Excerpts From Unabomber's Manifesto (washingtonpost.com) Consider for example . . . freedom of the press. . . . The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media. . . . Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of those readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.
If he had just been peaceful and waited a couple of years, he could have started a blog.
I remember thinking that the book had a lot to say about integrity. There were a lot of character journeys where people did things that were true to themselves and were ostracized for it, and kept doing those things that were true to themselves anyway. There was also a big feeling of "Choose Your Own Destiny", of making your own way, of creating your own future. I don't equate that with republicanism or lack of compassion for others. I think there are four main ingredients to "making your own future":
The problem is that people create a relationship between two concepts:
Imagine someone who feels deficient in one of these areas, and improves it through a motivation of desperation. From a place of tightness. They might end up fixing their vulnerability in their estimation, but they are then in turn more likely to hate or judge against someone who has the same weakness (I'm using the terminology as they would see it). So I think that is why many people believe that someone who has "made good" is by definition not compassionate of those who aren't in the same place. Because it is often true. But, it really doesn't necessarily follow. I don't think the challenge is to make good - I think it's to make good without being desperate about it. It's desperation, not success, that clouds love and compassion.
Anyway, like I said, I haven't read Atlas Shrugged yet. For all I know it might have 400 pages of moralizing about how some lazy paraplegic doesn't get off his ass to run a marathon. And I have to admit I remember some pretty weird stuff stuff in The Foundation about the protagonist having an affair with someone who really didn't have his interests at heart, and he knew that, and got involved with her anyway. I don't know what that has to do with integrity. So this isn't really a defense of Rand. :)
mbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooo9999999999999999999 9999999 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So they called me today and said it wouldn't work because the referrals are supposed to start FROM the other party, and it is supposed to be in place before the server is online. I didn't know either of these things, of course, and argued as such. They stuck to their guns for a long time, saying that doing it differently opened them up to fraud. I just kept saying that the way I did it didn't have anything unreasonable about it. They also said it was incompatible with the other promotion I signed up for, but I was never exactly given the choice. They said it was supposed to start with the other guy, but I said, "well, he can't exactly sign me up - there's a point where I have to call and say to do it." And I also said that if it wasn't supposed to work from me calling the guy to do it, then I should have been told about the referral program as a selling point.
Eventually, somehow, they actually started agreeing with me. I must have been ono top of my game. We were flat-out arguing with each other for a while at the beginning - I even said that it felt like bait&switch. He paused at that... when he finally caved, he took the tack of using it to give himself license to scold me by implying they were going to start looking at me as a problem customer, which was pretty creepy. I think I got him to backpedal from that by letting him know I really did understand the business concerns and was glad that they were doing the right thing, since I had plenty of people around Portland I could recommend to use Rackspace. Then he got really friendly.
What I think really happened is that he probably had someone over his shoulder that was telling him which way to go.
I hate those sorts of things because you really are at the corporation's mercy. And it isn't so much determined by how right you are as by how well you argue your point. I know people that complain about getting easily flustered, and I think that I don't - but in this case I was pretty close to the blustery panic point. I hate that. They didn't turn around until the last minute.
So I signed up, confirmed how to do it, told my friend about it, who called them to say my name and mention the referral. I confirmed with my sales associate that it was in process.
Today they told me that my friend is actually signed up through a different "solutions program" (whatever that means) and that in those cases, I get no referral bonus - he still gets some, but not as much.
Any ideas on how to threaten them to get my money?
Kate, did I get it right? You are cool, right? I hate to go out on a limb here.
While I never took debate, I imagine that a lot of these techniques are taught in debate class - whether to recognize them in your opponent (which is good) or to actually use them against your opponent (argh!). A class I did take a long time ago, however, was Logic and Reasoning in my freshman year of college. We talked about all sorts of argument fallacies like ad hominem attacks (where you attack the person rather than their ideas), the straw man, the slippery slope, and one of my real pet peeves, the argument by analogy.
