New Testingstan

agreed on potential


but on the morally relevance it isn't something i worry too much about, but what it comes down to is pointless destruction


here's an example. reduce/reuse/recycle

these objects don't feel pain, but i feel bad about wasting things like plastic bags


now if i throw a plastic bag in the trash you could probably argue this is a minor bad thing because getting oil can destroy ecosystems which ultimately causes pain in animals or people


i see it differently though: throwing a plastic bag in the trash is bad because waste is bad. even if, without a doubt, nobody would be hurt at any time by it... i'd still say you shouldn't do this if you don't have to




"if you don't have to" is the place with huge wiggle room of course

oh one more thing

something i do avoid for sanity's sake is the idea of an imperative to get to some perfect state

a lot of ethics things argue X is perfection, so everything you do ought to be working toward X


and that's a pain.


i see it on more of a personal level. given chances that come up in the course of my regular life, what choice should i personally make? don't worry abotu changing the world, just do your little part.


given the choice between reusing and throwing something in the trash, i'll reuse since that destroys less stuff

given the choice between tearing up some grass or walking around it, i'll walk around it


that kind of thing



now where does need come in to it? building a house is going to kill some things: trees, grass, prolly worms and ants, etc. but you could reasonably say you need a house, so its ok. ideally you won't build one bigger than you need though, since that's still waste. you should avoid building it in a location with a vivid or unique ecosystem since then you are destroying a more abstract something in addition to the individuals.

(so like if you can build on a location that rips up some common grass or a location where you'd drive a species extinct in the process, prefer to choose the former since it is less lost permanently.)


same with antibiotics. you just say you need it for self defense, and no need to feel bad about it



there's some kind of weighing in here, saying you're more important than the stuff you kill while fulfilling your needs


but meh it works for me.

adr wrote:there's some kind of weighing in here, saying you're more important than the stuff you kill while fulfilling your needs

Asimov's Third Law of Robotic FTW ! (if you were a robot, that is...)

ADR needs to understand Buddhism better

if it involves books or anything like that

just say no

abstinence from reading means there's zero risk of some learned shit impregnating my virgin mind

Adam D. Ruppe
i need to make a blog called ignorant and proud of it
ironically if you read my blog you fail

Dennis Ruppe
love it

Dennis Ruppe
i will comment on every post with "i didn't read your post but..."

Adam D. Ruppe
brilliant

Your motto needs to be either

'reinventing the wheel'

Or

'always assume your thoughts are original"

Ps I don't play many games but I don't like that one etc etc

so apparently alyrium cites a single paper of statistics to show that legalised abortion by far accounts for most of the drop in crimes over a certain period

uhhh, that sounds like the kind of thing that would require some serious replication to actually verify, because it would mean legalised abortion dropped crime rates by around 20 percent. that's pretty much unheard of in criminology. i also don't see why alyrium's assertion about who aborts why should just be accepted out of hand. a few things about that: pretty sure there are people who are actually too poor to afford abortion (e.g. someone posted something on facebook about some teenager who wanted to have an abortion but wanted help with money because she was saving for an iphone or something), and that poor people may be more likely to be opposed to abortions, and furthermore that availability of abortion may reduce people's tendency to use condoms, and therefore perhaps actually increase the total number of unwanted children (these things can and should be checked). and surely, if your argument is that less unwanted children, or less poor children, decrease crime rates, why would you not get a measure of that directly instead of measuring it by proxy of abortions and then not even bothering determining whether the things correlate?

but five seconds of googling shows that the debate is pretty I'M A JUGGALO WOOP WOOP and that the study was made by the freakonomist, and his greatest enemy is a reaganomist and this all smells like bullshidomics to me

(also some replications shows it doesn't really hold up in other countries, and apparently some people have found errors in that paper, which the authors do not agree with and pulled an even more complicated analysis to save the results)

what kind of pseudo-eugenicist even argues for abortion based on its impact on crime rates anyway

eh the wheel is reinvented way too often

that phrase has become trite



HOLY SHIT META LOLS DISCOVERED

They banned python
Wake up
Time to die

Dooey Jo wrote:what kind of pseudo-eugenicist even argues for abortion based on its impact on crime rates anyway

i've only read the introduction so far but the paper's authors did spend some words in the first couple pages saying "we're just looking at the stats not passing judgment"

alyrium might be tho, idk yet

snap son

so i was figuring i'll catch up on work this morning

and got a lot to show so i emailed the guy



turns out i broke his demo because he wasn't expecting the new stuff to be there today


just goes to show when you want to skip work

you probably should

i see the word "numbnuts" thrown around a lot

adr wrote:

Dooey Jo wrote:what kind of pseudo-eugenicist even argues for abortion based on its impact on crime rates anyway

i've only read the introduction so far but the paper's authors did spend some words in the first couple pages saying "we're just looking at the stats not passing judgment"

alyrium might be tho, idk yet

yeah they're probably the kind of statisticians that stumble across some correlation and go "omfg most important evar"

though the ridiculous length they went to to make the argument makes me wonder...

still, their plots of a supposed trend across the different states don't exactly scream "20% of all crime" to me

jesus

yesterday there was a thread in the d newsgroup about my dom library (coincidentally popping up just a couple hours after it masturbated to it here in my lol php thread0

and today there's a thread about how my documentation sucks on the web.d


i hate open sourcing crap

Dooey Jo wrote:yeah they're probably the kind of statisticians that stumble across some correlation and go "omfg most important evar"

SPOILERZ

Maybe you just hate documenting shit

maybe i shouldn't have written shit in the first place

Nobody can turn black to clock mang


BLACK TO CLOCK???

Thanks phone

she's got a house
an old and funny house
a monkey and a horse
a suitcase full of golden coins

and you will never ever ever find
another girl so strong
and always generous and kind

no wonder nobody likes your documentation

you're the fucking tom bombadil of open source

urge to bomb OH NOEZ NO MORE WWI VETS thread rising

adr sing us out of this one

daisy daisy
give me your answer do
i'm half crazy
all for the love of you

it won't be a stylish marriage
i can't afford a carriage
but you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two

i thought of a good way to lulz with jimmy and elfy if they start sucking flannel cock again

be all like

"if you honestly think you know what kids do and don't like and think they know how to make quality entertainment why don't you hang out on a kids forum (the ones not 90% sekrit government agents) and have them write a blockbuster movie for you. until then, let the adults talk for a while so you can spend time writing 108 page fanfiction about dexter jexter"

or something i dunno

just wanted to write that down

Because Stofsk can respond to ALy's bullshit on his own, but I couldn't help but notice in that Trek thread...

Stofsk wrote: Instead they made her a chick, in the same department (science) as Jadzia, only more medical related (counseling as opposed to science officer), and so she hooked up with Julian. Lame.

Alyeska wrote: Department, not occupation. Having the same shirt didn't even remotely make her the same type as Jadzia.