|
”stdnh.txt” posted:
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Shitthatdidnthappen.txt
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Goddammit granpa, I said I would call you once a week if you stopped sending this trash, do I need to tell the home to unplug your modem again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Goddammit granpa, I said I would call you once a week if you stopped sending this trash, do I need to tell the home to unplug your modem again? Not what I'd be unplugging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
lol at the story where we're supposed to identify with the protagonist, an old man who likes to hang around walmart so he can feel superior to his neighbors
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:the qanon thing is still going on? Jesus christ. Half of the Free Republic forum has gotten really big into Q; it's rather alarming to watch. Though I do find it interesting that both Q's fans and detractors describe him as the "Modern Nostradamus". So it's nice we can all agree on something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lol at the story where we're supposed to identify with the protagonist, an old man who likes to hang around walmart so he can feel superior to his neighbors Hey, he hangs out in the gardening section not like those thugs loitering around all the televisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:stdh.txt I'm gonna find this guy and do this to him: I Keep My Grandfather’s Mind Active By Calling Him Every Day And...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lol at the story where we're supposed to identify with the protagonist, an old man who likes to hang around walmart so he can feel superior to his neighbors Old men threatening people in the Wal-Mart checkout area are the bedrock of our society!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
if it only proved that we are not free and told us how to be ... that alone, should be enough if it only showed us the power of the truth that alone, should be enough if it only gave us understanding of virtual reality that alone, should be enough if it only helped us to strive to be the best we can that alone should be enough if it only demanded in gods hand that we end world hunger that alone should be enough if it only showed us that the future screams for us to heal the sick that alone should be enough if it only showed us corruption and backwards laws that alone should be enough if it only ended murder and rape that alone should be enough if it only ended pain that alone should be enough if it only promised and end to aging and to death that alone should be enough if it was only a message from the creator, proving he exists that alone should have been enough light the internet. oh, look... a beach. shehz. it's "armageddon," clearly you need the assassistance. The above "song" is a pardody of the Passover prayer the "Deyanu" which reminds us of all the great things that God did, in Exodus... in Egypt, to set us free. Do see where we really are.... (in Exodus, in Egypt). Dayenu (Hebrew:דַּיֵּנוּ) is a song that is part of the Jewish holiday of Passover. The word "Dayenu" means approximately "it would have been enough", "it would have been sufficient", or "it would have sufficed" (day in Hebrew is "enough", and -enu the first person plural suffix, "to us"). This traditional up-beat Passover song is over one thousand years old. The earliest full text of the song occurs in the first medieval haggadah, which is part of the ninth-century Seder Rav Amram.[1] The song is about being grateful to God for all of the gifts he gave the Jewish people, such as taking them out of slavery, giving them the Torah and Shabbat, and had God only given one of the gifts, it would have still been enough. This is to show much greater appreciation for all of them as a whole. The song appears in the haggadah after the telling of the story of the exodus and just before the explanation of Passover, matzah and the maror. You sit in a closed black market, "buying" something with no competition, and no transparency; the thing that's for sale is your soul, that's really what it is; and it appears that everyone is content with having their "contentment" be changed by this secret seller. It looks as if the whole point of the game, I mean the "black market" is to teach us --to really show us--that transparency and an open market benefit not only the buyer but the seller--better products are made, better solutions; competition is king... and this "darkness" probably has you in the same position as me, wondering if the mass of throbbing silence that we have all become is A or B; and to be quite honest, I told him four years ago that the "alphabet game" was ridiculous and stupid--and yet here we are continuing to play it, which probably means you are "in to it." There's problems in the world here, real problems that have a real solution--and that solution is tied not only to the technology behind the silence, but ending it; your input and your assistance takes this tool that probably is doing "a little bit" for you--while corrupting the market, and keeping the biggest problems of all completely unsolved. Just the fact that we are willing to walk around here and tell the person that you know in your heart and your mind is the focus of all of religion and myth--to walk up to that person in an "internet forum" and tell them that "you don't get it" when it's so loving obvious that you either get it, or you are stupid to the core... that alone should really tell