There just aren't many analogy-arguments that hold water. However, they are insanely popular. But when I was talking about this to a friend, I couldn't think of an example. But today I saw Minority Report. Minor spoilers follow.
In the previews it is established that there is a PreCrime Division in Minority Report. They know a murder is about to occur, and they arrest the perpetrator before it happens. There's a critic and they have a discussion that goes something like this:
"You're arresting someone for a crime they didn't commit."
"But they were GOING to commit it."
"But it's a paradox, isn't it? You kept it from occuring, which means it didn't happen, which means the prediction was wrong."
So, one of the characters takes a fragile ball, and rolls it towards the character across a counter. As it rolls off the edge, the critic catches it.
"Why did you catch it?"
"Because it was going to hit the ground."
"But it didn't hit the ground. Do you see? The fact that you stopped it from hitting the ground doesn't change the fact that it was very definitely going to. And you know it was going to."
I watched that scene and it worked for me. It really did feel like a good analogy. Of course, I was distracted by the drama of the movie. But later on I realized it was a perfect example of an analogy fallacy.
ceterus paribus is a latin term that means "other things being equal." That's the requirement one has to meet to structure a logical argument by analogy. This argument with the fragile ball equated the ball's path with destiny - perhaps that is fine. But it also equated the fragile ball with a person. It forced us to accept that the ball had every element in common with a human. And it doesn't.
The key difference I'm driving at here is "choice". Assuming for the sake of argument that there is destiny and future paths - we do know that an object, a ball, has no ability to choose its path. But regardless of whether we believe a person's path is predetermined, we don't know it for certain. The person might be able to choose.
So the person is not the same as the ball. The analogy does not work, and the argument falls apart. It was a fallacy, a flawed argument.
I love those because they are like puzzles. They are also really hard to recognize sometimes. Keep an eye out for 'em. :)
So as the day wore on I started asking more nutrition questions and she reminded me of all sorts of things, and I also got some refrigerated ground (milled) flax seed to mix into the shakes, and I'm thinking of getting some protein powder also. I usually hate breakfast because there isn't time and it makes my stomach feel rotten, but I think I may have found the perfect breakfast for me. With fruit every day now. Very cool.
I also got a new set of dishes and a very small crock pot. I was thinking of making my own veggie filler and then being able to make pot pies for myself.
Day One - Phil shows a clip of congressmen on the capitol steps reciting the pledge of allegiance and shouting "UNDER GOD!!!!!" when they got to that point. Just about everyone I know thinks that gesture was pretty firmly on the ridiculous side of the spectrum. But over on the hill, everyone Staunchly Defends it. Dictate your version of reality loudly enough and maybe others will believe it, I guess. Anyway, Phil had Pat Robertson on. After the clip was finished playing, Phil said, "Now Patrick... I mean, come on. I mean, COME ON!!!" He was blustering a bit but it was almost like he was trying to will himself through all the haze of the manufactured puffed-up-edness - he just basically leaped out there. Pat could easily have immediately started railing on Phil about his lack of Patriotism et cetera... and he certainly did pause... but then... he caved! He agreed that it was grandstanding. That was a breath of fresh air to me - not that it was so-called "liberal" thought being aired on national television, but that it was actually acknowledged and that Donahue was able to make it acknowledged.
Donahue also showed a demonstration put on by a group of Israelis and Palestinians together arranging a bunch of coffins on the streets in washington dc, draped by the israeli and palestinian flags. They weren't sectioned off, they were all mixed together. Phil made the point that it wasn't covered anywhere in the new york times.
And finally, he had a big feature devoted to The Patriot Act. The next day, tricky Phil brought a guy on the show who had been in jail for 30 years when the FBI knew he was innocent. He brought on a republican senator to apologize for it and agree that he deserved restitution from the state of MA. and that it was a travesty. And then Phil started to subtly refer to the dangers of not having a working system of due process, and the risk of it happened again, and the senator said, "Phil, I saw your show yesterday, so I know where you're going with this..." and in my mind instantly gave Phil's show even more credibility. In the context of this man's case he was forced to say that the patriot act DOES mean we are giving up some civil liberties (it's more often I've heard them just flat-out deny that), and he also defended the act by mentioning the fact that it had a sunset clause in it five years out - each time someone says that it makes it more difficult for them to support doing away with the sunset clause.
