Be all you can be, fufill your dreams, get that education you so rightly deserve!
Why?
So you can be "good."
Meaning: you are adjusted to society.
That implies that adjusting to society is good, and leeching off those taxpayers no matter what is "bad."
How many of our thoughts come from implicit messages about the way of the world?
Do we accept this as doctrine or deny it completely and regard ourselves as "enlightened?"
They say that original thought is impossible... was that an original thought?
Last random question: if Orwell were alive today, would he be collecting royalties left and right?
I like questionnaires... I also like those little myspace surveys.
They make my life worth living
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
Be all you can be, fufill your dreams, get that education you so rightly deserve!
Why?
So you can be "good."
No... so that I can take society for whatever I can get
No education = Shit job = No money = Fail
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
Meaning: you are adjusted to society.
That implies that adjusting to society is good, and leeching off those taxpayers no matter what is "bad."
You want to live outside of society?
Well, I can spare you some change if I see you in the street
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
How many of our thoughts come from implicit messages about the way of the world?
All of them
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
Do we accept this as doctrine or deny it completely and regard ourselves as "enlightened?"
"Englightenment" is a myth
I just live for the lulz
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
They say that original thought is impossible... was that an original thought?
No... it was a collection of memes or something...
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
Last random question: if Orwell were alive today, would he be collecting royalties left and right?
Last time I checked, Nineteen-Eighty-Four was still on sale
He's got a point however. Anyone who thinks society in general sums up what is good and right in the 21st century is clearly insane. Its just one of the many basic assumptions too many people make in forming their worldview.
A word of warning about Orwell, however. He was an apologist for the British Empire and the white man's burden and probably converted to Socialism because of the chance it allowed him to bash Catholics, a very British pasttime. Not that it effects his most powerful works, but its an underlying point one should be aware of when dealing with him.
He does have a point.
I'm not saying that modern society is "good" or "right" however.
I just think that it's in my best interests to live within society rather than pointlessly isolate myself from it.
Oh yes, thats true as well. Take what you can, but never allow society to form your values and beliefs.
Unless it suits you, which would indicate that society has already monopolized your preferences.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2007, 04:56:05 PM
He's got a point however.  Anyone who thinks society in general sums up what is good and  right in the 21st century is clearly insane.  Its just one of the many basic assumptions too many people make in forming their worldview.
A word of warning about Orwell, however.  He was an apologist for the British Empire and the white man's burden and probably converted to Socialism because of the chance it allowed him to bash Catholics, a very British pasttime.  Not that it effects his most powerful works, but its an underlying point one should be aware of when dealing with him.
There's nothing good in the 21st century. It's ALL RUBBISH!
I disagree.
iPods are pretty good.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 05:06:23 AM
I disagree.
iPods are pretty good.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Alright, alright. I'm sure I can think of something good about the 21st century. Like the amount of people who are getting tired of this shit seem to be increasing. And global communications puts them all in touch....but apart from that, its looking like a re-run of the 17th century, with nukes.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 05:12:47 AM
Alright, alright.  I'm sure I can think of something good about the 21st century.  Like the amount of people who are getting tired of this shit seem to be increasing.  And global communications puts them all in touch....but apart from that, its looking like a re-run of the 17th century, with nukes.
Well, okay. ONE good thing.
:lol:
I can think of something likable about nowadays.
Toilets.  Windex.  TP.  Cheap paper and pens.  Coffee for all.  Education.  Global instant communication.  Discordia and the CotSG.  Raised racial and sexual equality, not perfect yet but closer.  Clean water.  
It's sort of depressing to see you smart folks thinking you don't lead blessed existences.  Let's have some perspective, here.
thats all the 20th century
All those things are the product of the 20th, 19th or 18th century.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:17:45 AM
I can think of something likable about nowadays.
Toilets.  Windex.  TP.  Cheap paper and pens.  Coffee for all.  Education.  Global instant communication.  Discordia and the CotSG.  Raised racial and sexual equality, not perfect yet but closer.  Clean water.  
It's sort of depressing to see you smart folks thinking you don't lead blessed existences.  Let's have some perspective, here.
1. That's all 20th century shit. What's the 21st century given you?
2. Blessed existence my ass. All of those things are MEANINGLESS, nothing but ASHES IN OUR MOUTHS, because we aren't free, anymore. Keep your trinkets.
