Messages

It started out in IM.

Ever notice how people don't wanna hear from people who have at least some of the answers (more or less) but will practically worship someone who's full of shit?
Examples: televangelists, popular politicians, game show hosts..
It's like the same people who demand truth and justice also long for comfort and value that over the truth they pretend to love so much.
I say to them: Why lie to yourselves?  It's lying to say, "2+2 is 5, I am right and you are not because I own a car, a house and health insurance."
I know why.  It is because you are scared to think for yourselves.
But I'm not the kind of guy to casually toss that around.
So, why are you the kind of person to rub it in over your financial success (as if blind luck had nothing to do with it) , as if my lack there-of is evidence of not only "loser-dom," but also a sort of evil that threatens your precious suburban all-white community?
Then you are the ones telling me to go to church and sell my soul to the pastor (if that's not what it is, please tell me explicitly what is wrong with my ascertion).
This is hypocritical.  Perhaps being inconsistent and oblivious are qualifications for success.  Perhaps being sociopathic is a necessary condition for climbing the social ladder all the way to the top.
Or is there a leader who *isn't* full of shit?
I hope there is!
Anyways...
I'm kinda worried about this trend in reducing a person's humanity to symptoms, illnesses and conditions.
It's like: how are we any better than animals if all we are is "thought chemicals?"
You see, though, people are obsessed with science (even though they don't understand it).
It's the be-all and end-all of every discussion
Every realm of thought
and it's killing our spirits
Notice judgements passed on "inferior" people?
"Kleptomaniac, sociopath (I'm guilty, too), psycho, etc."
They stem from psychology.
We have popular culture reduced to steaming piles and humanities once again taking a back seat to math/science, which is only useful for people who got a jump start in those areas early on (or have showed affinity to them at a later juncture).
So, what's the story here?  How can we, on the one hand, accept moral responsibility for our actions, and on the other, blame it all on chemicals?
It's a 2+2=5 standard
(in that they're both true at once and are both at odds w/ each other)
People have literally gotten away with murder because they were high on drugs
Say you are schizophrenic and kill somebody.
Even then, you will end up in a psyche ward for the rest of your life (even though, by definition, you are sometimes insane)
Another double-standard:  you have $, you have justice.
Why is it that we place a high monetary value on something as simple and human as justice?
It's the pinnacle of cynicism!
And yet, the same people who argue against cynicism (in it's practical application as a tool for dismantling bullshit) also praise our market system for such great ideas as providing exact answers to questions like: "What is a human life worth?"
Why do we still believe the lies?  Because we are weaker than they are?  Or because we are conditioned to? (Or both?)
I do know this:  there is a revolution coming.  Probably a revolution of ideas more than a revolution of armed struggle against the middle class.  And this revolution is not anything new (like global warming is supposed to be).  It's happened countless times throughout history.  Most notably, the Renissance.  It will be a dark time, for awhile, as old paradigms are shattered and those threatened by the obliteration of their dominion will show their true colors - in other words, a lot of familiar characters will turn ugly.  But it will be liberating.

Surely 'psyops' is just the latest version of something thats always been with us, since the dawn of communication and society? After all, slandering your rivals and attempting to break the morale of enemies isnt very new. Loved the rant, just wondering whether you meant to imply it is a modern phenomenon.

Also, what would 'winning' look like, to all you mentioning it?

Note quite since the dawn of comm. and society.  Well, maybe in primitive form.  Ghengis Kahn turned it into a science.

lol @ title of thread.

Assume time travel is possible and future generations are doing it.

There are still many unknowns, such as: is time a continuous variable which only flows 1-dimensionally (and in one direction)?  Or is time more flexible, allowing for alternate universes where a time traveler would be able to access one and not affect his starting universe?  Is time a universal quantity (universal across the assumed many universes) or is it specific to each "reality?"  Is time even dependent on direction at all or is that just our perception? 

I don't really know, but I'd say that time is more complex than just a 1-dimensional object, and tends to branch off into alternate realities every now and then.  Loosely speaking, there is an established concept of "imaginary time" related to this, but I'm not familiar with it (Stephan Hawking likes to babble about it now and then). 

No, it's not piracy because I used magical quotations marks.  They instantly void things like copyright infringement.

More nerd points for anyone who can solve this (it's not a hw problem of mine; I'm far too advanced *gazes at self in mirror*)
For a topological space X,
X is Hausdorff iff the diagonal (the set {(x,x) | x in X}) is closed in (X, X)

Hint: look it up on google.
Hint for those inclined to do work and not be compensated: Limit points! (I seem to like limit points)

*loads song "Suicide is Painless*  Ahhhh.... much better...

I really liked this post by the way.  It's almost like the manifesto running through my thoughts at any given moment (albeit more advanced).

No, that was just my opinion based on observation. Not scientific fact or even scientific Theory, no siree.

I'm sure with enough grant money it could become a scientific theory.

More nerd points for anyone who can solve this (it's not a hw problem of mine; I'm far too advanced *gazes at self in mirror*)
For a topological space X,
X is Hausdorff iff the diagonal (the set {(x,x) | x in X}) is closed in (X, X)

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go with rong on this one

Dinosaurs and boobs?  It's like my 6th grade fantasy come to life.

Obillary Clintama scares me.

x=x

Clarify

(12 points)

Man, I'm a nerd for saying this, but here goes:

If x is a set:
Every member of x is a member of x.

If x is an element of a set:
if x = k, k a fixed element  implies k = x (because '=' is symmetric), implies x = x (because '=' is transitive),
which means, for any x equal to k, k is equal to x and x is equal to x.
if x does not equal k for any k belonging to any set, x is not an element of a set.

If x is a fixed element:
x is equal to itself.