Messages

I'm not an expert on US Politics, but I think some people call themselves Teabaggers. It's only an insult when used to describe a person who doesn't agree with them. Faithfool, on the other hand, sounds bad to everyone.

"Fascist" might be closer to the kind of word you are looking for (an insult that isn't inherently wrong).
The difference is that unlike faithfool, fascist (or teabagger) is an actually useful word in serious conversation, sometimes, and can't be easily replaced.

If you are making a subjective-value judgement, why use a word like "authentic". Aunthentic has a very clear definition, and it's definitely an objective-value judgement.

His complaint about being willfully misinterpreted merits consideration, I think, because this forum isn't well-known for interpreting mis-communicated thoughts in a charitable way.

This isn't Roger's problem, though. Everybody does that, and that's why it's important to express ourselves clearly, and inmediately change our approach when a particular word or phrase isn't working.

Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

I think the art is still "authentic" in that case. It's just that the artist isn't the person who sings but the producers.
The person who sings would then be like some kind of musical instrument. An "authentic tool" if you prefer.

Would you consider a mass produced plastic vase "authentic" in the same way you would a piece of handmade pottery?

Mass-produced vases are authentic vases. Mass-produced art is authentic art.

EDIT to clarify: I understand that something not being mass-produced can be a selling point just like some people prefer to eat "organic" food. This preference however is only a preference. Preferences are always "authentic".

Eh, I think "authentic" or whatever word you want to use has its place.  In the end music is music.  But some music is an actual expression from an artist, whether it be expressing an emotion, a political viewpoint, a paradigm, a culture, history, etc., etc.  Then there is music that is the equivalent of the cheap plastic shit you buy at Wal-Mart.  It is concocted by Corporate.  They tell the artists (either directly or through other means) what the record needs to sound like.  It isn't artistic expression, it is something churned out by The Machine to move units.

I think the art is still "authentic" in that case. It's just that the artist isn't the person who sings but the producers.
The person who sings would then be like some kind of musical instrument. An "authentic tool" if you prefer.

...I think you underestimate the capacity of human minds to change.

I'm sure human minds can change... eventually.
Climate change is a time-sensitive issue, so I think Paes has a valid concern.

From birth, I have the following privileges (these don't change over time):

• I am male.
• I have above average intelligence.
• I had a minor birth defect (bad eyesight) but because I was born to a middle class family, it has since been treated.

From circunstances, I have the following privileges (these may change over time):

• I am healthy and young, but not underage, so I have all the rights and privileges adults have.
• I have a very supporting family, so I have the privilege of going to college, and being able to work in a job I find interesting and enjoyable, instead of having to take a better paying but much less pleasant job.
• I have a very supporting family. Listing these twice because they paid for my Mystic Eyes of Depth Perception.
• I have a very supporting family. Listing these thrice because even though I didn't go to expensive schools, they made sure I had a good education. They paid for English classes and Internet access, and many books.
• I am light skinned and never experienced racism.

You can ignore her problems with racial appropriation but that doesn't make them go away:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3817286

All the elements of nu-Cyrus that critics have called foul on in recent weeks were on display: black people used as props (see above), black cultural signifiers like twerking used as a means of connoting that Miley's now wild and dangerous, and little in the way of new or evocative imagery.

I've written about Miley's race problems (or, racism, depending on how you take it), but here's a quick summary: She's gone around telling people she wants to make music that "sounds black," that she likes "hood music" but isn't "a white Nicki Minaj," and most recently proclaimed that she's "not a white ratchet girl." Extending her master class on racial identity to social media, she told her followers that she is, indeed, aware of her skin color.

Can you, or someone else, explain to me what is racial appropiation?
When I read the article, it doesn't sound so bad. Is it because the writer just assumes everyone knows why it's bad and it's just me who is missing some crucial context?

"black people used as props"


Let that phrase sink in a bit.

After tying that phrase to a lead anchor and dropping it over the Mariana Trench, I agree that phrase does sound bad.
Problem is, I don't know what that phrase signifies. It's just empty sensationalism, like "racial appropiation".

I was just about to google site:principiadiscordia.com/forum "racial appropiation" because I remembered reading something about it on this forum but couldn't remember exactly where 

Thank you, Cain.

You can ignore her problems with racial appropriation but that doesn't make them go away:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3817286

All the elements of nu-Cyrus that critics have called foul on in recent weeks were on display: black people used as props (see above), black cultural signifiers like twerking used as a means of connoting that Miley's now wild and dangerous, and little in the way of new or evocative imagery.

I've written about Miley's race problems (or, racism, depending on how you take it), but here's a quick summary: She's gone around telling people she wants to make music that "sounds black," that she likes "hood music" but isn't "a white Nicki Minaj," and most recently proclaimed that she's "not a white ratchet girl." Extending her master class on racial identity to social media, she told her followers that she is, indeed, aware of her skin color.