you something really dark and corrupt has infiltrated too deeply into our hearts to really be "us" anymore--we need to take action, you need to take action. That's not to say that people aren't stupid; but this thing is so clear and so obvious that I shouldn't even have to tell you that if it was given a tenth of the introspection and analysis that goes into things like Egyptian hieroglyphs we'd be on the Elon Musk hyperLoop to Heaven instead of standing here smack dab in the middle of the Halloween Horror Nights haunted house--trying to figure out what on Earth is behind "not caring" about "I don't get it" literally telling the Universe that you are not sentient, that you cannot think, that you are not human. I realize that you think you're going to skate by pretending that you don't know who I am, or that you do get the message, and you might even be smart enough to think you are putting up a line of defense to protect everyone else that "just couldn't see it." You are damning yourself, everyone that is pretending they "can't see it" and everyone that would benefit from this disclosure because you are .... you have to tell me what's making you so loving stupid, because I can't figure out a single reason to stand by and watch this horror show continue. Not one. Damning everyone to continue living like this--with this cloud of secrecy--and literally no visible benefit at all from technology and an outside force that on it's face... any rational person can see is behind terrorism, school shootings, flat Earth ridiculousness, pretty much all "cl rear end ical" schizophrenia, and every single rear end rear end iad ation's ... or at least the ones predicted in Moby Dick. Come on, tell me you don't see Mobil and Electric Sheep, I know you get it. We are damning our children, and their children at the very least to have to do this "bounce back" from what will probably be a significantly deeper darkness--if you can't see this place has been "set up" to see the problems, and to have a very easy path and tool of reaction ... you really don't understand what kind of opportunity we are giving up by pretending that "this blessed sip of life is enough."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
What the hell did I just read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
a fairly legible schizo rant
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
It's like my ol' crazy mom posting from beyond the grave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Nightgull posted:I remember reading somewhere that it is only recently that we have been regarding the future as necessarily better than the past. For most of history people assumed we were in decline from an earlier, greater age. To be fair, a lot of this "fallen from a golden age" belief comes from the ancient Greeks, who really had declined from an earlier, greater age. The Bronze Age had massive palaces, huge cities, and a trade network that stretched from Great Britain to Egypt to India and China for the purpose of trading the scarce and valuable tin. Then it all collapsed, and even hundreds of years later, the Greeks called the Bronze Age architecture "Cyclopean" because they couldn't even imagine that humans had the ability to build it. That's how far they'd declined between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:To be fair, a lot of this "fallen from a golden age" belief comes from the ancient Greeks, who really had declined from an earlier, greater age. The Bronze Age had massive palaces, huge cities, and a trade network that stretched from Great Britain to Egypt to India and China for the purpose of trading the scarce and valuable tin. Then it all collapsed, and even hundreds of years later, the Greeks called the Bronze Age architecture "Cyclopean" because they couldn't even imagine that humans had the ability to build it. That's how far they'd declined between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. I'm still surprised that the Bronze age went on for what? 3000 years? at an almost technological stand still. No one even came to far as to smelt iron. Not even by accident. Why was everything stuck?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Katt posted:I'm still surprised that the Bronze age went on for what? 3000 years? at an almost technological stand still. No one even came to far as to smelt iron. Not even by accident. Why was everything stuck? Well apart from developing agriculture, proto-civilisations, walled cities, mercantilism, writing, currency, and basically everything needed to move from a hunter-gatherer species to an organised society with permanent, walled settlements. I guess nothing at all. Low energy! Sad!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Well apart from developing agriculture, proto-civilisations, walled cities, mercantilism, writing, currency, and basically everything needed to move from a hunter-gatherer species to an organised society with permanent, walled settlements. I guess nothing at all. Low energy! Sad! You know what I mean. Over 2000 years they were using the same materials and almost the same techniques. Like they "Peaked" They were building more stuff but not very much new stuff. Compare that to the iron age and up were everything became obsolete almost every century
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
