "Inasmuch as ye do  
it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me.")


That's the ideal, and in my experience, in practice, it works. Where I  
work, we're self-insured, and we've got superb coverage. But I am  
fortunate and definitely the exception. Many in my community aren't  
able to blithely walk into a doctor's office and say they need a  
checkup or are worried about such-and-such a growth or so-and-so an  
internal bodily concern. Just a few months ago I went to the allergist  
and had a scratch test, and the $250 or so bill cost me nothing. At  
all. But most are not able to do something like that because they  
genuinely cannot afford it.


They're locked *out* of healthcare because the free-marked option is  
not available to them.


And how well has free-market worked in other places? Railroads dropped  
Fed support decades ago. The result was rotting tracks, derailments,  
and the fact that Amtrak's Sunset Limited -- the only truly  
intercontinental passenger rail line we have left -- now has to wait  
on sidings for hours overall while Santa Fe freight trains chug past.  
Carter deregulated airlines in the 70s, and what used to be a  
comfortable express in the skies turned into a shitty cattle-call that  
features narrow seats, no legroom and bag lunches. Bridges went  
neglected for years past their engineering tolerances and are now  
either collapsing, or in imminent danger thereof.


Yeah, that free-market thing is sure improving the quality of life,  
isn't it?


Those who argue for free-market, I think, have never actually  
confronted the full-bore costs of healthcare in the US today. One  
night in a hospital can cost you well into four figures, even for  
something trivial. My stepdad just got a triple bypass. The full-on  
price of his surgery would have been $80,000, or about the value of  
his home. He was lucky; as a retired government officer he had  
vestiture and full coverage. Very, very few retired private persons  
have that opportunity.


It's worth pointing out, by the way, that your congressman has full  
health coverage provided by your tax dollars. He's got better coverage  
than I do, and mine is pretty damn good. And yet he seems to be saying  
that "socialized" healthcare is bad. Well, if he really believes that,  
let's see him drop his Federal coverage and go with a "free market"  
option instead. Put his money and health and life where his fat wide  
yap is.


It's ridiculous, I think, to harken to the words of someone who's  
covered head-to-toe in insurance provided by the Fed when he says  
there are "free market" solutions which are just as good, just as  
available, and just as freely given. That obviously is not true; by  
the rules of the "free market", it cannot be.


Perspective matters. Your congressman probably lacks it now, and  
likely he never had it.


The Invisible Hand is smothering people in their beds.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: In case you're feeling bored this weekend...

[Warren Ockrassa]

Last Friday I began serializing _The Beasts of Delphos_ online.  
Chapter 2 is up now for anyone wanting to continue the read.


http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/07/17/the-beasts-of-delphos-2-the-freeman/

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:

I've been reading so much lately... been thinking it's time to post  
some quick thoughts about recent readings and ask what others are  
reading, too.


Currently up, the latest installment of _The Year's Best SF_ edited by  
Garner Dozois.


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Drinking Water From Air Humidity

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 11, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:

There are several devices to do this, some of them actually on the  
market. One is a wind turbine arrangement that produces around 10  
litres an hour (plenty for drinking purposes for several people!).


Vaporators? My first job was programming binary load lifters. Very  
similar to your vaporators in most respects...


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

In case you're feeling bored this weekend...

[Warren Ockrassa]

...I've begun serializing my _Beasts of Delphos_ online or its fifth  
anniversary in publication.


Chapter 1 lieth here:

http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/07/10/beasts-of-delphos-1-barris/

Enjoy, or don't. At least it's not another goddamned KJA book.

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: In despair for the state of SF

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 6, 2009, at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote:


I just checked the reviews on the book you mentioned, and the bad
reviews talk about many of the same problems that you mentioned.


Yes, they do -- but unfortch, I didn't have net access at the time I  
was considering. I was thinking of the first couple of Dune revisions  
and how they really weren't that godawful, and ... and well...


It just galls me -- galls, I say! -- to think that KJA is classed as  
"SF" along with Le Guin. Delany, Lem and Certain Other Writers whom we  
can think of, without any real attempt made at distinguishing *quality*.


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: In despair for the state of SF

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jul 4, 2009, at 5:48 PM, xponentrob wrote:


Uh..why aren't you reading something good?


Well, yeah, that was kinda the point. :\ All I can say is I didn't  
know better at the time...


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

In despair for the state of SF

[Warren Ockrassa]

A week or so back I finished _Hidden Empire_, the first book in Kevin  
J. Anderson's "Saga of Seven Suns":


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

I discovered this one late -- the series is out now in pulp, and I was  
unaware of it prior to that. I have some things I just need to vent.


[spoilers -- ha, as if]

What an unbelievable turd. While it's not unusual for a novelist to  
foreshadow, Anderson basically forecudgeled. His aliens are  
disinteresting in the extreme; the only marginally noteworthy society  
was the Green Priests and their symbiosis with their worldforest, and  
they were human.


The obtuseness of his characters and societies is unforgivable. When  
you compress the core of a gas giant and turn it into a star, notice  
what appear to be diamondlike nodules shooting out from the new sun,  
and then see diamondlike ships attacking cloud-harvesters on other gas  
giants, you have to be a cretin of genuinely universal proportions to  
not understand what happened. Yet that's exactly what occurs: No one  
knows why the "hydrogues" are attacking cloud harvesters!


The alien "allies" of Earth are anthropomorphic and capable of  
interbreeding with humans -- oh come on -- and have a history  
recitation that's millennia deep. Their leader even knows about the  
hydrogues, though it's a buried secret, yet he still manages somehow  
to be stunned and ignorant of their attacks, sources, reasoning, etc.


Anderson has a husband/wife team of xenoarchaeologists who've  
uncovered both the wormhole tech used to create suns of gas giants,  
and teleportation tech used by a long-dead race called the Klikiss.  
Yup, just the two of them. Not a team, no student support, just a  
couple of kooks digging up fossil civilizations. And they reactivate a  
teleport panel using, essentially, camp-light batteries. Those must be  
some damn impressive batteries. One can only assume they're radically  
unlike the Li-ion cells in iPhones.


And as for the cloud harvesters -- well, early in the narrative we  
have a captain of one of these things STEPPING OUTSIDE ONTO AN  
OBSERVATION DECK without breathing apparatus as his "skymine" sucks up  
free hydrogen. They even keep doves. Outside. In the atmosphere of the  
gas giant. While harvesting hydrogen.


Almost every page contains a slap to the face of science and SF; it's  
not even fantasy. It's just a childish notion of magical settings  
placed for the convenience of plot and story, without any effort made  
to actually consider what's feasible and what is not.


But what tweaked me most was the "interview" section at the end of the  
book, where Anderson says he wanted to write a "saga" that included  
everything he claims to love about SF. He mentions _Dune_ particularly  
-- no surprise since he worked with Brian Herbert on continuing Frank  
Herbert's exploration of that storyline.


The only thing I can conclude is that Anderson never understood what  
Herbert accomplished with _Dune_, and more generally, he doesn't  
understand SF at all -- least of all what makes a good SF story. Any  
decent editor in the genre would have suggested two things to him:  
"Rethink. Redact."


If this is the state SF is sliding into, particularly in the wake of  
the _Trek_ and _Transformers_ noise-machines, what the hell do we have  
left?


--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Help with Gmail

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Jo Anne wrote:

I've offered to help an SCA friend who has a Gmail account.  She's  
moving a
bunch of email (over 3000 at last count) in about 75 different  
labels from

her account to another account so that the person taking over her
*volunteer* job will have access to the 3000+ emails that have come in
during my friend's tenure.