Can you, or someone else, explain to me what is racial appropiation?
When I read the article, it doesn't sound so bad. Is it because the writer just assumes everyone knows why it's bad and it's just me who is missing some crucial context?

So, the NSA and GCHQ have been trying to de-anonymize Tor users for a while, according to the latest leaked document.

Good news, they can't. Tor is actually still very secure.
Bad news, that may be just what they want us to think (check the last slide) 

No. Tor is not very secure.

There's a flaw in the design that means, basically, if you control enough of the exit nodes, you can see where all the traffic is going. The price tag on enough servers is well under the insanity that is the NSA's budget. Tor is sufficient privacy for "lol let's go read shit on the Scientology website and maybe post some idiot comments on their YouTube channel," it's not enough for, say, running the Silk Road.

But the NSA, (according to that leaked document) doesn't (yet?) control enough nodes.
The Silk Road case is very interesting. Let me see if I can find the document explaining how they caught the guy. If I remember correctly, he needed an ID document to rent some servers, so he ordered fake ones and someone opened the package in a random(?) search. The IDs had his picture.

edit: here it is
http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint.pdf

also here, the same document:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/2013-silkroad-indictment.pdf

An interesting short  analysis at the boingboing blog

Miley Cyrus succeeds at a form of celebrity shock behavior that Sinead O'Connor often attempts and fails at. And O'Connor has reason to object beyond mere artistic propriety. Cyrus is transitively self-aware, like the kind of dialogue that Quentin Tarantino reserves for dangerous old men: Miley Cyrus is the music industry's critique of Sinead O'Connor.

Moreover, the younger singer obviously knows what has been and is done to both of them. If you read O'Connor's letter again, you'll see her figure that out as she goes along. But she's too committed to the message to stop. She's talking to herself: a different, younger self.

There is more like that at the article. I thought it was very insightful.

So, the NSA and GCHQ have been trying to de-anonymize Tor users for a while, according to the latest leaked document.

Good news, they can't. Tor is actually still very secure.
Bad news, that may be just what they want us to think (check the last slide) 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/adolescenthealth/monitoring.htm

When they say "monitoring" there, they mean "talking to and staying involved with", not "use tracking devices to spy on your kids". A certain element of trust and respect is also necessary in effective childrearing.

I am so glad I am not the only one who read him that way.

He's clarified that isn't what he meant to say though.

I read him that way too. Apparently, I accidentally primed myself with my own comment about spyware. It's a little scary, to be honest.

Preferably something I actually have a fair chance of explaining to them. Because I don't want my kids to come to think of me as a mean old fuck.

The problem with that sort of thing is that there may be a perfectly good justificat¡on for not giving them what they want, but the reason may not be pleasant to explain, or have it explained to you.

For example, a real reason not to give them smartphones is that they are too much fun. That will move their inner hedonic threshold to a point where they find the usual bullshit kids have to do (endless arithmetic problems, boring reading of terrible books) are now intolerable.

But you can't tell them that. We can't even tell ourselves that, sometimes, which is why this argument is often expressed in a more nuanced, positive-sounding way. For example, by romanticizing boredom.

I am not entirely sure if you are being earnest here or not. If not, then ha-ha, this is indeed an astute parody of one particular way of avoiding taking responsibility for yourself and your kids.

If you are serious, though, I put it to you that you are just plain wrong. "Inner hedonic threshold" indeed! It's not just a few little levers in there with labels on, you know. Teach kids to see reality - actually, they are instantiated with a pretty good angle on it and tremendous potential for development, so even better advice would be: don't actively dissuade your kids from learning to see reality - this will lead to correct assessment of self-interest and appropriate action. I see this in my own kids: once they discovered the dreaded internets (happens around the age of 12, with variations from chatting to friends and strangers to a great deal of collaborative online gaming in teams), school may suffer for a while (largely due to sleep-deprivation) - then they see the shit that gets them into and they adjust.

And nothing is ever too much fun. The addictive personality is formed, not born. A non-addictive personality generally does not slide into self-harming vortices of mal-adaptive self-regulation, whatever the stimulation. So there.

I wanted to see where that romantization of boredom I see in some people comes from.

If it's some kind of euphemism for time management problems, as described by RWHN, then I understand it better. Obviously, if your kid really wants a smartphone and you can provide one you should at least think about other ways of dealing with time management that don't involve depriving your kids of something that is very useful.

Please explain to me how having a smartphone makes it any easier than having access to the internet in general.

The only reason not to do it that I can see would be that it makes the kid a slightly higher value target for muggers. Though honestly, I can't imagine it being that big an increase in the decision of whether or not to attack a child. It isn't delicious candy, after all.

A computer with internet access in the home is a lot easier for parents to monitor than a smartphone which can be used anywhere, anytime. 

If you are into that sort of thing, I'm sure there must be some way for your children's phones to "report home" with some sort of spyware parental supervision app.

I think the other issue you mentioned (time management) to be a valid concernm though. Is there an app for that?
Seriously, I could use one for myself. Maybe something that won't let me refresh news sites more than once an hour.