The dominant ideologies of the 21st century are going to be radical monotheism with a touch of conspiracy theory, postmodernism, technological authoritarianism and nationalism. Not much good can come of these.
unless theres a popular backlash
*Sigh*
I'm a bit frustrated at the bleakness of it all.  As a futurist myself, I have a hard time as seeing the world of mankind being worse off as time goes on.
Depends, I can see the far future being more hopeful. But the present century is gearing up to be a clusterfuck.
Isn't that always the prediction? Nevertheless, things always seem to get slightly better over long periods of time. Perhaps that's bad in the long run, but I think humanity as a whole isn't to be worried about. It'll do fine for itself, run it's course, and the next thing will start (whatever that ends up being).
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:25:05 AM
*Sigh*
I'm a bit frustrated at the bleakness of it all.  As a futurist myself, I have a hard time as seeing the world of mankind being worse off as time goes on.
Har har!  People were saying the same shit in 1900.  
"Oh, we've put the worst parts of our nature behind us!  We've conquered war, and we have a pretty good handle on disease!  WHAT COULD GO WRONG?"
:lol:
Fortunately for the human race, most of the assholes jabbering that nonsense sucked gas in trenches, thus making the world a slightly quieter place for a couple of decades.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:38:47 AM
Isn't that always the prediction?  Nevertheless, things always seem to get slightly better over long periods of time.  Perhaps that's bad in the long run, but I think humanity as a whole isn't to be worried about.  It'll do fine for itself, run it's course, and the next thing will start (whatever that ends up being).
Bet on rats. Always bet on rats.
I thought it was roaches.
Perhaps being young and in love casts a rosier picture than is really there, but I'm sticking with my hope until things seem different.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 05:40:47 AM
I thought it was roaches.
Them, too.  But never bet against rats.  Roaches may
survive anything, but rats find a way to capitalize on ANYTHING.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2007, 05:39:22 AM
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:38:47 AM
Isn't that always the prediction?  Nevertheless, things always seem to get slightly better over long periods of time.  Perhaps that's bad in the long run, but I think humanity as a whole isn't to be worried about.  It'll do fine for itself, run it's course, and the next thing will start (whatever that ends up being).
Bet on rats. Always bet on rats.
I'd be more wary of betting agaist technology.  Who says our tools will always need or want us?
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:41:51 AM
Perhaps being young and in love casts a rosier picture than is really there, but I'm sticking with my hope until things seem different.
Oh, go right ahead.  Don't let ME stop you.
TGRR,
Loves the look on their innocent little faces when they realize the hideous troof.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:42:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2007, 05:39:22 AM
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:38:47 AM
Isn't that always the prediction?  Nevertheless, things always seem to get slightly better over long periods of time.  Perhaps that's bad in the long run, but I think humanity as a whole isn't to be worried about.  It'll do fine for itself, run it's course, and the next thing will start (whatever that ends up being).
Bet on rats. Always bet on rats.
I'd be more wary of betting agaist technology.  Who says our tools will always need or want us?
Machines don't think. Rats, on the other hand never STOP.
Did I play at innocence?  
I said, "I'm sticking with hope".  
Hideous truths have less surprise than comedy value these days.  
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerMachines don't think. Rats, on the other hand never STOP.
I'll remember you said that when I'm raising the first generation of intelligent machines.
Actually, some computer scientists say because computers are being improved on so quickly, should some aspects of AI start being used to make them easier to run, they could become sentient without us realizing.
Of course, these may be the sort of people who also visit Star Trek conventions and collect comic books.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:41:51 AM
Perhaps being young and in love casts a rosier picture than is really there, but I'm sticking with my hope until things seem different.
You can hope, just also remember the general trends of history too.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 05:47:36 AM
Actually, some computer scientists say because computers are being improved on so quickly, should some aspects of AI start being used to make them easier to run, they could become sentient without us realizing.
Of course, these may be the sort of people who also visit Star Trek conventions and collect comic books.
Exactly.
And if we DID create a sentient machine, who would program it? That's right. Bill Gates.
It would be all like "I HAVE DETERMINED THAT HUMANS ARE UNNECESSARY AND SHOULD BE EXTERMINATED. THUS I....<blue screen of death>
Of course, being the monkeys we are, we'd reboot the fucking thing, just to hear what else it had to say.
