Skip to main content

Topics

This section allows you to view all Topics made by this member. Note that you can only see Topics made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - OakdaleFTL

26
DnD Central / Apple vs. the FBI
I assume everybody is aware of this "problem"… (Let me know if you require more background.)

I'm interested to hear the opinions of others. (I've recently finished reading Apple's latest response… And I've formed an opinion. :) )
27
DnD Central / Who do you listen to, who listens to you?
I remember the beginning of Talk Radio: Avi Nelson in Boston. He was acerbic, rude and to the point… There hadn't been anything on the radio like his show, before.
Before him, we had the Larry's Glick and King…
(I liked them both.)

But American politics became more contentious. And contentiousness became more acceptable…

TV and newspapers don't offer many access. Radio, however, did! Call-in shows, live…!

Who -I'd ask y'all- were your local radio hosts? Which ones -and, of course, why- did you habitually listen to?  :) I don't expect a political or philosophical tome.
Just tell me what about their shows caught and kept your attention.
28
DnD Central / You must be joking!
I've just returned from stepping out onto my front porch to smoke a cigarette… There was still a smattering of rain and the sky was overcast. With 50+ oz. of beer on board, I said aloud "What? It's still raining? It's not like we need it…" And, then, realizing that we do, said, "Well, okay: We do. But…"
Mother Nature seems to be a typical mother, always complaining that her kids never call. And her kids repeatedly responding that she never listens…
(I do this sort of thing when sober, too! So, unless you'd make it funny, don't go there.)

What I'd like to talk about is: How many of you create jokes? I mean, do you think of funny things to say on a regular basis — but, not being a professional, keep them -mostly- to yourself?

As the originator of the epithet "the kamikaze of the entertainment industry" for stand-up comics, I have a personal interest in your replies. Also, I fondly remember both Koestler's musings on the topic and Azimov's short story Jokester

So: Have you "little" jokes you've made on the spur of the moment that you'd relate here?

Also keep in mind Robert Frost's gem:
“Forgive, O Lord, my little jokes on Thee
And I'll forgive Thy great big one on me.”
29
DnD Central / Is stupidity taught?
I was just "surfing" channels when I found Conan O'Brien's monologue in progress…

His joke was about the recent NASA conjecture of there being flowing water on Mars. He (Conan) said that Rush Limbaugh had commented that a hydrogen atom bringing two oxygen atoms together seemed "somewhat gay"!
I don't know what Rush said. But I do know —pretty well— that neither Conan nor his writers were aware that H2O is the chemical formula for one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, which comprise a molecule of water.
He knows his audience well!

But Liberals are presumed to be smart and knowledgeable about science-y stuff! :) (And late-night TV talk show hosts are presumed to be Liberals… :) ) So.
What gives?

Do we need to re-visit what engenders or supports stupidity? :)
30
DnD Central / Foundations…
I should probably have looked Paul Krugman up at Wikipedia a long time ago… So, perhaps this comes a little late.
The article said something I'd not expected:
Quote
According to Krugman, his interest in economics began with Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels, in which the social scientists of the future use a new science of "psychohistory" to attempt to save civilization. Since present-day science fell far short of "psychohistory", Krugman turned to economics as the next best thing.
(source)

The only other self-professed Seldon-wanna-be I'm familiar with is Gavin Schmidt, NASA's chief climate modeller… (Hansen's successor.)

I too was a fan of Seldon… But I was a little more oriented to reality. (That's a scary thought, i'n'it? :) )

I guess reading science fiction isn't the problem. It's stopping reading it too soon…

Is messianic pretensions that common…?
31
DnD Central / War
(I'll make this short: My previous attempt to post this fizzled… :) )

Why do we fight wars?
Sure, sometimes we're attacked and we have little choice — fight or die.
There are also religious reasons, mostly incomprehensible to even our most devout brethren! :)
But -then- there are philosophical differences between cultures (nations, military powers — call them what you will).
The U.S. government's masters did not understand Japan. Their philosophy of war was beyond our ken.
Some few of their senior officers (previous to and during WW II) did understand us, but could not escape the dictates of their philosophy.