There was a poo poo-ton of new stuff. Also people were using iron in the bronze age, it's just that until they figured out how to smelt iron with carbon to make steel, bronze was better for almost everything except that you needed to have trade because the metals weren't always found close together. Iron was cheaper because you didn't need to alloy it with other things, but it was soft and not super useful for tools or weapons, also it melts at a really high temperature so you needed to develop much hotter forges for iron work than for melting copper and tin. Until tin started to be in short supply, nobody really cared too much about widespread use of iron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Plus I'm sure there was this idea of 'good enough' to some degree. People get fed, slavery covers labor shortages, there's plenty of fish to catch and lumber to fell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Plus, from my extensive historical research* those early techs take for loving ever because you only have one city and you aren't pumping out science yet. *Played every version of Civ since the original on my Amiga 1200.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Plus, from my extensive historical research* those early techs take for loving ever because you only have one city and you aren't pumping out science yet. How did you get Civ VI to run on your Amiga 1200?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Very carefully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
You also have to remember that humans had stone-tools for more of our history than the rest of it combined at this point. Also the idea of science advancing is fairly new, as in the olden times finding new innovations was just random chance with no guarantee of spreading. Maybe lots of people "discovered" steel but because they were some pigfarmer from outer-Mesopotamia nobody new cause they just used it to make a rad backscratcher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Katt posted:I'm still surprised that the Bronze age went on for what? 3000 years? at an almost technological stand still. No one even came to far as to smelt iron. Not even by accident. Why was everything stuck? It's also not about just the knowledge to smelt iron, it's the logistics and infrastructure too. If most cultures are based around a bronze economy, there'll be a lot of effort put into making better bronze. While the principles of iron smelting were understood in several bronze-age societies, a bronze weapon and a cast iron weapon have about the same utility in terms of strength and holding an edge, so if your manufacturing processes/forges etc. are all set up for bronze, there is little motivation for switching to iron. Unless, as other posters have said, the ingredients for bronze become scarce. Another footnote: the idea of continual, incremental technological improvement as being the normal way societies progress is a relatively new phenomenon. The cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations means knowledge and infrastructure is lost, many complex industrial processes have to be rediscovered when a new society rises out of the ashes of an older one. Currently, we might just be on a societal/technological upswing, and the crash is coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:There was a poo poo-ton of new stuff. Also people were using iron in the bronze age, it's just that until they figured out how to smelt iron with carbon to make steel, bronze was better for almost everything except that you needed to have trade because the metals weren't always found close together. Iron was cheaper because you didn't need to alloy it with other things, but it was soft and not super useful for tools or weapons, also it melts at a really high temperature so you needed to develop much hotter forges for iron work than for melting copper and tin. Until tin started to be in short supply, nobody really cared too much about widespread use of iron. The high temperature thing was one of the biggest limitations; the ores of tin and copper are way easier to smelt than ores of iron. Of those three metals copper is the only one that occurs as a native metal commonly in large amounts; note that bronze is primarily copper. Making iron useful (i.e, turning it into steel) is a multi-step process that is extremely time consuming to do by hand. Iron was used during a lot of the bronze age but was not at all common. Wrought and cast iron were around but not used for much. Of interest is that there are iron-nickel alloy objects that exist from even the early bronze age. Nobody knew what the gently caress that was about until they realized the ore actually came from meteors. Generally these things were owned by important or wealthy people. Somebody that had access to bronze tools did not get meteor iron stuff. It was very rare and more of a status thing to have an iron thing and it probably didn't see much use. But yeah temperature was the biggest issue; it's relatively simple to get furnaces that can handle melting copper as that's a touch under 2,000 F. Iron is another story; that's around 2,800 F. Tin melts way under both of them so melting tin and copper together was pretty easy. Getting carbon into iron was much more difficult; steel just plain took more work as well as specialized facilities. Of course if you can't get tin then you don't have much of a choice but to figure out iron working. If bronze is great and everybody knows how to work it but iron kind of sucks there's no reason to switch away from bronze if you can get the ingredients.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