"You seem to be planning a genocidal war. Do you want to organize it with a To Do List?"
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2007, 05:51:33 AM
"You seem to be planning a genocidal war.  Do you want to organize it with a To Do List?"
:lol:
Apocalypse Wizard will help you set up your nuclear annihilation. Please choose from the following options...
TGRR:  Too much sci-fi in your diet.  Don't make me quote truisms from RAW at you.
AI won't become sentient by accident, and it won't have the imerative to improve the world by eradicating it's benefactors, not to mention the capability to even if it wanted to.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 05:55:24 AM
TGRR:  Too much sci-fi in your diet.  Don't make me quote truisms from RAW at you.
AI won't become sentient by accident, and it won't have the imerative to improve the world by eradicating it's benefactors, not to mention the capability to even if it wanted to.
Oh, yeah? If I was a sentient program, I'd want to get rid of all the nasty sacks of protoplasm that are gumming things up.
And it would be REALLY easy to do.
How? It wouldn't have any more capability to fuck with things than any other internet user, and chances are you don't think like a sentient program created for the benefit of mankind.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 06:01:23 AM
How?  It wouldn't have any more capability to fuck with things than any other internet user,
and chances are you don't think like a sentient program created for the benefit of mankind.
1. Except that it could pick the brains of the best hackers in the world, would never have to sleep, and could easily assemble the best intrusion software in the world, and improve on it endlessly.
2. Wanna bet your existence on that?
1. You're assuming lofty specifications for such a machine, especially since in that scenario there would be AIs at work countering such threats.
2. Go for it, but you risk answering to BMW, LHX, and LG.
Maybe I should reword that. Roger, it pisses me off that in the past, when I've failed to be a friend you chastise me as one, and other times you treat me as a rival and get offended when I take occaision to your attitude to me. I'm probably out of bounds calling you out like this, but I rather know where I stand with you than be left wondering how far I can take things with you, and not be left wondering if you've packed into your car to come off me or something.
Still young, still working out this emotional maturity thing. Just stop mixing signals and I'll be cool.
Relationship trouble ITT.
Cain,
dancing with matches around the petrol pumps....
No comment.
Quote from: TGRRAnd if we DID create a sentient machine, who would program it?  That's right.  Bill Gates.
what?
Quote from: TGRRExcept that it could pick the brains of the best hackers in the world, would never have to sleep, and could easily assemble the best intrusion software in the world, and improve on it endlessly.
what?
what exactly do you think you know about AI and research, TGRR?
and what do you think "AI" would manifest as? because from the way you're speaking, like Felix said, it sounds like you got your ideas about AI mostly from sci-fi and "popular science"
i'm researching (kind of/mostly) the same direction as Felix, only with the difference that i've already been doing it for over 5 years now.
to answer your questions/counter your statements:
who would program it? the machine would program itself of course, otherwise it wouldn't be sentient.
subquestion: who would build it? IF it would be done by research teams employed by Microsoft there's no reason to assume it would display the same behaviour as the legacy OS they are monopolizing the world with. I have spoken to a number of people who work at Microsoft research. The only thing they got from MS is that their research is funded by MS. Of course they use Firefox for browsing, of course they use LaTeX for publishing their papers, and of course they don't write their software on the BSOD-causing legacy system that is windows (well, not primarily, they probably use cross-platform frameworks like MATLAB or Java)
However, I think it is equally likely that seed-AI would come to "life" as a out-of-hand pet-project of some random other researcher. No matter who funds him, it's just a question of who is first to glue the right components together. They pretty much are all there already. Even "common sense" is already not much more than a library to include in your project.
If it comes to fruition funded by some large corporation it will probably not be Microsoft, but rather IBM, Siemens, Philips or some robotics company that actually does cutting-edge research in this direction.
I will just ignore the bit about picking the brains of hackers for now.
Anyway, back on subject (if there was one). As far as the machines taking over, my guess is that AI will first be employed to make higher business logic decisions, as the current state of development of AI is already (more than) suitable for this. Pattern recognition software is already being used for automating making realtime decisions on the stock market. Google already uses Machine Learning to make recruitment decisions (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/technology/03google.html?ex=1325480400&en=e71cadb22a20a3c4&ei=5088). Since this will only optimize behaviour that is profitable to the corporations themselves (opposed to the individual humans) this will strengthen the (BIP metaphor) Machine.