I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!
(A fairly common European reaction.)

What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:

To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!
—————————————————————————————————
I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…
Are any of you brave enough? :)
32
DnD Central / What's with our posting habits?
I confess: I don't look forward to reading threads whose six or more most recent posts are by rjhowie… But what should I think when my last nine posts are prominent? :)

I'd ask a simple question:
Does it matter, to you, who last posted — before you read further? Before you think of posting, yourself?
I mean, are there some posters whose "style" or "content" put you off…? Who keep you away from threads which otherwise might interest you?
Or the exact opposite: Some posters entice or require you to respond?

Make your preferences known! I beg you…
33
DnD Central / Statesmanship
How would you define it? (King George III had said something which I'd agree…)

The following is George Washington's first inaugural address. Tell me -if you know of one- of another as eloquent, or in any other wise better!
Quote

  Address by George Washington, 1789

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years—a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President “to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the system, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good; for I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for the public harmony will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the foregoing observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed; and being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the executive department, and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may during my continuance in it be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
(source)


 
34
DnD Central / Freee Speech…
The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to reconsider a 9th Circuit decision that –among other things– enshrined the "heckler's veto" in our law-fare

The point of contention was whether high school students should be allowed something akin to "free speech". Various courts have decided not.
Their reasoning is curious, to say the least!

In 1969 the Supreme Court said the exact opposite. (Black arm bands worn by students, in opposition to the Vietnam war…)

What has changed?

I'd say, that the acceptance of the heckler's veto is actually desired, by some.
(That's not unusual: But it is -as we like to think of ourselves- un-American!)
—————————————————————
I'd like to remind those who don't read history that the Battle of Puebla was fought against the French (in 1862, when the U.S. was preoccupied…) :)
Must we now bow to gross ignorance, as well as "hurt feelings"?
—————————————————————–
If schools cannot teach, why should we fund them? :)
35
DnD Central / History in excess…
Quite some time ago in an introductory note to a re-worked novel Algis Budrys used the phrase… (A literate gloss of the "Great Man" trope.) Can we recognize those who "make history in excess" at the time? Or only after?
We often talk about politicians and other leaders here. Yet we seem to have no dependable means of determining who will make history in excess, or how. And, indeed, are loath to credit anyone living with doing so.
That may be an interesting topic. But I'd prefer another…

What does the mere phrase "History in excess" mean?
As an averred conservative, I have an inkling. I'd like to hear other opinions.
36
DnD Central / The government is the freaking dragon.
The FCC (the U.S. Federal Communications Commission) has approved -by a partisan majority of 3 to 2- the (presumably desirable) Net Neutrality rules (not yet released to the public…) to regulate ISPs -and, of course, other "players"– to ensure a free and open internet… (see here, for instance) by bureaucratic interference, based upon the rules meant to constrain the government-granted monopoly to AT&T in the late 30's.

I am eager to read the "final" 317 pages "agreed to" by this commission, and look forward to the court cases it prompts. (Not to mention, because I don't believe such will be forthcoming, the congressional backlash and remedy…sad to say). I'd like to read it because I might be able to deconstruct its purpose — and argue against such.
(Yes, I think I know what it is…)

My main point here is to highlight the perennial question: What warrants and justifies government regulation? And when and why should such be accepted or promulgated, absent irremediable harms?

Put more simply: If it ain't broke, why "fix" it?

Other thoughts…?
37
DnD Central / Myr — is it a spice or a poison?
The Fremi Paradox is simple to state: Given the laws of the physical universe, where are the other intelligent life-forms? Why haven't we heard from them?
They should be quite numerous; and even our (presumed) primitive technology should be able to detect signals propagated by their earlier states of achievement…
Yet we've neither seen nor heard…anything.

A new approach to solving this riddle appears in the CERN Courier.

