In a lot of places you have the option to either work 40h+ or not work at all.
Printable View
Every so often I come across something that I have a deep visceral need to share. This is one of those times.
http://www.rbcpa.com/mungerspeech_june_95.pdf
I've come across many of these before as I've read Influence and Thinking Fast and Slow (which I've pimped ITT), but this is gold.
I've seen myself do this.Quote:
And then I’ve got development and organizational confusion from say-something syndrome.
And here my favorite thing is the bee, a honeybee. And a honeybee goes out and finds the
nectar and he comes back, he does a dance that communicates to the other bees where the
nectar is, and they go out and get it. Well some scientist who is clever, like B.F. Skinner,
decided to do an experiment. He put the nectar straight up. Way up. Well, in a natural
setting, there is no nectar where they’re all straight up, and the poor honeybee doesn’t have
a genetic program that is adequate to handle what he now has to communicate. And you’d
think the honeybee would come back to the hive and slink into a corner, but he doesn’t.
He comes into the hive and does this incoherent dance, and all my life I’ve been dealing
with the human equivalent of that honeybee. [Laughter] And it’s a very important part of
human organization so the noise and the reciprocation and so forth of all these people who
have what I call say-something syndrome don’t really affect the decisions.
meow.
Leave it to the comedians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsB1...QEd30rQbuvCtTQ
I almost grunched on the libertarian/regulated market discussion-- but nahhhhh.
I remember a sci-fi book I read once that had a gov't agency that was something like "The Office of Sabotage".
I can't remember which author, maybe Heinlein.
I think about it sometimes. It's one of those ideas that I always come back to. I like the idea of a gov't agency whose primary function is to mess with the rest of the gov't.
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
I was speaking in terms of sci-fi literature-- but yes, for movies, Starship Troopers is a great example. It's been a long time since I read the book, but from what I remember the movie is actually far more satirical.
It's hard with movies though, I think, because the "Ministry of Peace" being the wing of government that conducts war makes for a great Onionesque literary gag, but how does that translate to film? The protagonist walks into the Ministry of Peace and then there are, like, soldiers, and stuff? I'm sure it can be done, but it's hard to do it with the same dry wit-- even my cinematic example went with the easier, albeit no less satisfying route of hamming it up to the point that the actors are almost breaking the fourth wall with a double wink.
You talked me into it.
Turns out it's called the Bureau of Sabotage.
I read the books "Whipping Star" and "The Dosadi Experiment" years ago. The reference comes from there.
(Frank Herbert's ConSentiency Universe)
EDIT: Check out "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card if you haven't already. It's the first in a series, and it fits the bill for dystopian future.
REEDIT: Card does sci-fi characters so well that if you haven't read anything by him yet, this is an excellent book recommendation.
BWE TONIGHT HYPE
I've been listening to a ton of podcasts lately, and have been meaning to jump into an audio book, so maybe I'll go with one of these. That being said, I think I enjoy sci-fi most as a platform as opposed to a genre. The genre tropes can be lots of fun, but they are what make for great spectacles when adapted to film-- on the contrary, books which use it as a platform tend to be much more satisfying, because they're not just finding a new spin on the genre's staples.
Starship Troopers is one of the great films of our time for young men. It has a very real lesson that violence is the basis of all power that every other type of power is built upon.
That's not what I got out of it, but I do like Starship Troopers. I was about to defend it and say that maybe it had budget issues, but apparently it's a $100,000,000 movie. Lord of the Ring was cheaper than that. I'm not sure how they spent that money.
i keep watching clips of the newsroom and ask my self why did i not watch this show now? the pilot was good and i never watched the 2nd episode.
Newsroom is great. I never heard of it until is was on Netflix, though. I've seen the first season, but Netflix only has it on DVD. I haven't gotten the 2nd season yet.
The setting is cool, the lead is a solid actor, and the concept looks good on paper-- but by the end of the first season I realized I was more or less watching Ally McBeal.
Promising hour long dramas tend to either utilize soap elements to float a sweet concept/premise, or they use a cool concept/premise to hook viewers into watching a paint by the numbers soap. The former is Game of Thrones, The Wire, etc-- the latter is Newsroom, True Blood, etc.
mmm food
I agree.
I thought the first few episodes of Scandal were great... but it quickly devolved into a ridiculous soap opera.
Before that it was Sons of Anarchy. Such a solid premise turned so wishy-washy and lame.
Battlestar Gallactica has some difficult plot lines, too... but on the whole, I like the Edward James Olmos version.
