bootslack

Pure signal.

Would You Rather Judge Or Understand?

Would you rather judge something or understand it? I don’t mean to imply these things are mutually exclusive — they aren’t. You can do them independently, or together. You can combine them linearly, or in a complex manner — allowing your judgment to affect your understanding or vice-versa.

But if you had a choice in a given situation, which would you rather do?

I am willing to bet, and I think this would make a fantastic series of social experiments, that most people would say that they would rather understand, but that given a forced choice and not knowing they were being watched, they would choose to judge. I’m basing that on my own experiences in reading and conversation — I think for every interaction I have where both options are on the table I hear someone strive for understanding about 1 out of 100 times. It doesn’t seem to be a casual choice either — if you push a person towards a conversation which does not demonstrate judgment, they will at first resist you, and finally accuse you of opposing their judgment and assume that you occupy the polar position to it.

By itself I think this is fascinating (if it’s true) — because it seems to me that understanding is far more useful than informing another person of your opinion on the matter. I can see that some issues, such at the existence of God, are far beyond any conversations capacity to determine, but there are questions of fact that pertain to the over all question — why would it be unimportant to be able to consider all the questions of fact as fact? And the answer to this is NOT that considering facts would make everyone an atheist. Because the conversations that I have had with atheists have been just as fact averse. In either direction what appears to be most important is to assert to a third party, present or absent “I believe that God exists.” or “I believe that God does not exist.” and I think this also is true for global warming, fiscal policy, tax strategy, weather or not we are in a recession and what constitutes good music.

In fact it seems to be true of everything.

And what makes it even more fascinating is that if you ask someone (once they trust you) if they would rather judge something or understand it, they will mostly say “I would rather understand it.” — not in an argument of course, where they will think you are trying to trick them. But I think that most people really believe that understanding is better, and believe that they would prefer to have it — but behave in exactly the opposite manner. And I think this is true irrespective of political or religious affiliation or educational level.

I routinely hear scientists do this with regard to questions of science.

So here is a challenge for you — can you recognize this behavior in yourself? If you could, what would you be willing to do about it?

Advertisements

September 15, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 1 Comment

The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.

“The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.”

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory

Glib hip pop bullshit.

I think it is closer to: “There are so many people trying to write
about science without taking the time to understand it, and so many
people who want to read about science who don’t want to take the time
to understand it that the market could be monetized much more
efficiently if we just took the stumbling block (science itself) out
of the picture.”

Because what people really want are those “Wow that is neat!” moments,
which they can get from CGI, and they want to feel important, which
they can get by washing and sorting their glass bottles and reducing
their carbon footprint and buying “Free Tibet” stickers at rock
concerts where Al Gore tells them they have the power to change the
world.

Yes computers change the way science is done — but you have to
understand what an experiment is, and what a computer is before you
can say something meaningful about that change.

July 12, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 1 Comment

No Smug Monkeys

I was contemplating a atheist enabling site (a site where lots of arguments for atheism are made) and it struck me how that, despite the fact that all of the arguments were clear to me (even though my position is somewhat more complex than strict atheism) — that if I were to have chosen to be a believer, that the same arguments would not be persuasive at all. Here is the site.

God is Imaginary.

This is a great list for anyone interested in establishing the claim of fact that the Bible is false, according to specific and modern claims of “truth” — which are a limited sub-set of the class of definitions of the operational idea of “truth.” What it does even better than that is show that the claim of fact is not actually the point where religion is concerned. A person has to make a separate decision that they are interested in considering claims of fact before arguments based on them will be convincing. Most people (even in the modern world) have not made this step.

An even better site, because it is clearer — the whole argument focuses on the irrationality of prayer:

Why won’t God heal amputees?

In an honest argument — these guys have it. Period.

However – like the first case, the point can be made that they miss the point of religious belief — which is that it is irrational. That is why we have a name for it: religious belief. We don’t call it “metaphysical position” — which opens up a different set of arguments and we certainly don’t call it “religious claim of fact.” The slip in that definition opens the door for the logical fallacy called “special pleading” — when it is handled in a formal argument. But special pleading can be valid if the terms under which the “specialness” of the case are all considered.