I don't know if this will be of *any* help to you, but here's one  
discussion that came up when I searched gmail help for "importing mail  
from one gmail account to another":


<http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Help-Message-Delivery-en/browse_thread/thread/e03d11d678519a4/165e3b32ff8085d0?lnk=gst&q&pli=1 
>


It looks a bit involved because you seem to need to have IMAP access  
with a third-party mail program. IMAP is a kind of mail-communication  
method; a third-party mail app would be something like Thunderbird  
from mozilla.org.


Might not hurt to see if you can track down a local nerdy kid to work  
it out.


There are also archiving options that might allow email to be  
transferred from one gmail account to another, but I have no  
familiarity with those. As a final recourse you could try posting your  
question to the gmail folks and see if they can point out in a less- 
painful direction.


HTH...

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Quiet

[Warren Ockrassa]

*TOO* quiet...

--
Warren Ockrassa | @waxis
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Incoming!

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Possibly TMI Maru

Possibly?

My imagination is suffering from hysterical blindness...

-- WO
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Incoming!

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Shoe-fly pie.

Your fly is open.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: polarization

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

> i think there is a difference in the bitterness on the left and the  
> venom on the right.  both sides feel they are right, but the hate  
> from the right is based on fear, hate and greed, while the left is  
> motivated by idealism, and what defines true patriotism.

Ah. But this language itself is so emotionally loaded that it does  
nothing but contribute to the polarization. ("Sure, everyone's pissed,  
but the left is pissed for more moral reasons!") The sad truth is that  
the left isn't all that different from the right, not as long as big  
money continues to control the discourse in DC.

Political winds shift, but the lobbyists just change parties to give  
their attention to. Little else becomes different. You might not have  
been around to sniff the social winds in the US in 1980, but I was,  
and let me tell you that the Dems were quite thoroughly corrupted by  
power and money back then; one of the reasons Reagan won was because  
of the national trend against abuse of power by Democrats.

And, FWIW, McCain *was* quite charismatic in 2000. He actually stood a  
good chance against W until he was torpedoed by extremists in the  
Republican party itself -- the same PAC that formed "Swift Boat  
Veterans for Truth" to attack Kerry in 2004.

To me it seems that there's no real reason, if you're so motivated, to  
continue attacking the GOP. It's in the middle of its own self- 
destruction. A better approach might be to talk to the moderates, the  
centrist Republicans, who are very much like centrist Dems such as  
Obama, and are quite as horrified by Palin as many others are, and  
start trying to heal some breaches rather than continuing to hammer at  
the idea of "them" (whoever they are) being "wrong" (whatever that  
means).

Maybe together we can all rediscover what it means for the GOP to be  
the party of Lincoln.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> The brief description is that I do social network analytics.

Whoah, OK, well outside my purview.

-- Warren
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:08 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> Anybody here a Second Life participant?  I'm talking to them about  
> perhaps
> joining the company... but I'm barely familiar with it as a user.  Any
> suggestions about things to try, etc.  I'm most interested in  
> metrics and
> such, things that are or could be measured, which has to do mostly  
> with the
> economy, of course.

I don't do SL -- hell, I'm still working out the intricacies of my  
*first* life -- but in more general terms, I've got an ear to the  
ground on various aspects of work to be found in the areas of Web  
design and graphics. In what capacity would you be hiring on with  
them? Full-time, part, freelance, work-for-hire? I might or might not  
be able to offer insight on broader terms.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: peace offering on the brinlist

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> I'm hoping to engage in civilized discourse with no strings  
> attached.  I
> keep hoping I can be that way no matter how other people may behave.

It's really rather shocking and more than a little depressing to see  
how badly discourse in general has disintegrated over the last half  
decade or so. Now, more than ever before, all I seem to see is shrill,  
shrieking, humorless voices talking *at* one another with damned  
little consideration of the humanity or validity of the other's point  
of view.

Today a protest was staged outside the county courthouse here. Several  
groups, including a local faction of the Minutemen*, were gathered to  
lend voice to the idea that Barack Obama's US citizenship is  
illegitimate or, at best, questionable.

I do not recall similar protests after W's victory in 2004, though  
there were certainly demonstrations -- but they, IIRC, had more to do  
with his continued press of attack in Iraq and the constant drumbeat  
led by the "liberal media" that he hand a "mandate" to promulgate four  
more years of his previous policies and doctrines on the world.

One thing many of those who scream the loudest against recent events  
seem to forget is that we were all, once, united on the same front. On  
12 September 2001. But some of us -- possibly a decent majority now --  
saw ourselves betrayed, saw our nation betrayed, saw our ideals laid  
waste. And those of us who see it that way don't care much for labels  
such as "unpatriotic".

There's been far too much polarization, and the part that saddens me  
the most is that the sore winners of 2004 are now, apparently, the  
sore losers of 2008.

It saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/



* The Minutemen are civilian militias who go out, armed, seeking  
illegal Mexican immigrants to detain. They reached a level of gross  
infamy a year or so ago after one faction posted a video on YouTube  
apparently showing a Minuteman shooting and killing a Mexican national  
as he crossed the border. The video was later proved a hoax, but the  
implications were and are more than a little disturbing. To my mind  
they're just this side of Klannish, and not at all too damned far from  
being Brownshirts.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Sore losers

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 26, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Rceeberger wrote:

> On 8/27/2008 12:10:37 AM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED])  
> wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>>
>>> You have a weird perspective. It
>> isn't that America is moving down,
>>> it is
>>> that so many are moving up into our realm.
>>
>> Beg to differ. In the last three or so decades we've
>> seen a rise in
>> disparagement of education,* particularly in the sciences, a loss of
>> critical thinking ability in the general population, and a trend
>> toward becoming a service-based economy. This doesn't strike me as
>> evidence that the US is holding its own; the sense to me is one of an
>> empire in decline.
>>
>> * When intellectuals are called "elitists", for instance, I  
>> disbelieve
>> that things bode well.
>>
> While I would agree that intellectualism is and has been the subject  
> of much
> trash talking, our standard of living has risen during my lifetime  
> modestly
> while it has risen dramatically in much of the developing world (Frex
> China).

I can't say I disagree there, but I wonder how it looks from the  
perspective of the Chinese. They seem to have taken notes from the  
Cheney administration regarding "free speech" or "protest" zones,  
which apart from a few minor mentions in major US news organs went  
more or less totally ignored. Except, apparently, by a few protestors  
who got arrested.

> It seems to me that a narrow focus on ones hobby horses and axes is  
> not
> conducive to a critical appraisal.

I'm not sure what's "narrow" about having a worldview that tries to  
take in perspectives outside of the US. We're not doing well in the  
diplomacy department, we're engaged in two losing wars in the Middle  
East, our economy is imploding, Louisiana seems to be worried it might  
get creamed by another hurricane which we won't be able to help with  
any more than we did with Katrina, we've ignored our interstate system  
for three decades, we're locking up increasing numbers of people on  
crimes which would be petty or nonexistent in any other industrialized  
nation, and our schools are laughingstocks.

These are hardly hobbyhorses; they're more or less indisputable facts.

> Life here has not begun to suck while no longer sucking in other  
> parts of
> the world.

Heh, yes, that's true. It is, however, beginning to suck more than it  
did before.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Sore losers

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Rceeberger wrote:

> You have a weird perspective. It isn't that America is moving down,  
> it is
> that so many are moving up into our realm.

Beg to differ. In the last three or so decades we've seen a rise in  
disparagement of education,* particularly in the sciences, a loss of  
critical thinking ability in the general population, and a trend  
toward becoming a service-based economy. This doesn't strike me as  
evidence that the US is holding its own; the sense to me is one of an  
empire in decline.

