![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
DIY Cellphones
Dec. 7th, 2006 05:50 amI couldn't really pin down why (maybe it's just geek-empathy), but this article makes me smile.
Dec. 7th, 2006
I'm marking This Article, which broaches the subject of working women who are less-than-thrilled with their position of breadwinner, mostly because I'd like to come back and chew on it a little more.
For the sake of full disclosure, I have my own biases and opinions concerning men and women, and what their proper roles might be. That's not to say I think all women ought to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, but rather that I think men (as men) and women (as women) are designed in such a way, hardwired, with different sets of proficiencies. Personally, as family-oriented, affectionate, and aware of others as I tend to be, I don't think it's in my nature the be the nurturer in the relationship. I'm not built like that. of course, I allow for variations; there are examples of men who are better built to be care-providers, and women who are less-so (and a whole host of other shades), but I think there's default configuration that most people fit.
Which, I'm afraid, is a socially-unpopular position to take (by far not the most socially-unpopular opinion I hold, though) and also one of the opinions I share with a great many ignorant, backwards whatever-you-want-to-call-thems, but...
For the sake of full disclosure, I have my own biases and opinions concerning men and women, and what their proper roles might be. That's not to say I think all women ought to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, but rather that I think men (as men) and women (as women) are designed in such a way, hardwired, with different sets of proficiencies. Personally, as family-oriented, affectionate, and aware of others as I tend to be, I don't think it's in my nature the be the nurturer in the relationship. I'm not built like that. of course, I allow for variations; there are examples of men who are better built to be care-providers, and women who are less-so (and a whole host of other shades), but I think there's default configuration that most people fit.
Which, I'm afraid, is a socially-unpopular position to take (by far not the most socially-unpopular opinion I hold, though) and also one of the opinions I share with a great many ignorant, backwards whatever-you-want-to-call-thems, but...
Taxing the Ephemeral
Dec. 7th, 2006 06:29 amThere are a lot of reasons why Taxing Virtual Assets angers and frightens me.
"Oooo," said the tax auditor, "I see Mendark the Great bought a dragon this year. That's going to slide you into the next bracket, I'm afraid."
And inheritance? "So, wait. My parents had $50,000 in the bank, and $20,000 in stocks and bonds, but they had how many millions in 'virtual property'? And you're taxing me what?"
"Oooo," said the tax auditor, "I see Mendark the Great bought a dragon this year. That's going to slide you into the next bracket, I'm afraid."
And inheritance? "So, wait. My parents had $50,000 in the bank, and $20,000 in stocks and bonds, but they had how many millions in 'virtual property'? And you're taxing me what?"
The Pysicists Three
Dec. 7th, 2006 07:02 amI love The Onion. It's been far too long since I last read it. The first thing I thought when I read This Article, on physicists successfully splitting the bill, was, "hey, that sounds like the sort of conversation my brothers and I would have." And I'm sure that if we knew all that physics jargon, we probably would.
I'm interested to follow up more on This Article , or, more specifically, following up on the subject of memory, false memory, dreams, and further implications.
From the comments:
If you have the time and/or inclination, read up on the research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. She (and others) have demonstrated that it is trivial to create false memories in people. More importantly, once a false memory has been created, it is otherwise indistinguishable from a real one. That means a person cannot rid themselves of a false memory any more than they can rid themselves of a real memory. The implications of this are significant.
From the comments:
If you have the time and/or inclination, read up on the research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. She (and others) have demonstrated that it is trivial to create false memories in people. More importantly, once a false memory has been created, it is otherwise indistinguishable from a real one. That means a person cannot rid themselves of a false memory any more than they can rid themselves of a real memory. The implications of this are significant.
Buy Norah Jones to fight DRM
Dec. 7th, 2006 10:13 amSummed up, but not very clearly, Here -- EMI is testing the waters of non-DRM'd MP3-format downloads by offering three songs (by Norah Jones and Reliant K) for sale on Yahoo! Music. The experiment, reports tell, was pushed through despite strong resistance in higher-ups in EMI.
This is a rather important thing.