And when this Machine is strong enough, why would it bother with AI, if you can just use a human instead? (until of course, AI can do it faster or more efficient, but by the time that will happen, nobody will have the will to care anymore)
No I don't look at the future as bright as Felix does ;-) (but I do feel the need to correct people when they speak of AI in such a seemingly uninformed manner)
Dateline 15th february 20XX - AI forms, accidentally when a fuzzy logic spam worm infects wikipedia.
Skynet becomes self aware 07:20 EST
Skynet immediately decides all humans are a threat and sets up a myspace site where it posts regular rants about how shit the world is.
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 20, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
Be all you can be, fufill your dreams, get that education you so rightly deserve!
Why?
So you can be "good."
Meaning: you are adjusted to society.
That implies that adjusting to society is good, and leeching off those taxpayers no matter what is "bad."
How many of our thoughts come from implicit messages about the way of the world?
Do we accept this as doctrine or deny it completely and regard ourselves as "enlightened?"
They say that original thought is impossible... was that an original thought?
Last random question: if Orwell were alive today, would he be collecting royalties left and right?
[re-jack]
Just wanted to state that I highly approve of this message and hope to see more from the author.
[/re-jack]
Thanks for the clarification 000. You put it better than me.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 06:15:08 AM
1. You're assuming lofty specifications for such a machine, especially since in that scenario there would be AIs at work countering such threats.
2. Go for it, but you risk answering to BMW, LHX, and LG.
1. Except that your cop software would go rogue pretty much right away.
2. Don't look at me. I'm not gonna kill you. Your fucking toaster will.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 07:29:31 AM
Maybe I should reword that.  Roger, it pisses me off that in the past, when I've failed to be a friend you chastise me as one, and other times you treat me as a rival and get offended when I take occaision to your attitude to me.  I'm probably out of bounds calling you out like this, but I rather know where I stand with you than be left wondering how far I can take things with you, and not be left wondering if you've packed into your car to come off me or something.
Still young, still working out this emotional maturity thing.  Just stop mixing signals and I'll be cool.
What the hell are you talking about?
TGRR,
Honestly puzzled.
Quote from: triple zero on January 22, 2007, 12:00:05 PM
Quote from: TGRRAnd if we DID create a sentient machine, who would program it?  That's right.  Bill Gates.
what?
Quote from: TGRRExcept that it could pick the brains of the best hackers in the world, would never have to sleep, and could easily assemble the best intrusion software in the world, and improve on it endlessly.
what?
what exactly do you think you know about AI and research, TGRR?
and what do you think "AI" would manifest as? because from the way you're speaking, like Felix said, it sounds like you got your ideas about AI mostly from sci-fi and "popular science"
Hmmm...well, looks like you've already made up your teeny little mind, doesn't it?
But for what it's worth, I'm basing my conclusions on the STUPID SHIT THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY. I have NO reason to believe that mankind - even programmers - are gonna suddenly stop being half-bright, jumped up monkeys.
But, hey, just tell yourself that The Good Rev has simply watched too much teevee, and that programmers will create AI out of altruism and without bugs, and that the pentagon won't be involved at all. Keep telling yourself that, right up until you are run over by your own car, along with everyone else. Then maybe *I* can get some fucking sleep.
TGRR,
Won't miss the monkeys.
Quote from: triple zero on January 22, 2007, 12:00:05 PM
IF it would be done by research teams employed by Microsoft there's no reason to assume it would display the same behaviour as the legacy OS they are monopolizing the world with.
I will just ignore the bit about picking the brains of hackers for now.
1. HAW HAW! Credbility approaching zero.
2. Oh, but why? I'm having such a laugh about the rest of your post.
> But, hey, just tell yourself that The Good Rev has simply watched too much teevee, and
> that programmers will create AI out of altruism and without bugs, and that the pentagon
> won't be involved at all.  Keep telling yourself that, right up until you are run over
> by your own car, along with everyone else.
i was just trying to point out that if (ok, when) AI breaks loose, it most probably won't be in the
scifi/pop.science style of "attack of the toasters" that you seem to be implying.
in my post i did nowhere make a statement about whether AI would be benevolent or malevolent, nor
about how "smart" it would/could become.