* When intellectuals are called "elitists", for instance, I disbelieve  
that things bode well.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Sore losers

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 26, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

> Americans can not accept that they are on their way down, and no  
> longer first in everything.

Some might not be able to. Some of us have been saying so for years.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gates without Microsoft

[Warren Ockrassa]

Good grief, Jo Anne.

On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Jo Anne wrote:

> While I'm no fan of MS (I Mac, myself, and would never go over to  
> the dark
> side), I can't believe that one person is such a personification of  
> evil as
> you seem to think of Gates.  I hope you have a good rest of your day.

Consult a text on the meaning of hyperbole. Just as Bush is not the  
personification of everything wrong in the world, Gates is not the  
digital satan.

He's just a handy, and very large, target.



--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gates without Microsoft

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:21 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> "(Fortune Magazine) -- Let me tell you about Bill Gates. He is
> different from you and me. First off, the billionaire co-founder of
> Microsoft has always been something of a utopian. In his mind, even
> the world's knottiest problems can be solved if you apply enough IQ.
> Accordingly, Gates, who has been spotted on Seattle freeways reading
> a book while driving himself to the office, covets knowledge. It's as
> if he's still trying to make up for dropping out of Harvard, as he
> spends just about any spare waking minute reading, studying science
> texts, or watching university courses on DVD."
>
> <http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/technology/gates_after_microsoft.fortune/index.htm
>  
> >
>
> (Different from you, perhaps.  Although I don't make a practice of
> reading while driving.  And I am not too happy when I glance over and
> see another driver doing so . . .)

Oh, and Bill Gates is a thief, self-aggrandizer and general all-around  
bastard. His stealing of DOS is a legendary tale; his knowledge in  
1994 that Win95 would be a virus test bed of an OS is a matter of  
record; his callous disregard for aesthetics is obvious in every OS MS  
has ever made. To lionize him now and make him into a business poster  
boy is a bit like promoting Michelle Malkin as an ideal commentator,  
human being and Christian. In order to make it possible, you have to  
overlook basically everything that's known, disregard years of  
recorded truth, and forgive every likely plausible future  
transgression as well.

But in the Land of the Buck, where the most profitable corporations in  
the last five years are all war profiteers (cf. Blackwater et. al.), I  
suppose MS is close to softcore porn for economists and those who like  
their money just a bit less bloody.

The fact that Bill likes to read and drive is just the iceberg's tip.  
He's a manipulating, scheming, greedy bastard who doesn't spend one  
moment thinking about anyone but himself. If he'd been killed by a  
meteorite strike in 1991, you would not today have to scan every email  
you receive for viruses (Mac and Linux users still don't); he doesn't  
give a shit in an outhouse for what the rest of the world has to  
tolerate on his behalf under the tyranny of the worst OS in recorded  
history; and no amount of gilded storytelling will change the reality.

Fuck Bill Gates, fuck his read-and-drive habit, fuck anyone who ever  
tries to defend him, and fuck his dirty money. And fuck CNN for  
turning him into a living martyr to capitalism's most obscene, under- 
the-table excesses. I hope he dies fast. Like metastatic pancreatic  
cancer fast.

We never needed him, and we goddamn sure don't need more like him.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Battlestar Galactica

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2008, at 12:00 AM, G. D. Akin wrote:

> P.S. Season 3 wasn't disappointing either.

Srsly?

There were things I liked, sure -- there were effects that were  
visually gorgeous, frex the translight jump of the BSG as it fell into  
atmo, I just about freaked as it vanished, leaving only a flaming  
imprint of its hull's own ablation in the sky, a fiery ghost and a  
*beautiful* image I think we'll be seeing again in other series -- but  
I felt the story began to drag heavily about halfway through (all  
shipboard, all the time: translation, we shot our eye-candy wad early).

Definitely BSG is not about FX. However, it is an SF series, and FX  
matter. Playing cheap with them, keeping the budget lean visually,  
forced too much emphasis on the storytelling team -- and I don't think  
they were fully up to snuff there. That is, when the series had to  
rely on plot alone without interspace action sequences, I began to see  
some rather thin places in the plot.

26 eps in a season is too much for a series like BSG. It was much more  
tantalizing and intense, I thought, when they had more room for a good  
budget spread for FX throughout the story season, but had to tell a  
much tighter story in fewer shows. More = less = more.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Mail help needed . . .

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:25 AM, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2008, at 10:55 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>>
>>
>> OSX's Mail is a tolerable client but doesn't have the refinements of
>> Eudora, at least not out of the box; I don't know if there are third
>> party apps that approach it.
>
> Mail 3 is better. Not perfect, but a lot better than Tiger's or
> Panther's versions. Doesn't help the OP, but just sayin' like.

That's what I'm running -- it's okay, but not great, yeah.

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Mail help needed . . .

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:04 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Since after 10+ years of my using them both Netscape and Eudora are
> going away, I am at the point where I have to change both browser and
> mail programs.  I spent past several hours yesterday installing
> Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird and trying to import stuff from the
> old programs.  Firefox may be a satisfactory browser but I am quite
> disappointed in the lack of functionality of Thunderbird as a mail
> client compared with Eudora, so I thought I'd ask if anyone has any
> (obviously, non-M$) recommendations?

Thunderbird didn't turn me on much either. Have you looked at gmail?  
(Before you hate it, consider that the portability of your inbox is a  
definite bonus, even if the idea of their advertising bots' peering at  
your mail is a bit spooky.) FWIW gmail will also work with POP clients.

OSX's Mail is a tolerable client but doesn't have the refinements of  
Eudora, at least not out of the box; I don't know if there are third  
party apps that approach it.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Schneier vs. Brin

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>
>> But I think we were talking about holy underwear with holes in it  
>> (holey).
>>
>> As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
>>
>> but I see from the article that they don't really have holes in them
>> anymore.
>
> Is this the origin of the phrase "God's trousers," used often by (I'm
> pretty sure) Sean Connery in the movie (I think), _The Man Who Would
> Be King_?

Mormonism came into existence in 1839, so if the movie was set before  
that time period, no.

-- \/\/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Maybe they should try Wisk . . . ?

[Warren Ockrassa]

If Wisk worked, there would be much sadness in the community at the  
passing of the rings of Rhea, on par with the mourning of Pluto's  
passing as a planet -- one can imagine the headlines now:

"With a Brisk Wisky Rub: Gone, O Rhea!"

So be glad some things just aren't feasible.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Mar 9, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

> must prove *their* livers are not the illusion.

By consuming, of course, vast amounts of ethanol-based fluids.

(Thought I'd get it before Ronn! did.)

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Mar 5, 2008, at 9:07 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:

> On 5 Mar 2008 at 12:23, William T Goodall wrote:
>
>>> Others might argue that "the doors of perception were
>>> cleansed", letting one see another level of reality that
>>> was always there.
>>
>> Hallucinations are just the brain running wonky, not 'another level  
>> of
>> reality'.
>
> Prove you're not hallucinating your life, and you're not just a brain
> in a jar :) (The number of contradictions in this world? Jar is a
> shitload simpler)

He doesn't have to, Andrew. It's those who claim their experiences --  
which run contrary to observable, verifiable and apparently valid  
reality -- that must prove *their* livers are not the illusion.

As to brain in a jar: Occam would have something to say to you. The  
more parsimonious explanation is that the reality we appear to  
experience is valid, rather than the idea that this reality is an  
illusion covering a larger, more bizarre reality. That's just not  
parsimonious. Impossible? no. Unlikely? extremely.