This is a commendable example of statistical reasoning gone awry. The size of the universe guarantees galaxies hosting countless solar systems which should host planets hospitable to life. Their number is staggeringly huge, and should make intelligent life fairly common.
Certainly, not rare.

But statistical reasoning always rests upon premises…

Hence, the paper referred to in the CERN Courier article which quantifies the frequency of Gamma Ray Bursts — on a scale of millions of years (and thence my cryptic post title: Myr is the common abbreviation of "million years") alters our understanding of the physical laws of the universe in a crucial way:
It reminds us of how much we don't know…and how much we take for granted.
38
DnD Central / Worst ever…
The category is simple: Worst ever…whatever.

But let's keep it simple. Two options, and a poll — for each.

I'll start with "Worst proconsul ever" —
Paul Bremer or Pontius Pilate? Surely, enough time has passed that we can determine…? :)
————————————————————
BTW: Does anyone know how to create a poll for non-OP posts?
39
DnD Central / Is there a Black psychology problem…?
Well, we've recently seen what happened in Ferguson… (We've seen much more, over the years. I'm old.) What we have yet to see is a coherent explantation for why Blacks are more violent, less intelligent and more "prolific" than Whites…

Would my (more) Liberal brethren please explain to me why this shouldn't matter?

Eric Holder derided my country, for not openly discussing race relations… In a sense, he was right when he called us cowards: (fill in the blank)

Discuss? (I doubt that's possible.) Rant and rave; call me a racist — that's going to happen; and, of course, it should! [A "racialist"? C'mon, let's stop pussy-footing!] (But Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al., would, too! If you don't agree, you're a racist!) I am a —sort-of racist: I believe evidence from observation (of the real world) matters.
So do people — I mean, for the Libs among us, to say that people matter, as well as that others believe that evidence does. (Okay. I know I've gone out on a limb, there…)

Here in the United States (because of our history) we have a serious problem with regards to "race relations"… Because we don't really want to discuss our history.



I mis-keyed, and this post "disappeared" — as often happens, on the Net.
I thought, "Oh, well." And considered letting it go… (After all: If the Atty. General of the U.S. can't goad people into consideration, what is the likelihood I can?) But it was easy to retrieve…
(Is this what Sang means by "free" speech? :) )


Are we ready to discuss race relations?
Most people whom I've broached the subject with prefer to avoid it. (They say "race" is an inappropriate concept — sort-of like that of "intelligence," which we all know doesn't matter!) Yet these are the people who want race consciousness enshrined in statutory quotas; the "quality of a man's character" be damned!
I'd disagree, because we still seem to have serious problems


Well, I've vented a bit… Been as incoherent as usual. (Pissed-off lots of folk I respect…) AND brought up a subject that can't be talked about, in polite company…
(That's one of the reasons I come here!)


Help me out here: What am I missing?


Why do we still obsess about race?
40
DnD Central / Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reviewing a new book, Professor Eugene Volokh (founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog by and for legal scholars, and interested laymen), said little more than that he liked it.
The book's Amazon blurb reads:
Quote
In Freedom From Speech,  author and First Amendment lawyer Greg Lukianoff offers a troubling and provocative theory on why we can expect challenges to freedom of speech to grow in the coming decades, both in the United States and abroad. Lukianoff analyzes numerous examples of the growing desire for "intellectual comfort," such as the rise of speech restrictions around the globe and the increasing media obsession of punishing "offensive" utterances, jokes, or opinions inside the United States. To provide a preview of where we may be headed, Lukianoff points to American college campuses where speakers are routinely disinvited for their opinions, where students increasingly demand "trigger warnings" for even classics like The Great Gatsby, and where students are told they cannot hand out even copies of the Constitution outside of "free speech zones." Lukianoff explains how increasingly global populations are arguing not for freedom of speech, but, rather, freedom from speech.



