Posts by Sarge


log in
1) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1667869)
Posted 11 hours ago by Profile Sarge


Freedom, au! (With an umlaut. For the Yiddish, oy!)
2) Message boards : Politics : Thor is the Designer! #3 (Message 1667266)
Posted 1 day ago by Profile Sarge
Thor has chosen to make today challenging for me.

All Hail Thor


Concur.
3) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1667075)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
When you learn at age 3 what it is for life to kick you in the derriere, it's hard to lead a monastic existence. When one seeks out conversation and friendship (in person and online) with several outside the supposed "cloister" of one's department (or even several of opposing points of view within one's cloister), it is hard to lead a monastic existence. When one routinely encounters people who would like to kick one's derriere for having long hair, a different sense of humor or one's occupation, it is hard to lead a monastic existence. At best, one can catch a few moments of peace by switching from listening to hard rock and metal over to the space ambient stuff for a while and, here on the S@H fora, putting someone who he believes he knows what existences others lead on ignore. Granted, that moment of peace can be tainted when, by coding/design flaw, others that do not have that user on ignore quote that user in their responses. I predict three things:

1) He will eventually disappear.
2) Or, he will be ignored by more and more to become the empty can, rattling most, that no one hears.
3) Or, he will eventually learn to change his tactics/communication style and become someone we enjoy speaking with, even if we do not see eye to eye.

My prediction will deliberately lack what probabilities I think should be assigned to this partition of the sample space.[/list][/list]
4) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1666968)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge

If you disagree, on who is winning:

So what. I don't care.

I know who is really winning, by your, and others, silly, not to the point, responses.

Not understand any thinking, outside of a Monastic Type Intellectual Environment: Is to be expected, from those with a Theological/Ideological Belief.

Just as many would get bored, and worse, attempting to have an Intellectual Discussion with a Religious Believer:

I find the same with Ideological Believers.

Neither you, or others sharing your Beliefs, will ever truly understand.

Just Human Nature.

I'm sorry Clyde, I've raised too many teenagers and taught too many teenagers to not see your posting style for exactly what it is.


Monastic? LOL! He'a totally missed all the hints. Sees only what he wishes to, 'Tis a wonder more than 4 people have left his posts visible.
Besides, the point was, why does Dull believe no one goes after Obama (when, of course, it was already demonstrated even libs do, but we wanted to hear his supposed reasons for believing this).
5) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1666934)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
Your free association comes at a cost. Mine does not. Stream of consciousness from me, Your stream? River sentiment, dredged up, only to have the pebbles left in da delta.
Bow ye, to your stone idol, jailed "Dr." Kent Ho-hum-vind. Speciation. Glaciation.
Oh, that mud you flung, was not by you, but by 'The' Flood?
6) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1666827)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
You, and Gary, are at least consistent. Which in some ways positive, and in others, negative.

Perhaps we see the Emperor's clothes.


See, this is where I don't even get what Clyde is trying to say.
Is he saying, "among the qualities Gary and Sarge have, they are consistent in the way they speak"?
Or is he saying, "among the S@H posters, we can say there are at least two posters that are consistent"?
This is such interesting use of the American language, if confusing.
7) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1666538)
Posted 3 days ago by Profile Sarge
Aren't Christian women still asked to cover their heads when they go onto Church?


Eh?
8) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1666537)
Posted 3 days ago by Profile Sarge
For example, the wearing of the veil for Muslimas. Am I being patronising if I try to tell women from another culture what they should or should not wear? (its not like western women are free from restrictive clothing expectations) or is it a sign of an oppressive misogynistic culture and I should condemn it.

Why the questioning of your own thoughts?

More importantly why would you not question your own thoughts?

Gary...

Thank you.

Very typical response from you, and others, when confronted by an 'Inconvenient Question'.

Does make our point concerning those who believe, as you do.

Again...

Thank you.

So glad to know that in your case all the answers to all questions are in that "good book" you read.