What "contradictions", by the way, can you enumerate which make it "a  
shitload simpler" to believe we're brains in a jar?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:28 PM, David Hobby wrote:

> William T Goodall wrote:
> ...
>> High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God
>
> William--
>
> That doesn't make the experience more or less real, though.

Objectively, it makes the experience worthless, and certainly does  
nothing to back up the idea of an absolute god whose rules are  
universally applicable.

To claim on one hand that some kind of god exists who is objectively,  
personally present in every life -- while on the other hand asserting  
that hallucinogens influencing the minds of "prophets" are somehow  
irrelevant in reference to those assertions -- is to fall into the  
disingenuous offense that makes religion so damned unpalatable to  
rationalists.

To be fair, though, William: This researcher has absolutely no more  
evidence to back up his claims' factuality than Moses did. It's  
probably safest to concede that both Moses and Shanon are equally  
brimful of shit.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Let us all pause for 2d8 seconds

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Gary Gygax has died...


Seems he biffed his saving throw.

[Odd aside: The person who first told me this is my Tai Chi  
instructor. The very last person ever whom I'd imagine would be aware  
of anything D&D or fantasy game related. Go fig.]


--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Godliness

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Russell Chapman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm - that would be "Stones of Significance" by our esteemed Dr  
>> Brin...
>>
>> Sorry for straying on-topic maru
>
> How DARE you!  :-)

Yeah. Next time change the subject line, okay? Sheesh!

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Godliness

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> Warren  wrote:
>> There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods.
>>
>> (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.)
>
> Inhabited planets?  Do they the gods get the planets when they're
> undeveloped and tend them like gardens?  How are they dolled out?

Well, see, it's like this.

God has a wife, and he and she engage in a kind of spiritual  
reproductive process which causes the birth of spirit children. These  
spirit children are born into mortal bodies and live out their lives  
on their god-parents' world. When they die, assuming they've kept in  
alignment with the deific rules, they will be reunited with their  
terrestrial spouses, whereupon they will be given their own planets.  
They'll then engage in the same cycle.

Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are  
"sealed" (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse  
ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own  
world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies.

Presumably, therefore, god and his wife came into this planet via a  
similar means. The reason, BTW, that you and I and the rest of us  
don't remember being spirit children and living in heaven before  
coming to Earth is we pass through a "veil of forgetfulness", which  
prevents our having absolute knowledge -- which would interfere with  
our free agency. Life on Earth is a kind of test, and you have the  
possibility to screw up (sin), though under LDS doctrine it's pretty  
hard, at least, to get yourself thrown into hell. God is cast as  
considerably more forgiving and tolerant than you typically find in  
ultra-right-wing systems. (Though he's still quite anti-gay. You can't  
be a "practicing" homosexual* in the LDS faith.)



* Expert homosexuals, on the other hand, are welcome.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Godliness

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are  
> religious
> consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time
> something similar to what we are today?

When I was religious, that was the only possibility that eventually  
ended up making sense to me. And, of course, the LDS view isn't the  
only one -- Hinduism has had it for millennia. (Depending on the  
meritorious karma you've accumulated you can easily be reincarnated as  
a god in a future life.)

> And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the  
> possibility
> that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life  
> forms
> that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods?

Yes, but those wouldn't be "god" as defined by the world's major  
deistic systems -- i.e., they would not have created the universe and  
everything in it.

I'd be quite surprised if we lived in an otherwise sterile universe,  
actually; and given the age of the cosmos positing an ultra-advanced  
godlike civilization is no more mad than positing a civilization that  
hasn't yet got out of its equivalent of the bronze age. But those  
advanced civilizations still don't qualify as the gods of the old  
testament, the Koran or the Vedas.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Godliness

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> Ronn!
>> You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;):
>>
>> 
>>
> I made no claim concerning originality.
>
> from the website:
>
> "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be
>
> So why would there only be one?  Or is there just one that's in  
> charge?

There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods.

(That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.)

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 23, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Charlie Bell  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but fairly traditional on Brin-L, some of the thread creep here
>> has been pretty impressive over the years.
>
>
> Hey!  No name-calling.  I am NOT a thread creep!

Yeah, I was going to correct Charlie that "the thread creepS here HAVE  
been pretty impressive" but was afraid of being accused of grammar  
Nazihood, which is something to be avoided, for the love of Godwin.

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Topics (was Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

>
> On 23 Feb 2008, at 06:10, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see you go for a week's worth of posts without once
>> mentioning religion. Think you could manage that kind of a challenge?

> Religion is probably the most innocuous topic for me to bring up.

Then bring up nothing at all for a while.

Silence is Golden Maru.

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?

[Warren Ockrassa]

== Traffic Woes and Light Derailments ==
== A Drama in Two Acts==

==

Act the First: Two PERSONS and a GODBOY in an elevator.

Person 1: The other day I was stuck in traffic for nearly two hours.  
Sheesh!
Person 2: Yeah, it's a real nightmare since the construction began.
GodBoy: When I'm stuck in traffic I like to pray to Jesus!
Person 1: I wonder if the plans they have for light rail will help.
Person 2: Can you imagine the construction issues with *that*?
GodBoy: I can't wait for light rail! Then I'll be able to sit and read  
the Bible instead of having to drive!
Person 1: Actually I'd like to see more bike paths.
Person 2: No joke! Less traffic congestion, less pollution, and a  
healthier population. Wins all around.
GodBoy: When I ride my bike I listen to ChristGasm on my iPod!
Person 1: Hey, man, do you have to turn everything we talk about into  
some kind of God or Jesus issue?
Person 2: Yeah. This one-track-mind thing of yours gets pretty fuckin'  
old. It's like religion has fried your capacity to carry on a rational  
discussion about anything else.
GodBoy: ...I'm going to pray for you.

[Exit.]

Act the Second: Two PERSONS and an ATHEIST in an elevator.

Person 1: The other day I was stuck in traffic for nearly two hours.  
Sheesh!
Person 2: Yeah, it's a real nightmare since the construction began.
Atheist: They're just widening to road so the Jesus freaks can get to  
church more quickly.
Person 1: I wonder if the plans they have for light rail will help.
Person 2: Can you imagine the construction issues with *that*?
Atheist: Can you imagine light rail filled with religious lunatics all  
spouting off about their god?
Person 1: Actually I'd like to see more bike paths.
Person 2: No joke! Less traffic congestion, less pollution, and a  
healthier population. Wins all around.
Atheist: The thing I hate about bikes is all the damned Mormon  
missionaries. Sheesh!
Person 1: Hey, man, do you have to turn everything we talk about into  
some kind of God or Jesus issue?
Person 2: Yeah. This one-track-mind thing of yours gets pretty fuckin'  
old. It's like religion has fried your capacity to carry on a rational  
discussion about anything else.
Atheist: ...At least I don't believe in god.

[Exeunt. Curtain.]

==

Speaking as one atheist to another, William, seriously: You need to  
ease off. You're simply not helping the cause any more than if you  
were out tracting houses with the rest of the JWs at 7 AM on Saturday.

I'd like to see you go for a week's worth of posts without once  
mentioning religion. Think you could manage that kind of a challenge?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Wal-Mart and more

[Warren Ockrassa]

l way to run a  
business, but it is an absolutely unacceptable way to structure a  
society. And in a society that is increasingly privatizing, that's  
something of grave concern.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Per capita cost/value of infrastructure?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:07 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> There's an email circulating on the net regarding $250 billion to  
> rebuild
> New Orleans, which one of Louisiana's senators apparently is asking  
> for (I
> didn't check that fact).