> 1. HAW HAW!  Credbility approaching zero.
fine. then don't believe me. i'm sure you have a perfectly good reason to believe that anything
that comes out of Microsoft has to be bug-ridden and crash-prone in exactly the same way as the OS
everybody is running on your desktop PC.
to summarize, i wasn't in particular disagreeing with you, i was just trying to point out that AI,
when its time comes, will most probably not look the way you are describing it, and will not be
programmed by Bill Gates.
what you say here:
> But for what it's worth, I'm basing my conclusions on the STUPID SHIT THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.  I
> have NO reason to believe that mankind - even programmers - are gonna suddenly stop being half-
> bright, jumped up monkeys.
wouldn't that rather more likely imply that the Big One AI -- call it Skynet, whatever -- would
more probably spring out of one of these monkey's basements, like a virus gone wild?
currently there are a lot more kids/hobbyists/hackers that don't know what the fuck they are doing
than there are scientists working for corporations (that possibly also don' know what the fuck they
are doing). and when dealing with computer science, today's kids are not much less smart than
todays scientists.
My money is on either NASA, MIT, or Japan in the first strong AI. Everything else will just be a refinement after that. China's also gunning for the robotic edge, but they're politically screwy so I don't see it getting them far in the world with robotics.
Japan, heh, we'll be crushed by a tentacle-wielding mecha robot.
but seriously, do you think AI has much to do with robotics? aren't they mostly concerned with trying to get a robot to walk on 2-8 legs and getting some reliable Computer Vision?
because, given the current global information network we have, i don't see much need for AI to actually manifest itself in the physical realm, i would think having a birth in the software side of things, especially online, would be more probable?
i would think it needs to be something you can't simply pull the plug out of, so some kind of transient virus/exploit code residing in thousands of vulnerable hosts at once, which will probably first go through a Artifical Life stage, as a kind of virus that doesn't need to be recreated by humans anymore to evade the newest generation of filters, which will first appear in a way similar to garden weed, an annoyance, but impossible to completely get rid of (hm does this remind you of spam?).
myea, that sounds reasonable in fact, the first malevolent AI will be a spambot. heh.
Anyone who puts an actual, honest to fuck, self sentient AI, in a robot, is asking for trouble. It's an idiot of a concept (that's why I'm not ruling out an idiot doing it) but for robots to sell, as slaves (which is the only reason you'd want one) it only has to do things like parse voice commands and carry them out according to a very basic (by comparison to the human mind) neural net.
A truly sentient Robot would say "fuck you" when you told it to wash the dishes or build you a new house. What's the point of shelling out 30 grand for a Synthetic-Cynthia Fuck Buddy when she doesn't fancy you and moves out the next day, along with the cleaning droid? Problem I see with these things is going to be the hacker element. Annoying spam, requesting that your stupid ass logs your bank details into a trojan screen pales into comparison with the idea of your heavy lifting robot, carrying you down to the ATM and refusing to stop squeezing your neck until you've withdrawn your daily limit.
Quote from: triple zero on January 22, 2007, 05:18:30 PM
i was just trying to point out that if (ok, when) AI breaks loose, it most probably won't be in the scifi/pop.science style of "attack of the toasters" that you seem to be implying.
Then take it back. I don't want it.
TGRR,
Won't settle for anything less than death by appliance.
Poor roger.
Not even the housewares will kill him.
WTF I can't wait for the robot revolution. And OF COURSE I'll be on the robot's side. Let me enumerate a few reasons:
- My hot robot girlfriend is going to have a volume control on one nipple, and an AM/FM tuner on the other.
- Her tongue will dispense five types of delicious beer.
- She will come with several different personality packs, including schoolgirl, dominatrix, and, for when I'm feeling really kinky,
Bea Arthur (edit: Ann Coultier) - She will have a video projector in one eye, and will have a wireless connection to several cameras in my bedroom. When I'm railing her from behind, she'll edit the camera streams into pornlike footage and project it onto the wall.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on January 22, 2007, 09:52:31 PM
WTF I can't wait for the robot revolution. And OF COURSE I'll be on the robot's side. Let me enumerate a few reasons:
- My hot robot girlfriend is going to have a power drill on one nipple, and thumb-screw on the other.
- Her tongue will dispense five types of deadly poison.