This is all really cool info 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Afriscipio posted:Another footnote: the idea of continual, incremental technological improvement as being the normal way societies progress is a relatively new phenomenon. The cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations means knowledge and infrastructure is lost, many complex industrial processes have to be rediscovered when a new society rises out of the ashes of an older one. Currently, we might just be on a societal/technological upswing, and the crash is coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Katt posted:This is all really cool info  , this is a derail I can get behind
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:I think they reinvented paper a couple of times or something like that. But really, who among us hasn't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
If a conservative friend is making what seems to be a good-faith effort to seek out better news sources, where could I send him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
jackpot posted:If a conservative friend is making what seems to be a good-faith effort to seek out better news sources, where could I send him? NPR is my go-to for babby’s first news source. They’re even handed (infuriatingly so) and they have a lot of in-depth analysis. There’s also that research that said NPR listeners/readers were generally the best informed
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
jackpot posted:If a conservative friend is making what seems to be a good-faith effort to seek out better news sources, where could I send him? you have to titrate them up from Fox/Breitbart/whatever. Start them on CBS News or the WSJ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:NPR is my go-to for babby’s first news source. They’re even handed (infuriatingly so) and they have a lot of in-depth analysis. There’s also that research that said NPR listeners/readers were generally the best informed Yeah. Although they are probably somewhat liberal in terms of personal opinions, they treat conservative callers on their call in show with (infuriatingly) great respect and a lot of their stuff seems to be funded by the Koch foundation. There's nothing much there that would be annoying to a non-crazy conservative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
jackpot posted:If a conservative friend is making what seems to be a good-faith effort to seek out better news sources, where could I send him? The sad thing is they are about to learn that digging for the truth takes effort, which is why most just let themselves be fed their perspectives from the media that tells them what they want to hear. Another vote for NPR, though I was dissatisfied with their coverage of the last election and sometimes I just don't want to hear about this interesting flower on the side of a mountain or what that Jazz singer thinks about potatoes. Culture is important, but not when I want the news. I've found what seems to be a lot of reporting accuracy from TYT, though you have to put up with some "personalities" that may make you roll your eyes. Remind him that he's not there to agree with everything, he wants to find out what actually happens and it's okay to disagree with the presenters perspective. When people ask me where I get my news from, I just usually say the entire Internet, cross-checking everything. Yep, it sucks but you generally get that whole truth thing in the end. If you want to start them off with something interesting to watch, give them "Brainwashing my Dad" and the Robert Reich videos "Inequality for All" and "Saving Capitalism", the first on Amazon Prime and the latter on Netflix. They're pretty fairly balanced I feel (being independent). OldPueblo fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:you have to titrate them up from Fox/Breitbart/whatever. Start them on CBS News or the WSJ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I'm tempted to go this route, plus Reuters. I know that NPR has a decent reputation among sane people, and I can stand it, but in wingnut circles it's no better than HuffPo. Interesting, with my wingnut friends it was mostly off the radar compared to other major media outlets. You can try sharing select articles with them first, ones that they’ll find agreeable at first so they can build a rapport with that outlet
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
I'd recommend the Economist. The most important thing is to turn him on to boring sources of information. There are two business models for news. 1. Provide information that helps people understand the world, aimed at customers who need to understand the world in order to do their jobs. 2. Provide information that helps people feel good about their own beliefs, aimed at people who feel anxiety about the confusing world around them. The further you go down #2, the less you understand the world, so the more confusing it gets, and the more you need it. Twitter is bad, Facebook is bad, blogs are bad, opinion columns are bad, video news that is less than 5 minutes per segment is bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I'm tempted to go this route, plus Reuters. I know that NPR has a decent reputation among sane people, and I can stand it, but in wingnut circles it's no better than HuffPo. Yeah, and wingnuts think the New York Times (paper that stockbrokers read) is a communist rag. Any non-insane conservative will listen to NPR and think "This really isn't as extreme as Hannity told me it was."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Reuters is probably a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:36
|
|