Cites might be helpful to see if (1) there is in fact such a senator;  
and (2) s/he is in fact asking for this money now (as opposed to  
having done so in, say, 2006).

> The email suggests that this is an obvious waste
> of taxpayer money, since it comes to about a half million dollar per
> resident.  Aside from questions about this particular number (was  
> that for
> the current or pre-Katrina population, for example)...

Half a million dollars per resident would assume 50,000 residents, for  
what that's worth. As for wastes of taxpayer money, one wonders what  
the response is to Iraq.

> I haven't been able
> to find any particularly good figures on the actual per capita value  
> of
> public infrastructure or the cost of replacing it.

Well, some of that would depend on the level of infrastructure -- that  
is, interstates would involve a different tax base and quantity than,  
say, a local hospital or shelter; or a county facility or state  
highway system that happens to pass through the city.

> Of course, one could argue that if the market sees efficiency in  
> rebuilding
> New Orleans, government can just get out of the way and it'll  
> happen.  ;-)

It hasn't so far.

My personal objection to rebuilding New Orleans is that it's going to  
get hit again. It's below sea level. Eventually it will be inundated,  
and no amount of money poured into it today -- or next year, or in  
2015 -- will change that fact.

It might make more sense to simply decide which buildings we  
absolutely must keep due to their historical importance, move them to  
high solid ground, help the remaining citizens relocate and get  
established in new locations, and let the sea in.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Wal-Mart and more

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Dan M wrote:

> You posted to state that a significant fraction of my posts are rude  
> because
> they are long.

And you wonder why few people seem to want to engage you in  
intelligent, polite discourse?

Seriously, Dan -- arguing in good faith, avoiding strawmanning and ad  
hominem, and staying clear of pedantic browbeating are going to get  
you considerably more favorable replies than the tone I've seen from  
you in this most recent set of threads.

The sense I get (since you did originally ask) is that you *must* be  
right at all costs, damn the opposition -- and, since they're wrong  
anyway, they can be ignored. This might not be how you intend to come  
off onscreen, but that's how it reads to me at least.

If it's so bloody important that it's worth discussing, you could at  
least concede you might not be entirely correct -- and whether you are  
or not, why is it so all-fired important to be right 100 percent of  
the time on *an internet discussion maillist*?

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Wal-Mart and more

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 18, 2008, at 6:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on  
> things
> that employ the second half.  That is _the_ process that created an
> American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed  
> their
> families.

Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then?

-- \/\/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: In case I go silent . . .

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> at first I thought that it was
> coming from outside, maybe the neighbor breaking
> up some limbs for disposal.

Good lord, you live next to a mafia hit man?

I've had the same kinds of symptoms, prior to switching to LCD land at  
home. (Still use CRTs at work for the higher quality images.) You'll  
need to replace your display, probably -- my experience is that  
voltage shorts aren't in the practice of healing themselves.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Dave Land wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, I got a stack dump at the above link.  Too much of an in-joke
>>> for me.  Could you explain what is so funny about the error for  
>>> those
>>> of us who are obviously out-joked?
>>
>> Meta:
>>
>> <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/the_pinkoski_files.php>
>
>
> The best comment in this thread:
>
> If there are PYGMIES + DWARFS, then why are there still humans?

If there are humans, then why are there still right wing  
fundamentalist nincompoops?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Okay, I got a stack dump at the above link.  Too much of an in-joke
> for me.  Could you explain what is so funny about the error for those
> of us who are obviously out-joked?


Meta:

<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/the_pinkoski_files.php>

Specific reference:

<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/if_you_doubt_this_is_possible.php 
 >

The joke sort of spun off from there and recurs cyclically, generally  
when some religidiot makes an inane argument about evolution or biology.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:08 AM, Charlie Bell wrote:

> On 23/01/2008, at 11:46 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>>
>> Really? Huh. So why baptism? And ... and why are there PYGMIES +
>> DWARFS?
>
> *chuckle* That's become one of my favourite injokes.

Used sparingly, it's a fun reference -- but like "Don't tase me, bro!"  
it's prone to overuse.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fundamentalist Wisdom

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:59 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

> http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1
>
> "No, everyone is born Christian.

Really? Huh. So why baptism? And ... and why are there PYGMIES + DWARFS?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Young Earth Math?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 17, 2008, at 8:01 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> (I find abject denial to be funny, does that make me a bad person?)

No. NO. NO, DAMMIT, NO!

-- \/\/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Young Earth Math?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

> So a lot of fundies are using the nails of faith to keep the closet
> door shut?

Could be they're either (1) looking for ways to strengthen themselves  
against their "sinful urges"; or (2) miserable teens trying to self- 
loathe into heterosexuality; or (3) perverted youth pastors trying to  
figure out what percentage of their summer-camp flock might be  
amenable to a little late-night hike "down by the riverside", if you  
know what I mean.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Weekly Chat Reminder

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 16, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:

> On Jan 16, 2008 1:03 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>>
>> The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over nine
>> years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set
>> up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established
>> a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat
>> technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but
>> the chat goes on... and we want more recruits!
>
> I dropped by, and nobody was home.  How sad :-(

It's religion's fault.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Doomed

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:

> Well, going North? Can't really close the border. Long border and all
> that.

I bet 30+ million Canadians, faced with the prospect of being overrun  
by SUV-driving, Starbucks-sucking weekend lib'rul Yanks,* would damned  
well find a way to close the border pretty fast.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/



* No suggestion about correspondents here is express or implied.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What are you doing here?": man asks wife at brothel

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

> On 10 Jan 2008, at 05:02, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>>
>> If you're going to be pathologically insulting to religion, at least
>> put some effort into it next time.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, I'll try harder in future.

Please do; it's the least you can do for your readers.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What are you doing here?": man asks wife at brothel

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL0910395120080109?rpc=64
>
> "WARSAW (Reuters) - A Polish man got the shock of his life when he
> visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment's
> employees.

Yeah, one of the first things I wondered when I saw that story was  
whether she did things with the clientele that she refused to do with  
her husband. The other thing I wondered was who would file for divorce  
first, and who would ultimately be granted it.

> And I bet they are both Catholics too. So much for religion. Again.

Really, William, that's disappointing. If they were Catholic she  
couldn't work in a brothel (not very long anyway), since she'd be  
forbidden to use birth control; and he probably wouldn't have married  
anyway, favoring a life in the priesthood groping choirboys.

If you're going to be pathologically insulting to religion, at least  
put some effort into it next time.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Zen Time Travel

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> On 1/9/2008 7:40:25 PM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> The idling mind is seen in Buddhist
>> psychology
>> to be absolutely packed full of discursive thought, virtually all of
>> which is concerned either with reliving the past or anticipating the
>> future.
>>
> My understanding, introspective and otherwise, is that human brains
> model one's experiences and potential outcomes pretty much constantly.

There's a difference between modeling and playing alternatives ("If  
I'd only said..." or "The next time he tries that I'll..." and so on).  
Modeling or planning is certainly useful -- to a point -- but getting  
caught up in different versions of the narrative might not be as useful.

> The only time I seem to drop out of this mode is when I have to focus
> on something immediate such as a conversation.

Yes, concentration on a single point is difficult. And in  
conversations, we're planning out our replies at least as much as  
we're listening to what's being said.

> Even when I am working I
> seem to be modeling what I am working on and only stop to perform
> individual tasks.

Which, when you think about it, is almost saying that you're not  
actually doing what you're doing. :)



--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On the American Standard front.....