In other words, it's good that the show is airing. Maybe it'll help center things more over time.
One of my favorite concepts in anthropology is that of the polite fiction. It's something nobody believes, but we all pretend to because it makes life so much easier. My favorite example was of a Pygmy couple. Pygmy divorce involves quite literally breaking up the home: the couple tears apart their house (it's easy - the houses are made of leaves) and once it's down, the union is dissolved. One anthropologist was watching a long-married couple have a fight. It escalated until the wife threatened to leave, and the husband yelled something along the lines of "Fine!" and there was nothing the wife could do but start tearing down the house. She began tearing the roof off, clearly miserable. The husband looked wretched too, but at this point neither could back down without losing face and by now the whole village was watching. Finally, the husband called out the Pygmy equivalent of "You're right, honey! The roof is dirty! It'll look much better once we get those leaves washed!" The two of them started carrying leaves down to the river, soon with the help of the whole village, and then washed and rebuilt the whole roof. When the anthropologist later discreetly asked how often one washes the roof, everyone looked at him like he was a complete doofus.
If you have a browser that can load a java applet, you should be able to do this. The applet is named ZPlet and runs any of the hundreds of text adventure game files out there. Here's a game that I downloaded recently that I kind of like. It's a good intro to the medium because this particular one is pretty linear and doesn't actually allow the player to do too much - it only fakes the interactivity, which is part of the point of the plot (having to do with choices and free will). There are other games that allow you to do all sorts of things. This game is called Rameses. Click in the applet and start typing to play.
I think the applet is a bit buggy so you might want to type "restart" at the first prompt just to make sure you got everything. After that, the commands are usually 'verb noun'. You can also "talk to
Looks like it's working out okay though - I kept her posted as I was going and it looks like the extra hours will be approved.
Took her two years to agree with me... and then I shared my thoughts about that song with another friend today and he thought I was crazy too. There's something disturbing, I realize, about realizing one of your favorite songs is about something so dark. But I just did a google search and at least I found one other person who agrees with me.
Me: See what I'm working on - I inherited this code where he is just storing all the incoming variables into a hash and then he dynamically loops through to create the sql statement using bind variables but since he's looping through the hash you don't actually see what columns were passed in, and it just so happens that some of the variables actually have to be adjusted but since I can't see what's going on than when it creates the bind variables and then loops through the hash again to populate the bind variables with the hash values sometimes the wrong values are binded to the question marks and sometimes they don't get binded at alll which means that the wrong values or no values at all get written to the database!
Her: Well, what you should DO is bind the bind variables to the time variables and then use the hash box to bind the variables to the fuel injection and the carburator, and...
Me: Wow, you sound reallly smart! What's a hash box?
Her: It's the box where you store your hash! And then you bind the fuel injector to the hash box and connect the superdrive to the zip disk and connect it to the firewire serial port midi thing, and then it's all solved!
Actually, this really only has my income up to date, not my expenses. I haven't put in the iBook's expenses, nor the reduced health insurance expenses, which about average out. So next time the blue line might be a bit different. I'm trying my damndest to keep that first blue line below that black grid line (which is a big psychological barrier), but I might be going over it anyway.
Basically, the move socked me this month - the move was week 21, and then I just sort of sulked the next couple of weeks. Last week was solid, though, and this week should be busier still. And I also renegotiated my rates with the client that had been paying me the least, so hopefully this will all make a significant difference in my yellow line.
One interesting side effect of the graphs is that you can kind of tell what my year's projections are by the height of the graphs. Right now I'm still projected to turn a profit, albeit a slight one. I won't really be saving a lot for retirement this year (which doubly sucks since I've lost quite a bit of my retirement savings already...)