I'm liking Fringe quite a lot, though. I'm well into the 4th season, and I think they've done a fairly decent job of avoiding romances that make no sense and only serve to distract from the story. I would have preferred if they weren't apparently pushing some Adam and Eve story though the main characters, but meh... The oldest tales are retold for a reason.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/condoms-t...500307-17.html
THE STRUGGLE IS REAL
I keep a dollar worth of dimes.
You know pimpin ain't easy.
Been trying out Windows 8.1
Must say
http://i.imgur.com/9PLSDtS.jpg
But one thing irks me though. Since I have to write in multiple languages at the same time, having to know ALT Key Codes is a pain in the ass especially since OS X deals with these characters so beautifully.
Oh, and Cyan Screen of Death? Come on!
There are free programs that emulate that for Windows but with slightly different keys
Also you can make your own shortcuts with AHK if need be
Also here are the keyboard shortcuts for it in office if that's what you use
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/wo...005186562.aspx
diablo 3
because fuck a social life.
This one I didn't see coming. Christian comedians are a thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyKAr-gxxFE
I thought comedy was about laughter at some point
I laughed at him.
I didn't. I stopped him at unicorns.
I'm not even atheist, I'd say I'm agnostic because the fuck if I understand shit enough to make a definitive decision. But whatever. An atheist isn't offended by god. An atheist tends to be offended by the extremes religious folk go to in order to ram their religion down other people's throats. An atheist is offended by what he perceives to be stupidity. It's not the concept of god that is offensive, it's the idea that I'm right you're wrong and you're going to hell that offends atheists.
Dude should stfu because he's stupid and unfunny.
That is why I laughed at him, not with him, but also I don't get offended. They are all morans
lol I got sucked back in.
jfc this guy is outstanding.
Right and wrong, I got that far. He's mocking the idea that right and wrong is based on culture. Well it fucking well is. Is it right for an 18 y/o guy to put his penis in the mouth of a 15 y/o girl? Well not here in the UK, and not in the USA either. But there's plenty of places where it's happening without it breaking laws, and without it offending anyone. That's because it is PEOPLE, not unicorns oops I mean god, who detemrine what is right and wrong, and these values vary from one place to another.
Is murder wrong? Well yeah. But why? Because we say so. Dogs are murderers. So are cats. Enter long list of animals here. Are these animals acting "immorally"? Well fuck, we need a dog jail for naughty dogs who disobey GOD's values.
Fucksake.
I have no problem with GOD. My problem is with religious fucking idiots like this guy.
Let's see what else he has to say that I can rant about.
*edit- annoying typos
Haha I love his finish.
He's proud to be a conservative Christian? Isn't pride one of the deadly sins? Long haired fucking hypocrite.
@bold and not to derail, but there are plenty of places in the US where that age combination is legal. For example, in North Carolina the soft age of consent is 16, but you can have sex with someone younger than that as long as you're less than four years older. This makes 19/15, 18/14, 17/13 and 16/12 legal except under certain conditions:
No employee of a K-12 school can have any sexual activity with any student at that school except when married to the person {§14‑27.7}; this is a felony unless the actor is less than 4 years older than the student and is not a teacher, administrator, student teacher, safety officer, or coach. This prohibition covers adults and students who were at the school at the same time, and continues in force as long as the younger person is a student at any K-12 school, regardless of age.
So if you're 19 in high school because you failed a grade or two, you can't have get blown by a chick who is 19 and works there as a janitor. However, you can put it in the ass of a 15 year old girl.
Deists are practically atheists. I mean "practically" in the literal sense.
Deist nuts
Agnosticism is the belief that, whether or not there is a god, it is impossible to know.
That is a strong, definitive statement, which implies that anyone who believes that it is possible to "know God" or "know what God is" is wrong, because that knowledge is impossible to obtain.
Contrast with:
Agnostic atheism. The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.
Agnostic theism. The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
:lol:
God fucking bless fucking America.
MMM - ok let me rephrase - I'm not an agnostic, I'm a fuckifiknowist. I don't disregard the idea of a higher power. But religion is obviously stupid. I mean people are absolutely certain that their religion is right while every other one is wrong. But how did they get into their religion? By being fucking born into it. Or maybe a midlife crisis. Usually one of those two. So yeah I'm a white Englishman so I'm a Christian, right? Yeah Christianity is right and I based that CERTAINTY on my geographical location and culture. I wonder if cows have a god, and I wonder if it's a giant cow or a human with a beard.
Dude in the clip above talks about god's beautiful creations. Well have you seen a kangaroo having a shit? I wouldn't call that beautiful. What about a pride of lions killing and eating a vulnerable baby elephant? Do any of you remember tubgirl? I don't think one can pick and choose what god created and what he didn't. So the idea that god created morals seems a little redundant when you begin to consider all the horrible shit that happens in the real world. We created morals. We created right and wrong. We created judgment. God, if he exists, does not judge. He creates. That is all.
https://i.imgur.com/h6k3jaH.jpg
OH MY LANTA!