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

>
> On 1/9/2008 7:45:00 PM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>>
>>> Some funny toilets and environs...
>>>
>>> http://madhattannights.com/the-worlds-funniest-bathrooms/
>>
>> That first one is not funny at all.
>>
> Kind of makes pissing an adventure.

Xtreme urination? Or just circumcision with an attitude?

> Off With Their Heads! Maru

Indeed.


--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On the American Standard front.....

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> Some funny toilets and environs...
>
> http://madhattannights.com/the-worlds-funniest-bathrooms/

That first one is not funny at all.



--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Zen Time Travel

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Jan 9, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> An interesting little article about what you are doing when you are
> doing nothing.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580364,00.html

This isn't Zen, actually, which really *is* about doing nothing, and  
the "time travel" aspect of the brain is actually extremely well-known  
to Buddhist meditators. The idling mind is seen in Buddhist psychology  
to be absolutely packed full of discursive thought, virtually all of  
which is concerned either with reliving the past or anticipating the  
future.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Yet another sort of problem with Wal-Mart

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 28, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:

> The MP3 video player a man bought for his 10-year-old daughter  
> wasn't new,
> it was a return, and it was loaded with porn.

Ha! At least he got an MP3 player. My first 30 GB iPod purchase from  
Wal-Mart turned out to be several batteries and some gum:

<http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/03/24/why-does-apple-hate- 
fags/>

I didn't need a lawyer and wonder why this man is getting one, apart  
from the obvious reason.*

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/



* Free money.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: A Family Tragedy

[Warren Ockrassa]

Sympathies and condolences, for what they're worth.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What is the Monkeysphere?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
>
> Any article that talks about monkeys and the movie They Live is sure
> to get my attention

I read the Cracked piece last week and thought it raised some  
interesting points, despite its author's being well outside my own  
monkeysphere and therefore worthy of little more than flung poo.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Turning religion on and off

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

> A drug to cure those afflicted with religion might not be far off!

Yes, because sexual orientation and religion/atheism have so much in  
common, don't they? I mean, anything that seems even slightly outre  
must be some kind of disorder that needs to be cured, according to  
someone -- anyone -- possibly even something as facile and malleable  
as social whim.

Funny how the history of the DSM seems to be so relevant all of a  
sudden.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Pratchett has Alzheimer's

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 12, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote:

> http://www.paulkidby.com/news/index.html

So which part of this is the "intelligence", and which the "design"?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Dave Land wrote:

> They're "Santa Claws", with which he holds the reins of his magical
> sleigh!

Slay. SLAY!

Sheesh indeed!

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

>> It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your
>> statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to  
>> saying
>> that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish,
>> all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not  
>> true.
>
>
> Agreed.

What, no "Satan's prawn" reference here? Or was that just too obvious?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> At 08:30 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>>> At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil,
>>>>> stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the
>>>>> argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to
>>>> something new?
>>>
>>> I thought it was a reference to "satan's prawns":  seafood prepared
>>> with an extra-hot spicy coating . . .
>>
>> This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n.
>>
>> I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want
>> to know.
>
> I suspect, however, that if your curiosity ever gets the better of
> you entering that term into a (non-net-nannied) search engine would
> turn something up . . .

Very likely.

Which is why I'm not even going to try. Hysterical blindness is not  
something I want to experience.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
>>
>>> The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil,
>>> stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the
>>> argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid.
>>
>> Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to  
>> something new?
>
> I thought it was a reference to "satan's prawns":  seafood prepared
> with an extra-hot spicy coating . . .

This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n.

I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want  
to know.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> If you're thinking of "stupid" as meaning "inclined to mental  
>> laziness",
>> I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of "stupid" is
>> (more or less) "totally incapable of comprehending something". I  
>> don't
>> believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most  
>> people fit
>> that definition of stupid.
>
> I have several categories for people who don't have given  
> information or
> knowledge:
>
> 1)  Ignorant (but probably willing to learn, or at least not  
> rejecting the
> information)
>
> 2)  Willfully ignorant (actively rejecting the information)
>
> 3)  Stupid
>
> Ignorance can be "cured" with information.  Stupidity can't.  Willful
> ignorance is the worst, IMO.  Brittle dogmatism leads to willful  
> ignorance
> in a number of cases, hence is a very negative thing.

I like the categories. Willful ignorance is inarguably the worst.  
Stubbornness in general is frustrating, but when it's combined with  
wealth and/or power, and particularly with willful ignorance, the  
combination is much more than annoying; it can be actively,  
aggressively dangerous.

For instance, CNN reported today that Bush was told back in August  
that Iran had dismantled its nuke program -- yet he continued pushing  
the panic button and beating the war drum, *exactly as he did with  
Iraq*. And yet no one is commenting on the obvious inability he has to  
either (1) learn from history; or (2) give a shit.*

Of course it goes both ways -- Huckabee's rising in popularity despite  
the fact he's clearly an even more deranged, fundamentalist wacko than  
Bush. Despite the last seven ghastly years, there are people in the US  
who want even *more* of this kind of garbage.

And no, you can't fix stupid. ;)

==

* Either choice works, and of course it doesn't have to be either/or.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:54 PM, jon louis mann wrote:

>  in that sense stupid is not only relative, but its definition  
> depends on what one chooses to believe to be true knowledge.   
> perhaps how you determine what is truth is genuine wisdom.

Or at least one aspect of it, yeah, maybe.

> one who chooses to remain ignorant about arguments that logically  
> refute their belief system may instead excercise their consider  
> intellect to rationalize their belief just as newton tried to  
> resolve religion with science to keep the church off his back.

I'm not convinced he was doing it to avoid evangelical persecution.  
There appears to have been a little too much zealotry in his pursuit  
to make it seem entirely like a cover story.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:

> Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>>
>>> Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive
>>> drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are
>>> more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction.
>>
>> This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know
>> what evidence you have to support either one of them,
>>
> Evidence? None, except accumulated experience that comes with
> old age.

Which can be translated as curmdgeonhood. ;)

>> and more
>> particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I
>> mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are  
>> doing
>> a post hoc analysis to support it.
>>
> Which decision?

That people are stupid. The argument you offered suggests you decided  
that people are stupid, and were doing an after-the-fact expansion on  
the point of view. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that  
the structure of what you wrote seemed to be justifying a conclusion  
rather than building a foundation for it.

>> It might help to define what you mean by "stupid", but what I'm
>> reading here could be inverted as this:
>>
> Stupid = not able to think clearly. People who believe that
> a fairy may turn 2 + 2 into fish.

Oh, that's not stupid; it's surrealism! :D

More seriously, though, even the term "not able to think clearly"  
doesn't necessarily indicate much about a given person's mind or  
mental faculties. Many people are not able to think clearly when  
they're angry, for instance, which renders temporary stupidity; as  
Julia pointed out some *choose* not to think clearly, which tends to  
lead others into ... anger. Some people don't have the tools to think  
clearly but that's only because they lack the training; others are  
genuinely organically dysfunctional and blameless about their  
inability to think clearly.

>> And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for
>> instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists,
>> anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid
>> for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns  
>> to
>> strict Biblical interpretation.
>>
> Ah, the relativity of evaluation...

Yes, that's correct. Were you rebutting the validity of the above?

>> And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth
>> creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define
>> physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal
>> interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or
>> brilliant?
>>
> At that time? He was extremely brilliant! Not being a literal  
> interpreter
> of the Bible had dangerous consequences those times, like having his
> brain physically separated from his heart by more than 2 meters.