Hence, my recent Socrates quote.
One who is not questioning one's thoughts is the same as, or one step away, from one who believe (s)he is right on sll matters. Thus, the recent suggestion this particular man is employing the Socratic method seems to be allowing extreme patience. The probability appears to be exceedingly small.
9) Message boards : Politics : PEOPLE ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO GO AFTER OBLABBY and It's The 21st CENTURY (Message 1665757)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Sarge
The problem is, despite someone claiming that something is a religion, such as the social structures Dr. Crichton observed, does not make it so.

It is a perpetuation of the myth that all belief systems are secular religions. That Dr. Crichton, and anybody that agrees with him, sees similarities between these social structures and religion is merely our pattern matching brains attempting to identify and categorize our observations with things we've seen in the past. However, to always use old paradigms for classifications of belief systems is to expect that all things remain the same. This obviously could not be further from the truth. Things change all the time, and with new data comes new classifications (e.g. Pluto becoming classified as a dwarf planet).

Ergo, not all belief systems are religions.


+1
10) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Moderation April 1. (Message 1665467)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Sarge
Maybe the OP was expecting an April's Fool's Joke?

Now that is an interesting thought!!

Perhaps Pebbles or Bam Bam will be the next mod?
11) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Create a Meme! (Message 1665248)
Posted 7 days ago by Profile Sarge


12) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Create a Meme! (Message 1665247)
Posted 7 days ago by Profile Sarge
13) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Create a Meme! (Message 1665240)
Posted 7 days ago by Profile Sarge


Yes, this is the feral cat that adopted me about 3 years ago.
14) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Create a Meme! (Message 1665198)
Posted 7 days ago by Profile Sarge
Wow! Seriously? No one wants to take part in this new game thread? Julie? Angela?
15) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Create a Meme! (Message 1664535)
Posted 8 days ago by Profile Sarge


You can do it! Go to http://makeameme.org!
16) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Create a Meme! (Message 1664353)
Posted 9 days ago by Profile Sarge
17) Message boards : Politics : Codes & Cyphers (Message 1663959)
Posted 10 days ago by Profile Sarge
It can't be such an amazing place that it took...

"Bourne is grateful that the work of the World War II code-breakers has so much recognition today, after years of being overlooked. Millions of pounds in funding from the National Lottery has allowed the huts around Bletchley Park to be restored and a visitor centre created."

...funds provided by gamblers to restore something that a grateful nation should have done.


So, is it not a great place or is your nation full of ungrateful people? Please, make your point clearer.
18) Message boards : Politics : Myths and Realities (Message 1663933)
Posted 10 days ago by Profile Sarge
Michel, I am often surprised when someone is saying similar things to you, you overlook this. Furthermore, while there is some truth to some of Dena's recent posts, I was attempting to provide a more nuanced version of reality to both what she said and what you have said.

Let's not "nitpick". Here's an example you should find easier to follow.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov died in 1992. His Foundation books have never been made into movies. "I, RObot" was, but about a decade after his death.

I am willing to bet he also was a rich man, but he died of "Heart and kidney failure related to AIDS". Even so, he was 72 at his death.

The worlds/galaxy he described from the Robot series to the Foundation series took a lot of description. I think it could be fair to say that up to and including 1992, a movie trying to show what he described would have been quite inadequate. If he had said, there's no way I'd let my book be made into a movie because movie technology could not adequately convey my words, I would not be surprised.

He was born and died too early for CGI. That his existence occupied the time span it did, from 1920-1992, was pure coincidence (unless you subscribe to belief in a divine creator, and specifically a creator that puts each person on Earth precisely when he/she/it plans to). Pure coincidence = luck. Plain and simple.

BTW, I imagine any of his heirs received money from the "I, Robot" movie. But, coincidentally, Isaac did not. IE, by luck, Isaac did not.