If I say that I reject the power of rational argument, as one of my terms of debate — then it is no longer special pleading. But then we also have no standard to determine a satisfactory conclusion to the argument. But that is JUST FINE with most of the religious folks — it is the “moderns” who want to impose standards for rational argumentation — those standards are NOT as old as the species and people DON’T have to accept them at the outset of an argument. But like most human beings, both the atheists and the apologists are eager to have it both ways. Because we do not have a satisfactory model of human cognition, religious people can always claim that they have their insight due to grace, and rationalists can claim that they accept their position by strict a posteriori reasoning — and the truth is that neither of those claims can be demonstrated to be true — and in fact there is a lot of evidence that neither of those claims are specifically true.

Most of your staunchest rationalists beliefs are not only irrational, they are incorrect. They are approximations made by their senses and cognitive apparatuses to steer them through a world that it is impossible to reason strictly about. Reasoning always involves abstractions — there is no way around that brutal and unforgiving stumbling block.

Of course — a lot of people who are believers also miss that point, and try to make rational arguments, or to claim that there are rational truth claims that can be made about religion — and those people are demonstrably wrong. Many of them are simply untrained in analysis, or unwilling to apply analysis to what they claim to be the most important things in their life. This is also not such a terrible or uncommon thing — how many married people do you know who sit around analyzing weather or not their spouses really love them? If you were to do that too much, you wouldn’t stay married long.

Bottom line is that no monkey has a right to be smug. And any monkey has the right to pretend like he is a super-monkey — and all the other monkeys have the right to laugh at him. (And even if they don’t have that right — they probably will do it anyway, just try and stop them.) Monkeys are like that.

April 7, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 3 Comments

Shut Up.

Shut up. I keep forgetting. Life reminds me every day, and I keep forgetting it still, and letting myself be put out by some little imbalance or awkwardness or mood. In terms of flashes of insight, that is really the major one — that is the one that I just don’t want to lose site of — because it is so important not to forget — and I take it for granted so much of the time. Listen to this oatmeal which passes for my speech. This ridiculous assertive grunting. And I know that there is just no way to be adequately grateful for the things I have, and I forgive myself to some degree for being unable to be conscious of all the little things that go right. And a reasonable compromise (it seems) would be to just not complain — to never be put upon by anything.

But I still do — no matter how many times I come back to that insight, I still forget it again and I find myself whining about some fucking thing. It is a joke to even suggest something like “I would like to live my life as a response to possessing this astounding possibility of being alive.” I am tempted to say something like that — and during times when words mean very little to me — when I am making sounds without much meaning — when I am making sounds– that is a sound I find myself making. But even to be conscious of being 10 trillion cells, living in harmony with my 90 trillion immediate neighbors (or enough harmony that my face isn’t dissolving, my digestion is basically working — my skin, mouth and throat are coated with my normal flora). But even to say that is affected — as if I was capturing some degree of the wonder with such words — normal flora — biology– to be aware of the sound in my ears, of the sounds my mouth makes when I speak. To be aware of how the colors move in my eyes when I stand up or sit down.

To be conscious — what a ridiculously vain idea — and to superimpose on that the even more absurdly impossible concept of being grateful. Let’s put aside the asinine conceits of religion for a moment here. Just simple monkey gratitude, OK? I mean — to be grateful as a dumb monkey (like I am) who knows not whither I came nor where I am going. Sure — we smile at one another and say “Thank you.” Or “I am grateful for the opportunity to…” whatever. But that is a convention — one more thing that we inherit as a result of being this kind of monkey, of being in this monkey society. We say it like we are in control of our own existence — and I don’t mean that like a “Seven Habits of Highly Successful People” kind of control — just the idea that I am not, right now, flying into pieces. That I am somehow responsible for the coherence of my own chemistry, the idea that I can take responsibility for the fact that all my electrons wind appropriately around their cloudy pathless paths. The absurdity of this word “I” – as if I had anything to do with it at all.

So please — no — do not offend the empty space which you occupy by saying “I” anything — especially not “I am grateful” — with it’s presumption of knowledge of what you have to be grateful for — not while taking for granted that such space is yours. That somehow you occupy it by right, as the result of some decision. Don’t say that. Just because it wouldn’t be true. Do I want to add lying on top of all the rest of it? So just restraint — just this — such a simple human thing, something completely reasonable and within my capacity — when in addition to having forgotten everything else I am so lacking in self awareness as to think that there is something wrong, to think that there is something that I need someone to give me or to do for me, just to remember to shut my mouth, to shut my mouth, to still my thought, and in the place where my pathetic presumptuous and childish demand would be to instead notice that generous graceful and genuine moment of silence.