I bring this up because it's an enduring interest of mine; but also because I've recently argued here about something similar: The plain meaning of words, as applicable to U.S. Constitutional "interpretation" and -specifically- the harms done (actual or potential) by theories of incorporation (and, more recently, "reverse incorporation") from the 14th Amendment…


(One of my posts was recently "reported" for moderation and, subsequently, edited by a moderator… I don't mean to complain or contend I was treated unfairly — whatever that means in such a context.
Of course, America's 1st Amendment guarantee of the right to free speech has no import here: This is a private discussion board and, as such, offers -whatever other means of relief- the simple expedience of free association.
Still, I would have preferred that the offending post been deleted in toto… Editing my words, well-meant or not, is akin to plagiarism or the very sort of "interpretation" I was attempting to argue against! unless the original remains available…
Dear Moderator: Make your points in your own posts! If you quote me, give the source, please. :) )


I will be interested to read any comments posted in this thread. The opinions expressed thereby do matter to me…in an academic sense.


Should this very topic be taken to be a "discussion of moderation," I can only respond with an old punch-line: "Madam, we've already determined what you are… We're just haggling over the price!"


At any rate: I've said my piece, and will leave to others whatever exploration of substantive issues they find as a result.
41
DnD Central / Democracy in America…
Come Monday the Senate will consider S.J. Res. 19. a proposed Constitutional Amendment authored by Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders (a long-in-the-tooth Democrat and the only Socialist Party senator — from New Hampshire, of course! :) ) that — well, it's quite short -if you ignore the strike-out of last year's version!- and I'll give it to you in its entirety:
Quote
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’.
(I've removed the italics… the earlier version can be read here.)
So: The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
The epitome of democracy! The "powers that be" insist that they persist…un-opposed! :)

As previously, the 3rd section is a sop: Un-explained and un-enforceable, music to "soothe a savage Breast"…
42
DnD Central / The Future of War
More than four years ago Jerry Pournelle responded to this NYT article "detailing" the Obama administration's new policy:
Quote
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.


Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.


It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.


Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.


(from the NYT article)
Dr. Pournelle's take is short; the link is still active…


The point -for this thread- is that conceptions of war have changed… Or have they?


One of our esteemed members (Belfrager) thinks that technology will eliminate the human costs of war, both psychological and physical… Drones and robots will vie, when vie we must, in our stead; and General Sherman's "War is Hell" comment will seem quaint.
When I was young, many people I knew thought that ridding the world of nuclear weapons was a noble and responsible cause.
But -just as Woodrow Wilson's League failed to obviate war- the post-WW II United Nations has failed. And our various treaties involving nuclear proliferation, testing and defensive technologies have accomplished —on their own or in their own right— next to nothing.
We've simply got so used to the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse that we hardly ever think about it anymore…


So: Will the human costs of "conventional" war be subsumed by mere economics and technology?
I don't see it happening… (For some of the reasons hinted at, above.)


Do you?
43
DnD Central / What's what…
I don't remember how I got there… But I just read a "fun" article on the web! The site is -in my experience (pre-Internet) — should — be taken as "juvenile satirical" tweaking of noses, and -perhaps- twerking of "wholes"… :)
Yes, I'm well into "my cups"!



But I am who I am! The question is: Who are you?


The author (who I do not know, and had previously been unaware of) says, "Remember, misery is comfortable. It's why so many people prefer it. Happiness takes effort."
(Shouldn't there have been an exclamation point…?)
I'm not convinced, that happiness is the "greatest good," individually or in the aggregate…. In fact, I think (I've come to a determination on the basis of this, that, and the other…) that "happiness" is a red herring…
(Perhaps…) You only have One Life.


What would you do to "make a difference"…? (The topic has come up, before…) Would you change — yourself?


That's the gist of the article… If you can't change the world, would you consider changing yourself?


Here's the link: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
44
DnD Central / Diseur?
Shall we talk in verse? Can we make more sense by trying to…?


I'd -perhaps obviously, perhaps not; but I proclaim it!- prefer each one's language be permitted. The interplay of translations is a major part of what our forums are about… (I'd even discuss Ideas themselves!) So, communication becomes an overarching concern.


But is there more? :)


Do tell! Then, let's discuss it.