Stanley Kubrick, who helped Arthur C. Clarke bring 2001 to film, lived 81 years, dying in 1999 of natural causes. This was right about the time CGI was appearing in movies. By coincedence ... by luck ... he did not live long enough to even consider putting out with Clarke an edited or updated version of 2001.

The problem I have with your point is that you are essentially saying that you need to exist in order to benefit from capitalism. I mean sure, technically thats true, but its also such a vague statement that becomes sort of meaningless.

Furthermore, opportunities also need to first exist before they can be grasped and profited from under capitalism. Again, technically thats true, but its again a vague statement. Clearly Asimov and Clarke couldn't benefit from CGI because they were dead by the time it became useful for their works. So according to you, they weren't lucky because their existence and the opportunities existence didn't coincide.

Say that Asimov and Clarke were both born later and were still alive today. Their existence and the existence of the opportunity that CGI provides coincide. According to you, now they are lucky and therefor they will benefit because of capitalism, right? Wrong. Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it. You need to grasp the opportunity, by having the superior idea on how to exploit the opportunity, and only then will you profit.

Think about it. Right now, you and billions of other people exist side by side with millions of opportunities. But only a handful of people will profit from those opportunities, because they are the people with the smartest ideas, while everyone else does not. Yet according to you, those people have the same sort of luck as Asimov would have had if he had lived long enough to witness the might of CGI.

I would say that you can't speak of being unlucky when you simply don't exist at a moment to profit from an opportunity, nor are you unlucky when you can't profit from an opportunity that simply does not exist when you are around.


I believe you have inferred a fair amount about what I said that I did not say nor implied. To take your first paragraph and put it in nearly your words but to more accurately reflect what I believe "When you exist determines what benefits you do or don't reap."

"Unlucky" is a response to a pure chance event. You cannot determine in advance when you roll a six-sided die what side it will land on. What you wanted it to land on and your response to it has no bearing on the fact that the phenomenon is random.

I did not say "Just because your existence and the existence of an opportunity exist side by side does not mean you automatically profit from it", nor can it be inferred. At best, one could say such a person might seem at first to have the first and best chance of reaping the benefits, but it might not work out that way. Clearly, I did not say "If I lived when Bell lived, I would have been the one to create the telephone." Nor did I say, "Dang that Bell, he lived earlier than I did, I am so unlucky" or "I lived when Bell did but that rat b45+4rd under cut me and put the phone out first."

I could write more, but I am winding down from a long work week, want to go out tonight and then wind up working a fair portion of the weekend, so I am not going to delve into further explanation for now. Hopefully, mu shorter post was succinct and explanatory enough for you.
19) Message boards : Politics : Society's Role in Education (Message 1663927)
Posted 10 days ago by Profile Sarge

I am, and will continue to, pay for mine. Affordability is key.
However, I will soon be filling these forms out: Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)


Here you would not owe $100,000 + student loans as it's regulated and subzidised by Fed and state Governments .

Christopher Pine Minister for Education want's to deregulate the system , but that would mean over time the Uni free's will increase and become like your system and they don't wish to stop there , they also wish to have Local school Boards, like i believe the States have .

Big no to second one ...YOU END UP WITH WITH stupid boards teaching B/S like

divine creation


My student loan debt is not that large, nor is it very small.
Most of it was accrued during graduate school, past a Master's degree. When one decides, after a few years, to go back to school and earns about 1/3 or less of what he earned prior, one cuts back, but there are still earlier bills to pay, plus it may take time to figure out what and how much to cut. Also, as I implied, I do not wish to leave my debts for the taxpayers to pick up. On the other hand, I have put in a great amount of public service and so I will be applying to get some of that debt forgiven. Note that one of the requirements is 10 years of on time payments for at least the amount due each month.

Your second point had nothing to do with anything I posted, yet I shall address it. Yes, it is in our Constitution that education is left to the localities and the state governments, not the federal government. Given what most of what I gather from your posts, you would not like, say, the Texas curriculum, but you might like the curriculum of NY State, or at least what it used to be. I am a product of the latter, for better or worse.