During the Enlightenment? Not so much so. Inventing physics from  
nothing was a heck of an achievement, but the literalism he tried to  
justify was much more than simply a hobby or something he was doing to  
save face. He was genuinely committed to proving the literal truth of  
the Bible.

>> If you're thinking of "stupid" as meaning "inclined to mental
>> laziness", I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of
>> "stupid" is (more or less) "totally incapable of comprehending
>> something". I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't
>> believe most people fit that definition of stupid.
>>
> Maybe everybody is totally incapable of comprehending something -
> after all, human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human
> brains :-)

Yeah, you're probably right that everyone is probably guaranteed to be  
incapable of total comprehension of *something*; I was being a little  
narrower in intent, though, as in "Totally incapable of comprehending  
X," where X is something presumably simple to grasp, such as number  
lines or the dangers of lighting firecrackers and swallowing them.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:45 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:

> Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>>
>>> (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves
>>> will opt for the most stupid and evil choices
>>
>> No. It's a mischaracterization -- and unfair -- to assert that most
>> people are stupid. Most people are not stupid. They make the best
>> operational decisions they can given the information available to
>> them. If most people were stupid, our species would have been extinct
>> long ago.
>>
> Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive
> drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are
> more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction.

This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know  
what evidence you have to support either one of them, and more  
particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I  
mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are doing  
a post hoc analysis to support it.

It might help to define what you mean by "stupid", but what I'm  
reading here could be inverted as this:

"Because many people tend to be followers rather than leaders, and  
because many people prefer the comfort of feeling part of a group to  
the relative discomfort of being "trend-setters", most people tend to  
align with a leader of their choice. This can lead to destructive,  
mindless behavior and inculcate intellectual laziness, which can often  
be characterized as rank stupidity."

That's not the same thing as saying that most people are stupid, but  
it might be a middle ground that's more conducive to productive  
discussion regarding what to actually *do* about it.

And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for  
instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists,  
anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid  
for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to  
strict Biblical interpretation.

And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth  
creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define  
physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal  
interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or  
brilliant?

Or consider what might happen if I were to begin holding forth on the  
subject of opera, about which I know essentially nothing. To an  
aficionado I'd sure as hell look plenty stupid, but it would  
(probably) be a mistake to characterize me as being so, instead of  
simply labeling me a loudmouthed ignoramus on the topic.

The point is that we might be more inclined to consider those who are  
not part of our in-crowd as being stupid simply because they aren't  
part of our in-crowd, but as with the case of Newton, it seems unwise  
to apply one label to all members of a clade.

If you're thinking of "stupid" as meaning "inclined to mental  
laziness", I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of  
"stupid" is (more or less) "totally incapable of comprehending  
something". I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't  
believe most people fit that definition of stupid.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

>
> On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:55, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and
>>> others.
>>> Hence religion is evil.
>>
>> No more nor less so than any other institution.
>
> Other institutions don't necessarily require people to believe untrue
> things.

Some religions require that, yes. That does not justify tarring the  
entire field with the same brush.

The UU church, for instance, doesn't particularly have any articles of  
faith (which could be one reason membership* numbers seem so low) and  
doesn't particularly care if you ascribe to any given belief system.

Furthermore there are ample cases of individuals being motivated to  
perform good deeds as a direct result of religious teachings, which is  
pretty much inarguable proof that the statement "religion is evil" is  
simply not correct.

It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your  
statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying  
that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish,  
all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true.

==

* I originally mistyped that as "memebership". Rather Freudian- 
slippish of me.


--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:22 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> For example, how does the anthropic principle (which I suspect the  
> math of
> complexity hints at) fit into this discussion?  Intuitively, I'm  
> tempted to
> believe that if Darwinism was all there is, we wouldn't be here to  
> observe
> the universe.  But how can one prove the anthropic principle without  
> a few
> other universes available as examples?

Anthropic principle aside, sexual selection might go a pretty decent  
way toward explaining why we have such vastly oversized brains with  
which to observe the universe, make deductions and inferences about  
it, and contemplate a nice cup of gyokuro tea.

Sexual selection in birds, for instance, appears to be the "reason"  
for a peacock's tail; an analogous mechanism in primates might have  
led to a positive feedback loop that resulted in a ludicrously  
disproportionate enlarging of the brain.

So, alas, size might matter after all.

BTW, are you referring to the strong or weak anthropic model?

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:10 PM, hkhenson wrote:

[long snip]

> Is this model logical enough for you?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting as hell.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:

> Facts:
>
> (1) Most religions tell people to obey the higher authorities
> and don't question them.

Yes.

> (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves
> will opt for the most stupid and evil choices

No. It's a mischaracterization -- and unfair -- to assert that most  
people are stupid. Most people are not stupid. They make the best  
operational decisions they can given the information available to  
them. If most people were stupid, our species would have been extinct  
long ago.

What many people might be is unused to the processes involved in  
rigorous logical thinking, which leaves them with little more than  
"gut" or instinct responses. In the wild, this is sensible. A reaction  
of fear toward a threat is a positive survival trait. In a society,  
not so much, because the reaction might be a fear to a *perceived*  
threat rather than an actual one. It takes training to respond with  
reason, and that is a training many people lack.

To this unfamiliarity with reason we can add inadequate or  
insufficient information, which might be the result of willful  
stupidity or willful ignorance (in some cases I believe that's a valid  
charge to level); but I think many of us here can recall a time when  
we made poor choices -- or what are retrospectively poor choices --  
because we simply did not have the information then that's available  
to us now.

Does that mean we were stupid then, or that we just weren't adequately  
supplied wit the tools we needed to make more appropriate decisions?

And what does that suggest about where any of us might be in ten  
years' time?

> Corollary:
>
> Religion is not evil, because it prevents most people from being
> evil.

My suggestion is that religion is neither inherently good nor evil,  
but is actually an institution of abstractions that are more or less  
applied to the world by the religion's adherents. To the extent those  
abstractions comment on what seems to be reality, we can easily test  
to see if they make sense; if not, they should be discarded.

To the extent that the abstractions apply to behavior, morés and  
social customs, we should probably remember that they're actually  
social artifacts themselves and therefore almost certain to change  
over time as things fall into or out of vogue.

Where I see a big problem is when we try to take the latter type of  
declarations and behave as though they are incontrovertible, bedrock  
Truths. That's the part that can lead to evil behavior.


--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

>
> On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote:
>
>> Nick said:
>>
>>> I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about
>>> science
>>> and good science.  The country that includes a lot of skeptics about
>>> science
>>> is the same country that excels in science.  Therefore, one may leap
>>> to the
>>> conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science.
>>
>> It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in
>> evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying "we don't
>> think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for
>> the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in
>> it even though there are no plausible alternatives" but rather "we
>> don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy
>> stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence
>> for them!" That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity.
>
> And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others.
> Hence religion is evil.

No more nor less so than any other institution. The above sentence  
just doesn't qualify as a rebuttal to (for instance) the material I  
posted earlier. It's not an argument, and as declarations go, it's not  
even particularly valid.


--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> And by the way, I left you an opening with the hospital metaphor,  
> but you
> didn't grab it.  There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are  
> caused by
> the healer.  I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion,  
> but just
> as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up
> infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down
> churches.  Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion.

To me, there's a difference between hospitals and churches, though;  
hospitals are places where the rules and results of science-based  
research are applied. By and large it seems to me that churches aren't  
of that nature.

So looking at this from the perspective of symptomology, is it  
worthwhile to consider the possibility that religion itself isn't  
particularly responsible for either the good or harm its practitioners  
do, but that it's merely an available thing to point to as  
justification for any particular deed?