April 5, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 6 Comments

Hitler bad not equals foil hats good

Your enemies should be your greatest source of information. No one can tell you more about your own vulnerabilities than the people who want to exploit them. While maintaining an appearance of invulnerability and confidence is something that is encouraged (maybe even rightly) in public spheres, in the privacy of your own mind it makes sense to consider the arguments of those who you find to be most opposed to you, most obviously wrong, those who most want to get under your skin. You should let them under, because they have something to offer you.

In the case of the atheist movement, an argument which is raised by theists in response to the litany of religiously motivated atrocities, is the litany of politically motivated atrocities. It is just as long and just as bloody — and the people perpetuating them felt just as justified. This weakness in the argument against organized religion is valid. Stalin, Hitler and Mao really did exist — they really did do the things they did, and no one is served in pretending that a world without religion would be a world without atrocity.

This does not absolve religion, and it does not even begin to take in to account the most serious argument against it — that it is factually false and that it promotes turning away from the most powerful epistemological stance the world ever discovered — that the evidence of the senses should be sharpened, trusted and generalized in manners which are transparent and not personal. That what merely one person sees is not enough for consensus reality, that cogent explanations and experiments which may be run by anyone are the only things good enough to constitute a social model of reality.

But they do show that it is not enough to attack religion – because the greatest monsters the world has ever known did that — and they were still monsters. This is not an argument for religion — and it shows how weak the ground is that religion stands on that this would ever be offered as such. Imagine a person claiming that a foil hat is really protection against satellite death rays because Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn’t wear foil hats, and they were mass murderers. That is what the argument comes down to. How backed into a corner would you have to be to use an argument like that?

But the truth is that it is more than religion that needs to be questioned — I would throw my net far wider. I would capture liberalism and conservatism — to say nothing of socialism and environmentalism. Objectiveism. Aristotelianism (that is a fair coinage).

The problem is the ability to tolerate the ambiguous. The ability to admit that you don’t have the answer when you don’t actually have it, and to move with the fragmentary understandings that you do have. And of course, what follows as a corollary from that — to recognize and accept that other people have different constructions than you, and to learn from them.

March 31, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 1 Comment

Snopes lied — Republicans are dumber (or not)

I owe my readership an apology. The study that I link to is on a paid site — I have access through my college. I was assuming it was freely available — which it likely is through your local university or public library. I make the assumption throughout this piece that anyone could download and read this study, when obviously you would have to go to a library to actually access it, which makes it harder. I try hard to use only publicly availible sites — I’m not trying to generate subscription income for anyone. I can tell you though, if the subject interests you, that the study that I link to is probobly available to you through your local library, or local college library. You will probobly need to talk to the reserach librarian to get access to it — but if you want to be informed about things that is a trip you should make anyway. Otherwise you have to count on assholes like me to filter it all for you.

—————————————–

I believe that the second most important issue facing the American polity (after the issue of disentangling the effect of money on governance) is the issue of learning how to argue from evidence instead of values. It is hard to say if it is just a matter of national character that we believe that the morally sympathetic side will always be the factually correct side of an argument, or if it is a universal human trait. Either way, it is a pernicious and destructive trait, because it is easy to spin sympathy, but it is impossible to spin fact.

I have been re-reading The Bell Curve recently — and within that book are a number of controversial statements which are made about soft-science questions (psychology and sociology) — and I’m sure that strong arguments could be made against the conclusions which are reached — just because of the amount of slip which is involved in any soft science. But what I am also convinced of is that almost no strong arguments have been made against the conclusions of the book.

In fact, of the arguments I have heard in classes and at poetry readings, none of them have even addressed the issues — they have addressed the morality of the perceived ideology of the kinds of people who would ask the kinds of questions raised by the book. And even those arguments have not been made particularly well.

If you dislike the conclusions of the book, doesn’t it make sense that you would want to make the strongest possible arguments against it?

On a separate but related issue — after the 2002 American presidential election — when the Red State/ Blue State divide was at it’s peak a chart was sent around that showed regional average IQ correlated to state color. It was convincing enough to get published in the Economist. The fact was that the “Average” IQ of the Red States was lower than the “Average” IQ of the Blue states. The humorous (and probably false) implication drawn being that Democrats were smarter than Republicans.

The implication was not appropriate — which didn’t change the fact (true or false) presented by the table. So on the one side, Democrats had a good and undeserved chuckle, and on the other side Republicans protested that the table was inaccurate. The Economist published a retraction. Snopes.com described the table as a fraud, and even stated that the studies it was drawn from couldn’t be located.