What you seem to be unaware of is that the US federal government has become more and more involved in local state decisions. You might think that is a good thing. If so, look more into Laura Bush's "No Child Left Behind" (sounds so grand on the surface) or "Common Core" that is working its way through during the current Obama administration. I am not passing judgment, but I am aware of pros and cons.

Pro: a family with children could move in the middle of a school year from Texas to New York State and not lose time because a child learning 7th grade math in Texas turns out to be learning 5th or 6th grade math in NY State. (No offense to Texas: this is just a hypothetical example!)

Con: apparently one publishing company is producing materials for this nationwide curriculum. (Disclaimer: I have done freelance accuracy checking for the publisher.)

Furthermore, in Texas, there are apparently enough politicians from the local to state level to have Creationism taught in science classes. Texas remains the largest state in terms of population, so there curriculum choices can have influences on publishers' choices. If you are against Creationism, do you want Texas to eventually force it to be taught nationwide via their influence on the publisher? Or, if you are against evolution, that NY STate (perhaps around 4th in population these days?) to force teaching of evolution on the rest of the nation?
20) Message boards : Politics : Myths and Realities (Message 1663905)
Posted 10 days ago by Profile Sarge
Sorry, but I would say there's at least a 3rd and 4th option.

... it grants success to smart work.


It also grants success to luck in the sense of inheritance (among other things) and luck mixed with hard work and smart work.

Example: George Lucas had the luck to live long enough for CGI to be developed so he could go back and add special effects to his original trilogy of Star Wars movies. In that luck, hr was able to get lots of people to watch them again at the theaters and sell new versions on VHS and DVD. It also served as hype to get people interested for the next installment of trilogies.

No, luck is not a factor. What you call luck is either the result of an unequal playing field, giving some actors natural advantages from the start, or its not really luck, but smart work and being simply better than the competition in some crucial way.

In the first case, capitalism doesn't inherently reward it. Yes, your life is probably easier and you gain a lot of advantages, but those are not the result of capitalism rewarding you for being lucky. In most other systems such a person would have a unfair advantages. Besides, being born with money or the right genes is not a guarantee for success. You can still be outsmarted or you can still screw up and make mistakes and end up losing the advantage.

In the second case, which would be your Star Wars example, George Lucas wasn't lucky. I mean, living to the ripe old age of 55 is not lucky if you are a rich American. He saw and made use of another opportunity and thats it. Smart business move, no luck involved.


Michel, I am often surprised when someone is saying similar things to you, you overlook this. Furthermore, while there is some truth to some of Dena's recent posts, I was attempting to provide a more nuanced version of reality to both what she said and what you have said.

Let's not "nitpick". Here's an example you should find easier to follow.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov died in 1992. His Foundation books have never been made into movies. "I, RObot" was, but about a decade after his death.

I am willing to bet he also was a rich man, but he died of "Heart and kidney failure related to AIDS". Even so, he was 72 at his death.

The worlds/galaxy he described from the Robot series to the Foundation series took a lot of description. I think it could be fair to say that up to and including 1992, a movie trying to show what he described would have been quite inadequate. If he had said, there's no way I'd let my book be made into a movie because movie technology could not adequately convey my words, I would not be surprised.

He was born and died too early for CGI. That his existence occupied the time span it did, from 1920-1992, was pure coincidence (unless you subscribe to belief in a divine creator, and specifically a creator that puts each person on Earth precisely when he/she/it plans to). Pure coincidence = luck. Plain and simple.

BTW, I imagine any of his heirs received money from the "I, Robot" movie. But, coincidentally, Isaac did not. IE, by luck, Isaac did not.

Stanley Kubrick, who helped Arthur C. Clarke bring 2001 to film, lived 81 years, dying in 1999 of natural causes. This was right about the time CGI was appearing in movies. By coincedence ... by luck ... he did not live long enough to even consider putting out with Clarke an edited or updated version of 2001.


Next 20

Copyright © 2015 University of California