Re: OT: totally off-topic

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

idea.  We can start with offlining the USENET.  If there's little work
to do, increase the uniform distribution of times you connect to
exchange articles.  If there's more work, decrease it.

>
True. My usenet/mailinglist debt is starting to grow. I have become
involved in way too detailed and deep interesting conversations, and
they are starting to take their toll. =(

I think I saw some of your chats on rec.food.cooking.  You gotta get
outta there.  That group is crazy and the volume, insane.

Interesting, I have never seen this burger in europe! How does it
differ from regular cheese burgers?

>
I think a regular cheese burger would not be a Cheddar cheese burger.
But I agree any Cheddar is a cheese burger.  Over here now they have two
options: you get the traditional Cheddar McMelt or you can order the
double one.  The double one comes with three burgers, IIRC.  Besides the
melted Cheddar, it also comes with chopped onions mixed in the Cheddar.
I think that's it.  And a cheese burger is a burger with some slices of
cheese.  I'm not the right person to ask about such things because I go
there once in a few years, always planning never to come back. :)

>
This is making me hungry! =D

Lol.

Yeah---the experts always include nutrition in their hypotheses.

>
The question is... how can we, you and me, change the trend? ;)

>
I don't think we can.  That would mean that a point can change the
uniform average.  We could do something if we go from a uniform average
to a weighted one and we somehow acquire the huge weight.  Nah.  I don't
think there's true change that way.  I don't think we can change the
world.  I don't think we should change the world.  Let nature follow its
own course.

>
What if it is in my nature to change the world? Then that would be nature
following its own course. ;)
>
The biggest change can start with the smallest idea!

Today I watched the documentary series called

  The Century of the Self

It's a good illustration of people mean by ``change'' in the world. :)

Should a 4-leaf clover try to make every other a 4-leaf one?

>
Yes!

Lol.  Speechless. :)

Hey, there are 7 helicopters going round and round around a certain
region where my house is.  They're all gray in color.  One follows the
other.  They're really going around a circumference.  Any idea what this
is?  I'd guess it's military exercise.  They're boringly going round.
Not in high speeds.  They're not high in the sky; probably between
100--200 meters from the ground.  Probably 50 meters from the top of a
hill around which they seem to flying.

>
Sounds scary! Be safe! =( In stockholm, due to the excessive
uncontrolled crime recently, police drones and helicopters are
becoming more and more common. I hate the surveillance society that
sweden has been turned into and do not want to live in it.

I should have recorded it, uploaded with the comment---AI piloted. :)

As we discussed above, I think a house in the country side, deep
inside the forest would be the ideal place for me!

Sounds very interesting.

I had never heard of practical philosophy.

>
It is a fairly new branch of philosophy, about 100 years old or so,
depending on
how you define it.

>
Kinda funny to me.  Philosophy is totally practical.  The impractical
philosophy is that which is nonsense---you can't make sense of.

>
Ah, you mean modern analytical philosophy? ;) Pick up a book on
metaphysics and marvel at the nonsense! ;)

Specially if it's contemporary writing.

No.  Certainly not.  I have nothing to do with consensus.  Truth should
have nothing to do with consensus.  We can easily imagine an outrageous
group denying obvious facts.

>
There are facts, and then there are "facts". Is it true that blue is
the best color? Good luck answering that objectively. ;)

>
There are meaningless sentences and questions.  Chomsky constructs the
famous one---colorless green ideas sleep furiously.  Good luck trying to
picture that in any way.  Truth (and philosophy) is not about nonsense.
It's about honestly making sense of things.

>
Sometimes I think that is lost in a lot of modern philosophy.

By ``modern'' do you mean contemporary philosophy?  ``Modern''
philosophy is that of Descartes, for example.

Sometimes people take language to great abstractions, which should come
with lots of examples and simplicity.  If people fail do that, it is not
a bad idea to ignore it.  For instance, Kant is recognized for having
made the distinction between synthetic truths and analytic ones.  Have
you ever understood?  I don't think it too unwise to ignore all that.
But I don't mean it's bad work.

>
Well, for me, Kants biggest insight, is that we can never get to the
metaphysical through the physical. But then he adds a lot of stuff
onto that, and I don't quite agree with where he goes.

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about here.  I'm not a Kant
reader.  Are you talking about the Critique of Pure Reason?  I did read

  Prolegomena do Any Methaphysics
  (that will be able to come forward as a science)

and that's a pretty understandable book.  This book is a good
introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, but I think I don't really
recommend you get into any of this stuff.  There's a lot more
interesting things in life.

Is it true that there is a coffee mug on my right on a table, yes! And
if you were here with me, I am 100% certain that we would agree.

>
Of course.  There's no point in even questioning that for too long.  We
have so many other important questions to work on.  For instance, is
there anything bothering any bit of your days?  How could we give you a
better life?

>
Amen! A very important question that should be asked from time to
time. I am tomorrow leaving for a 2 month vacation. First 1 month in
spain, then a weekend in Lyon, and then a month in sweden. I am
already looking forward to a lot of good food in spain and 20+ C
weather!

Nice.  Enjoy!