For those who need a quick refresher: DRM is Digital Rights Management, the stuff that keeps you from copying, burning, and generally enjoying via fair-use most of the digital music that's out right now. It's been put in place because the RIAA and similar don't trust consumers not to steal music via P2P networks. (We will for the moment side-step any discussion of P2P and/or the stealing of music for another time). They concentrate on the "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" instead of the simple fact that offering a quality product at a reasonable price will itself cull piracy. No one wants to risk virii or other hazards on an open network when they can pay $1 and be assured of quality. A similar scenario once played out with VHS tapes; it's not an issue now because 'stealing' via VHS just isn't worth the effort.
I'm starting to ramble. The point is, I highly encourage you all to go out and buy these songs. even if you have no idea who these artists are, or even actively dislike their music. It will cost you approximately $3 and it will send a message the recording industry will understand (i.e., one spoken in profit margins) -- The People want DRM-free music. Whoever made the decision, against their superiors, took a risk. We need to show them that that was a smart move to make.
So go buy a couple songs you've never heard of. It's for a good cause and costs less than a ham sandwich from the deli. and spread the word -- the more people that go out and do this, the stronger the message.
This is a rather important thing.
For those who need a quick refresher: DRM is Digital Rights Management, the stuff that keeps you from copying, burning, and generally enjoying via fair-use most of the digital music that's out right now. It's been put in place because the RIAA and similar don't trust consumers not to steal music via P2P networks. (We will for the moment side-step any discussion of P2P and/or the stealing of music for another time). They concentrate on the "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" instead of the simple fact that offering a quality product at a reasonable price will itself cull piracy. No one wants to risk virii or other hazards on an open network when they can pay $1 and be assured of quality. A similar scenario once played out with VHS tapes; it's not an issue now because 'stealing' via VHS just isn't worth the effort.
I'm starting to ramble. The point is, I highly encourage you all to go out and buy these songs. even if you have no idea who these artists are, or even actively dislike their music. It will cost you approximately $3 and it will send a message the recording industry will understand (i.e., one spoken in profit margins) -- The People want DRM-free music. Whoever made the decision, against their superiors, took a risk. We need to show them that that was a smart move to make.
So go buy a couple songs you've never heard of. It's for a good cause and costs less than a ham sandwich from the deli. and spread the word -- the more people that go out and do this, the stronger the message.
The human mind is a fascinating thing, and most especially when one tried to tie our mind to the biological brain, and from there to the rest of our physical body.
This Article mostly concerned with men becoming fathers but concentrating heavily on the effects and changes in hormones, comes at an interestingly amusing time considering my post earlier this morning about working women and hardwired differences between men and women.
From the article:
Acting in the brain as well as in other parts of the body, estrogen in men, and testosterone in women, makes humans extremely versatile behaviorally. "We spend an awful lot of time looking for differences between the sexes and trumpeting them when we find them," observes Wynne-Edwards, "but our brains are remarkably similar, built from the same DNA."
And it makes me wonder how much of who I am -- how I think and react and the like -- is based in hormones. I have a friend who, from time to time, is acutely aware of his own psychology, biology, and the interplay between them. Most of the time it's in connection with a series of strange symptoms he's come to affectionately refer to as 'Martian death flu.' As much as I love biology and psychology and their interplay, I've never given this bit much thought, especially not reflexively.
Perhaps, rather than being hardwired, we're all just softwired. It's something I'll enjoy speculating on for a while...
This Article mostly concerned with men becoming fathers but concentrating heavily on the effects and changes in hormones, comes at an interestingly amusing time considering my post earlier this morning about working women and hardwired differences between men and women.
From the article:
Acting in the brain as well as in other parts of the body, estrogen in men, and testosterone in women, makes humans extremely versatile behaviorally. "We spend an awful lot of time looking for differences between the sexes and trumpeting them when we find them," observes Wynne-Edwards, "but our brains are remarkably similar, built from the same DNA."
And it makes me wonder how much of who I am -- how I think and react and the like -- is based in hormones. I have a friend who, from time to time, is acutely aware of his own psychology, biology, and the interplay between them. Most of the time it's in connection with a series of strange symptoms he's come to affectionately refer to as 'Martian death flu.' As much as I love biology and psychology and their interplay, I've never given this bit much thought, especially not reflexively.
Perhaps, rather than being hardwired, we're all just softwired. It's something I'll enjoy speculating on for a while...