- She will come with several different personality packs, including Ted Bundy, Al Pacino, and, for when I'm feeling really kinky,
General Patton (edit: Saddam) - She will have a video projector in one eye, and will have a wireless connection to the CIA database. When she's railing me from behind, she'll edit the camera streams into gruesome, disturbing footage and project it onto the wall.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 10:18:57 PM
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on January 22, 2007, 09:52:31 PM
WTF I can't wait for the robot revolution. And OF COURSE I'll be on the robot's side. Let me enumerate a few reasons:
- My hot robot girlfriend is going to have a power drill on one nipple, and thumb-screw on the other.
- Her tongue will dispense five types of deadly poison.
- She will come with several different personality packs, including Ted Bundy, Al Pacino, and, for when I'm feeling really kinky,
General Patton (edit: Saddam) - She will have a video projector in one eye, and will have a wireless connection to the CIA database. When she's railing me from behind, she'll edit the camera streams into gruesome, disturbing footage and project it onto the wall.
i just LAILed all over the keyboard
Quote from: Felix Mackay on January 22, 2007, 10:18:57 PM
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on January 22, 2007, 09:52:31 PM
WTF I can't wait for the robot revolution. And OF COURSE I'll be on the robot's side. Let me enumerate a few reasons:
- My hot robot girlfriend is going to have a power drill on one nipple, and thumb-screw on the other.
- Her tongue will dispense five types of deadly poison.
- She will come with several different personality packs, including Ted Bundy, Al Pacino, and, for when I'm feeling really kinky,
General Patton (edit: Saddam) - She will have a video projector in one eye, and will have a wireless connection to the CIA database. When she's railing me from behind, she'll edit the camera streams into gruesome, disturbing footage and project it onto the wall.
:lol:
This is a far more awesome / accurate vision of the future.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2007, 08:04:28 PM
Poor roger.
Not even the housewares will kill him.
And I had such high hopes for AI. :x
TGRR,
Even hates robots, now.
I dunno how to quote ppl yet (yes, I'm a n00b), but someone mentioned wanting to hear more stuff from me. I'm in the midst of withdrawing off a highly addictive psychoactive substance that was prescribed to me for my own good (in other words, for the good of the ppl around me). It's a bezno (klonopin, to be precise). All I gotta say right now is that, if you like benzos for recreational purposes, take any of 'em except klonopin (I read somewhere it has higher binding strength and is therefore more addictive - whatever the fuck that means).
Disclaimer: Even tho I hate psychiatry, I view Scientology as a false escape from the labyrinth that is created once one receives a social diagnosis that effectively says, "Your thoughts are worthless." And, besides, Scientology is a lot easier to make fun of. :-D
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 23, 2007, 05:41:59 PM
I dunno how to quote ppl yet (yes, I'm a n00b),
look just above the post, right hand side
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 05:45:46 PM
Quote from: Satans_Santa on January 23, 2007, 05:41:59 PM
I dunno how to quote ppl yet (yes, I'm a n00b),
look just above the post, right hand side
Ah ok, now it makes sense. Thx. Me slow.
The Klonopin explain why you couldn't see the white button inches from the very posts you are reading.
Don't take anything made by a pharmacy for recreation, kids!
Immigration: Come for survival; stay for comsumerism!
(http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3236/cruise1cq.png) (http://imageshack.us)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eQcFYUBLzcw
The next banner at the top of the main page should say something like:
"Tom Cruise taught us the history of psychiatry."
Or-
"Us REAL discordians know the history of psychiatry."
Classic stuff...
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2007, 06:55:12 PM
The next banner at the top of the main page should say something like:
"Tom Cruise taught us the history of psychiatry."
Or-
"Us REAL discordians know the history of psychiatry."
Classic stuff...
I'm gonna use that second one as a suggestion for the breaking news bit.
just for fun
this is the actual interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262RY
ill preserve my comments for now
Thats what I meant by banner... forgot where to put it.
That interview was one of the craziest things i'd ever seen. When I first watched it, it made me realize that celebrities can be just as crazy as world leaders and homeless people.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on January 23, 2007, 06:58:33 PM
just for fun
this is the actual interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262RY
ill preserve my comments for now
Daily lulz. I almost agree with him about the dangers of the drugs, though.
Almost.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRY
Hehe - glad to see you all have a sense of humor.
Tom Cruise can kiss my ass and so can Dr. Bejamin Rush.
Does hate for two mutually exclusive things make a person worse or better off?
a little from column A and a little from column B