It's kinda muddled. Agnosticism is borrowed from epistemology where it's a much cleaner concept: it's simply a spectrum of how strongly you believe you "know" something. Simply summarizing your religious beliefs as agnostic is extremely general and can mean a lot of things.
What you're referring to is taking it to second level epistemology (what we know about what we know): you can be either gnostic or agnostic about your agnostic stance. That is, you can be damn certain that you don't know, you can be unsure about your uncertainty, and you can be anything in between. Even if you're a "strong" agnostic (you know that you don't know), you can still be an "open" one (I don't know, but maybe I will some day). Even if you're a strong, closed agnostic, then this doesn't necessarily mean you're a "prescriptive" agnostic (you can be certain that you'll never know, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you think ill of everyone who thinks they know or tries to know). Etc.
And then, you have to consider that theology is a massive field of study that encompasses millions of sub-debates (including several quite macro ones), so people will generally be varyingly gnostic when it comes to different aspects of the field. For example, Ong has demonstrated that he is agnostic about the existence of god, but gnostic about whether there's an intelligent ultimate judge of our actions.
I wouldn't just go around assuming that a one-word descriptor is every really going to satisfactorily sum all of these shades of belief up.
Being agnostic is not muddled or confusing. It can mean one and only one thing: You recognize that it's impossible to know if any deity exists. It has nothing to do with any other belief that you have like whether you're an atheist or a theist, and it doesn't have to do with what you believe the function of any deity (if it did exist) would be.
eff you rando thread. now I have youtube suggesting videos from that fucking christian "comedian"
Car wont start.
Motorcycle wont start.
Battery charger is broken.
Neighbors aren't home to give me a jump start.
Broke for a week.
Out of everything.
Unemployed.
Full of hate.
Eff this world.
Drunk.
Stoned.
Happy.
Stoned.
Unemployed.
Full of love.
Hug the world.
This isn't true at all. I don't know what your source is, but it goes against any sensible extension of how "gnostic/agnostic" are used in other field; it goes against anyway I've ever heard it referred to in this field; but I respect you enough that I even got up out of bed with my wife so I could plop open the old Oxford Guide, and this is what they have:
"Agnosticism may be strictly personal and confessional--'I have no firm belief about God'--or it may be the more ambitious claim that no one ought to have a positive belief for or against the divine existence."
Additional sources via Wikipedia: First full paragraph, "In the current section ... "; Second full paragraph, "We can deal ... "; and the whole page. The last one kills two birds with one stone because it includes a bit about "local" versus "global" agnosticism: "Agnosticism is always agnosticism about something. ... Even when it has to do with God, it needn't specifically to do with his existence. Those who are prepared to commit to God's existence may be agnostic about certain or even all of his properties." (This is easily true vice versa as well, but hopefully we can just leave it at that).
Even Miriam Webster agrees, though in more qualified fashion:
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
I agree that the concept of agnosticism is crystal clear. It's basically just a fancy word for "I'm not sure."
The reason I say it's muddled is because ... well, look at this conversation. Some person says they're an agnostic, some other bloke has some preconceived notion about what that MUST mean for all of his theological beliefs, some third fellow (and he's the true twattiest of them all) points out that that word is a generalization and can reflect all sorts of permutations of religious beliefs and that maybe it's better to just ask the guy what he believes than getting in a tizzy about the 1-word synopsis he uses for it, and now a fourth person comes in just to make things interesting.
More like "it's not possible to be sure about X" which takes away the need for further elaboration.
steampunk giselle ftw
Our yard is like 25' x 40', and my dog has caught two squirrels, an adult rabbit and a baby bird in her 17 months living with us. She caught her last squirrel while she was *supposed* to be on bed rest (she suffered a foot injury in Vermont getting in a fight with a bobcat). She's a badass motherfuckin' mutt.
bitches be trippin
She likes to clean and present her kills for us with a mile-long smile:
Attachment 744
Large jug having a shit.
http://cache.graphicslib.viator.com/...62-770tall.JPG
Ain't that some shit
I love this shit. Plays to the rednecks and the uber-nationalists as if it has any impact on "people smuggling". The dude they picked as their people-smuggling ambassador is just the icing on the cake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypuBsE_Eq8
pack of cunts
The attitudes of pre-20th Century Europeans toward people from other continents (eg: Robinson Crusoe's fear of people-eating savages) is almost exactly the same as our sci-fi-inspired trepidations about aliens. The issues of race suffered in our time of globalization will be repeated in issues of aliens in our next era of galacticalization.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
small sample size