Well — the study cited in the Snopes article does exist — the numbers do not match the table — but they make the same factual argument about “average IQ” of the Red States vs. the Blue States. The parallel is so strong that it suggests that where-ever the original table came from – it was probably a real source. If it was a total fabrication, it was an uncanny accurate one.

The study is called “IQ and the Wealth of States” — and it’s methodology is rigorously described. Now you can disagree with the study, and you can argue about the statistics — but the question that stands out for me is “Why is Snopes.com misrepresenting the truth in this matter?” because up until now I have always counted on them for accuracy.

The PDF is currently available from the London School of Economics — you can Google the title and it’s the first link.

I don’t care too much if the numbers are true — but it does bother me (like in the case of The Bell Curve) that people seem to be so completely illiterate as to be unable to discuss why or why not they are true. Especially since it seems to matter so much to so many people. Is our “morality based reasoning” that tells us that elitism is morally wrong, so that elitist arguments must always be factually wrong — the best we can do? Or are there enough of us willing to say “I’m not sure what the truth is, but I am willing to consider the arguments and follow the evidence where-ever it leads” that some day we can have a social discourse that is dominated by reality and truth?

March 28, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 12 Comments

John Scalzi’s total failure of vision

Hmm… John Scalzi proves that it would be difficult to follow the 1000 true fan model by following the traditional publishing model. Wait — that is unclear, try again — he looks at the model from the point of view of someone who was successful and comfortable making the compromises necessary to please editors and agents, and says that after making those compromises he doesn’t see how the 1000 true fan model would add up for someone who is doing what he does. When you factor in the range of options that he is willing consider, I think that the limitations he sees for that range earn him a big “So what?”

Read about the 1000 true fan model here.

What he says is factually correct –within the parameters of artistic expression which he has chosen to explore– like talking to a man about the roundness of the earth — you have to admit that when you look around you that the world is flat. But if the skeptic stops there, or returns all arguments there, then he is no true skeptic. I agree that John has described life on the ground pretty well — but I want to get high enough to see the curvature — I want to consider that the dream of flight may be real. I think the true strength of the 1000 true fans model is well illustrated by the fact that John can’t imagine any way other than sitting behind a desk to get his message out to the world. What he offers for a price point for self publishing is just what you can find pre-packaged on the web. I’ve seen lots of examples of people doing their own printing and binding that are cheaper than the figures he quotes — but you have to be willing to get ink on your hands. That isn’t a problem for me because I think it’s exiting to get ink on my hands.

But consider if you are in fact an the ground with John Scalzi, then what John Scalzi says is true. Say that you are an existing author who has a “clean copy” style — you can produce marketable clean copy, and have been recognized by agents for being able to do so — so that you can wing a proposal across an editors desk and have a fair chance of a hearing. Say the establishment is already invested in you (he may balk at my use of the word establishment — I don’t mean it like some kind of conspiracy. Just that if he wants to kite a proposal he has a phone number to call, and he knows how far away from the norm to push — which is not far.) — so that you can get distribution. And say that you don’t want to do anything for yourself, so that doing your own production and distribution means you are stuck paying retail at a per-copy basis for your books (and you aren’t interested in any other media which he conveniently ignores.)

Then in fact his position is warranted.

Oh — and say you want to promote your entire career from behind your desk — so that it takes 10 years to build up your readership. You don’t want to work as a waiter and save up money to go to conventions and hand out purple ink mimeographs of short stories dressed up in a costume. Or leave copies of cliffhangers on coffee-shop tables as you travel cross country reading weird science fiction at music open mikes with a bad ukulele back up.

Then, true, if you want to follow the existing model of success, then the new model will probably not work for you. What is scary to me is that he then just dismisses it — as if no one in the world would want to do anything differently than how he has done it. Because it is what he has done his whole life — and can’t even imagine doing something differently. And that is why I like the idea of finding 1000 true fans — because it assumes from the start that anything goes. I have to select from the whole world, and appeal to any 1000 people within it, not a small group of editors who were conformist enough to survive college and who all agree on the fundamentals of style (think that is unfair? Look at what gets published.)