Put another way, might it follow that any religion can be used to  
justify both good and evil actions, and therefore the presence (or  
lack) of religion is not actually relevant?

That doesn't quite ring true to me -- possibly religion can act as a  
catalyst toward good or evil deeds, something that motivates further  
along a given path of behavior; but it doesn't make rational sense (to  
me) to claim religion is itself intrinsically evil when it has, in  
fact, been a tool for good as well over the millennia.

There's something else at work here, it seems. William mentioned the  
demi-religious nature of some ideologies, even those officially  
atheist. This suggests both the will to religion and the will to using  
an institution to justify any particular action (good or evil) goes  
deeper than the existence of those institutions.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

>
> On 4 Dec 2007, at 01:12, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>
>>> In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me
>>> offer
>>> this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the
>>> subject) come
>>> up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur?  If
>>> we're
>>> going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how
>>> about if
>>> we do so in a reasonably logical manner?  It only seems fitting.
>>
>> If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization
>> of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious
>> fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control
>> various factions.
>>
>
> Political ideologies are often matters of faith too though. That's why
> politicians ignore scientific studies that contradict their beliefs.

I can't disagree with that. IIRC the "grand experiment" of American  
democracy was originally regarded as an insanely optimistic leap of  
faith in many other parts of the world. However the deliberate co- 
opting of faith by those in power is not new; it's how power  
structures were once built, as with pharaohs and Sun Kings and so on.

The trick seems to be to attempt a disconnect between faith (of any  
kind) and behavior in the "real" world. And it seems to go in cycles.  
There didn't seem to be much antiscientific outcry, for instance, in  
the late 1950s when Sputnik I was launched and the US realized it  
needed to push science a LOT more heavily if it wanted to keep up with  
the next generation of USSR-based citizens.

(On Plan59 recently I saw a posting of a Christmas card from the 1960s  
that read "Season's Greetings"; no one at the time was protesting that  
this represented a "war on Christmas".)

> As I have pointed out before political cults like Nazism and Marxism
> are quasi-religious in nature.

Naziism was overtly religious. The movement was deeply enmeshed with  
Norse mythology. Marxism borrowed from the strong authoritarian model  
of fundamentalist religion to enforce obedience and conformity, as you  
suggest here. It's a little like attending AA meetings and trading  
your addiction to booze for an addiction to cigarettes and coffee and,  
of course, the 12 steps.

> Religion doesn't have to be about the
> supernatural - one of the world's major religions (Confucianism) is
> actually based on a handbook for civil servants.

There's an interesting slice of history I didn't know about; but  
Confucianism's roots haven't kept it from being about the supernatural  
anyway. The human capacity for short-circuiting logic is really rather  
breathtaking in its scope and endurance.

That said, religion itself doesn't seem to my mind to be a source of  
evil so much as a symptom of ignorance (to the extent that blind faith  
and unthinking adherence are manifest, as opposed to an attempt at  
balance or recognition of the need for rational grounding), which  
isn't the same thing -- however, ignorance can definitely produce  
actions of stunning evil.

This shouldn't be read as an attempt at appeasement. I'm quite  
comfortable with my atheism and would love to see it spread. I'm just  
trying to see if there's a root cause that goes deeper than the  
manifestations we're seeing in religion, since it makes more sense --  
I think -- to find the source and attack that rather than the  
institutions it creates.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me  
> offer
> this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the  
> subject) come
> up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur?  If  
> we're
> going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how  
> about if
> we do so in a reasonably logical manner?  It only seems fitting.

If I understand the question properly, examples of the politicization  
of religion might fit the bill. There are are times when religious  
fervor has been manipulated as a tool by those in power to control  
various factions.

There are clearly inimical examples of this too obvious to bear  
mentioning, but there are other cases where it's considerably more  
subtle, such as the successful demonization of nonheterosexuals; or  
the ongoing war on pornography waged by strange bedfellows indeed in  
the form of extreme right-wing fundamentalists and feminists (of which  
the latter raises better concerns about porn, IMO, than simply  
pointing to the "forbidden" status of onanism).

And, of course, when manipulation teams up with anti-intellectualism,  
you have scientists being booted from their education posts for daring  
to suggest that the religious perspective might be, at best,  
questionable.

To me these are all examples of shades of evil, but it would be a  
mistake (I think) to lay the blame wholly at the feet of religion.  
It's just a convenient handle to grab if you're after power and  
control, because so many are trained to respond unthinkingly to it.



--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Probably because they watch the evening news where most of the people
> they see in the stories behave like they follow the devil or like
> non-GEICO cavemen . . .

Or possibly they don't believe there's a difference.




--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: To Restore Democracy: First Abolish Corporate Personhood

[Warren Ockrassa]

How interesting. I've been thinking something similar lately.

On Dec 1, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> Thus, Paine and others of the Revolutionary Era reasoned, any
> institution made up by and of humans - from governments to churches to
> corporations - must be subordinate to individual living people in
> terms of the rights and powers held by the institution.
>
>
>
> http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183&Itemid=38&mosmsg=Thanks%20for%20your%20vote
>  
> !
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28xduw



--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Ahh. Mira.

[Warren Ockrassa]

She was my cat, you see. I named her after the star.

<http://www.nightwares.com/mira/>

And now, here she is, ever so pretty as she always knew she was,  
commanding worldwide attention.

<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/16/ 
giant_star_mira_leaves_gifts/>

My sweet, purry little girl.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brineller quoted in New York Times

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 7, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:

> I think what Warren meant was that it was a good compliment to Chelsea
> and a bit of a backhand against her dad at the same time.  That's
> certainly how I interpreted it.

More or less, yeah. It was a compliment, sure; but it was also a dig. 
And there's a certain amount of admiration implied too. ;)


--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: After Midnight

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Doug wrote:

> Their lives are way too short, aren't they?
>
> I'm very sorry for your loss, Ronn!

Today Chris Clarke passed the six-month anniversary of the death of his 
beloved dog, Zeke.

He lit a candle for him. Some of us did the same, in our way.

<http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/halb_yahrzeit/>

Those who say "it's just a cat" or "it's just a dog" just won't 
understand.

<http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/03/05/no-euthanasia-after-all/>
<http://www.nightwares.com/mira/>

HP Lovecraft wrote of a place called Ulthar, a land wherein it was 
forbidden to kill a cat, because they were sweet companions and they 
guided the souls of travelers through the dark, cold spaces inhabited 
by the Elder Ones.

And Hart Crane, in "Chaplinesque", wrote of love's sweetness in the 
nature of purring innocence.

> We make our meek adjustments,
> Contented with such random consolations
> As the wind deposits
> In slithered and too ample pockets.
>
> For we can still love the world, who find
> A famished kitten on the step, and know
> Recesses for it from the fury of the street,
> Or warm torn elbow coverts.
>
> We will sidestep, and to the final smirk
> Dally the doom of that inevitable thumb
> That slowly chafes its puckered index toward us,
> Facing the dull squint with what innocence
> And what surprise!
>
> And yet these fine collapses are not lies
> More than the pirouettes of any pliant cane;
> Our obsequies are, in a way, no enterprise.
> We can evade you, and all else but the heart:
> What blame to us if the heart live on.
>
> The game enforces smirks; but we have seen
> The moon in lonely alleys make
> A grail of laughter of an empty ash can,
> And through all sound of gaiety and quest
> Have heard a kitten in the wilderness.

Never, ever "just a cat" or "just a dog".

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: After Midnight

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 2, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Tears Maru

Oh no. I know how that is. I know.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l