I am not looking forward to travel. Modern travel I find
dehumanizing. It is all built around controlling the masses, and
treating them as badly as possible, while still taking their money.

Oh, that's quite right.  I see the same.  The best way to travel in the
end is by your own means such as by car, but then there's how good the
roads are, how far you go...  Staying in hotels used to be a great
experience, but it's not quite anymore.  We have a complete
deterioration of everything.

If I had infinite amounts of money, I would travel by private jet. If
I had an infinitely compassionate wife I would not travel at all. I
would be perfectly content to spend the rest of my life in my house,
deep in the forest, fishing.

Yeah---gotta question a bit the need for traveling and tourism.  What's
that all about?  I like to travel to see people, not places.  I honestly
care very little to see culture and places.  It's different if you are
my friend and you're interesting---then Sweden becomes interesting, too.
So I'm usually interested where my family and friends are.

I feel I have done enough for the world. I feel like I can retire to
fishing with a perfectly clear conscience. =D

Sounds like wisdom to me.

I'm quite okay with the keeping ``truth'' undefined.  I may have some

>
Even if your life depends on it?

>
My life would never depend on such intellectual matters.  Life depends
on food, shelter and relationships.  We could easily argue here that
you're likely valuing the intellect more than you should.  The intellect
has to be kept on the leash.

>
What ever we make into an obsession, tends to control our lives. I
prefer to be in control, so it's always good not to get too focused
and one sided about things.

Sounds like wisdom to me.

Now, I certainly maximized the occurrence of the event because I'm
always at the beach.  Nevertheless, though, it could be that somehow
that's not the whole story.

>
Let's see tomorrow!

Lol.  My mind is in next events.  But I don't expect seeing that person
around here any time soon or ever.

True! No hocus pocus at all! =)

>
You see, we have this preference for destroying mystery.  Other people
prefer the mystic.  We are more warranted in our preference than the
others are in theirs, but we should do it very carefully because
otherwise we're doing the same silly thing other people do.

>
It is dangerous to argue against peoples beliefs. That wakes up the
worst in people.

So true.  My observation is that people's behavior really comes from
deep within, not from the surface, so working on the surface is a
complete waste of time.  (And the intellect is on the surface.)  That's
why people behave ``irrationally'', meaning that's why we can't
understand them at all.

Oh yes... I am not against imagination and speculation, if that serves
to motivate a person, or inspire him, or help him advance theories. My
main beef is when people confuse speculation and theorizing, with what
we can or cannot prove. Mistaking the map for the real world so to
say.

>
Most people hardly have an education.  They don't know what a theory is
and what speculation is very well.  Unfortunately.

>
Well, from that point of view, we are lucky to have had a good
education! I just look at the students I have today, and get
depressed. =(

Same here, but it's not clear what you mean by education.  In a sense I
don't think it's our education, really, because I think education is on
the surface.

Last friday I had a meeting with the management of the school, and
they forbade me to have dead lines for assignments out of fear that
fewer students will pass the courses.
>
That's complete b.s. And I told them that they are prioritizing profit
over quality of education.
>
They smiled and said that no, they would like both profit _and_
education.

Lol!  _And_.  I do agree that it's obviously a lie.  Those lies that
nearly everyone accepts and even repeats themselves.

I said that that is unrealistic

You're so delicate. :)

[...] especially if they remove all demands, and want courses to be
easier. Then I asked them to imagine how their children would be if
they said yes to their every wish. Would that be how they raise their
children or do they teach them to respect dead lines, boundaries and
work hard?
>
They said, well, you do have a point. But we are your customer, and we
pay, so we decide the rules.
>
And I had to agree with that, sadly. But at least I told them what
will happen, so now they cannot blame me when the credibility of their
students degrees drop in the market!

At least they're minimally honest.  I'm okay with that.

At least I won a small victory. Apparently they could possibly
consider a dead line in _one_ course, if the task is changed from lab
to project. But probably only in one course.

I'd say don't push it hard.  Let them do what they want.  You've already
shared your view.  Let nature follow its own course.  You don't have to
influence them any further after sharing your view: they are also
equally in the position to direct their lives.  Let nature follow its
course.

Very sad state of affairs. If this is a global trend, we are getting
closer to the end of civilization! =(

It is a global trend.  And I think we have worse problems---fertility,
chronic diseases, work and the general quality of life people have been
living.  We're not at the bottom yet.  I think things are gonna down a
lot more still.

very hard read, but to see them all you could skim a quantum theory book
by descant.

>
Lol---what?!  By descant?  Lol.  That's a spurious end of sentence.  I
was totally offline, unable to look anything up, but I wanted to make a
reference to the book

>
Hmm, sorry, I must have slipped on the keyboard. I actually have no
idea what I meant to say! =/

It was I who said it. :) I wanted to remember the author's name and I
couldn't.  I forgot to look it up (later) and ended up posting the
message.  That's a down side of being offline.  Sometimes you can't fill
up the blank that you could if you were online.  I was literally offline
that day.  I have the printed book, but it's boxed in the basement and I
surely didn't feel like digging it up.

Hey, are you getting USENET access during your vacation?  I wanna give
you my e-mail address.  Take care!