But say you are starting out and you don’t want to have to try and get noticed by the existing editorial establishment. Say you don’t like what you hear at the various MFA programs — or say you are a musician or painter or sculptor of some kind — or some combination that no one has thought of yet — a Kareoke auto design botanist — an earth mover finger painting tuba yodeler — in that case then what the 1000 true fans model opens up for you is a viable method for professional development. And that model is ANYTHING THAT WORKS. And to get over the stupid math games (because it was always an approximation) lets go ahead and reconfigure the model so that the true fan is someone who gives you $100 net per year. Admittedly not your paperback audience — but then your paperback audience you are supporting for free with pdfs. And maybe it is 2000 people at $50 a piece — all the other details still hold.

You can imagine going on tour for 5 years and keeping every email address you find. You can imagine handing out your work in pamphlet form on the streets of any American city. You can imagine letter writing campaigns, publicity stunts, releasing limited editions and special artifacts. There is a (probably tragically dated) concept called guerrilla marketing which you can revive and expand.

You can imagine having a personal relationship with your fans instead of your agent, your editor and your publisher.

Is it difficult to do so? Probably — and, honestly, I have never done it — so maybe it is more difficult than just writing like you are supposed to write and trying to get an agent like everybody else. However I’m not writing about how I have done or not done it — but why I am exited about it, which is different from why John thinks people are exited about it. What I found exiting about the 1000 true fans model (which I plan on activating through saturating local and national performance venues, videos on the web, blogs, blog comments and letters) is that I don’t have to get an editors approval to write what I want to write. I don’t have to sell to 100,000 audience members — it is possible that there are 1000 people out there who think like I do — and that means that I can be myself and write like I want — that is most important, but secondly comes the fact that I can release most of my intellectual property directly into the public domain and still make it as an artist. I have a shot at being in complete control to decide to do or not to do with my writing whatever I want in whatever form I want. So John, what is important about freedom to me is not that it is easy, but that it is freedom.

John Scalzi writes as if what should be important about the 1,000 true fan model is that it should look easier to make a living — I suspect that is because thinking about making a living has driven most of his decision making through most of his career (and no shame there — he is successful.) I just hope that my career will have me thinking about different things. If I wanted to think about making a living I would have been a copy machine salesman. Writing is hard.

March 26, 2008 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 7 Comments

Rick Warren is an astonishingly stupid man

Embarrassingly stupid. This is what passes for a public intellectual in American society. No wonder Europeans look down on us.

“Al-Qaida no more represents Islam than the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity,” he contended. “Actually, if you study the background of al-Qaida, they were influenced by the same people who influenced Hitler. It was a lot of secular writers and Nietzsche and nihilists and stuff like that.”

Taken from a WorldNetDaily interview.

Nietzsche is responsible for Islamic terrorism. And an Orange Country Christian is pointing this out to the world. And he claims that he came to this conclusion by “study.”

And actually Rick — the KKK does represent Christianity. They may not represent you, but they claim the cross. And Al Qaida very specifically represents Islam. But I have yet to see ole Freddy’s picture on any Al Qaida literature. Of course they aren’t into pictures. I just can’t imagine suicide bombers praying over “Daybreak” before blowing up an elementary school. Maybe my imagination is too limited, obviously yours isn’t, Rick.

I am at a loss for words. I just want to put this quote up so that the next time someone recommends the “Purpose Driven Life” to me (which I have read and confess is merely banal and not actually evil. I mean — it was a lost two hours of my life — but I have wasted lots of time doing lots of stupid things I can’t blame him for it.) I have a link I can send them.

Oh! The Humanity! Warren unveiled but no one reads so no one cares.

Can Warren’s points in this article actually be defended? I mean — what he conducts here is not actually argument — so I’m wondering, is there an inteligent person somewhere who could take his assertions and defend them in a way that doesn’t make him look like a mouth breather? Beyond that — does he himself care about truth at all? Does he actually believe this crap, or is it a posture he assumes to accomplish other ends?

I have been told by a lot of people who I have challenged on the topic of global warming that they don’t really care about the issue per se — but that it is a symbol for them of the more general problem of pollution. I think that is a sin against intellectual integrity — but it is a more defensible position than the claim that global warming is real. Is Warren doing something like that here?

I try for a “nicer” address of Warren here.

December 15, 2007 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 8 Comments

Why there is an arguement, dumbshit motherfucker.

On December 11, conformist hack and null-visionary blog A Geek from Kansas argued: “Some people like to rebuild engines; other people just like to drive their cars. That’s not much of a reason to fight, or for the mechanics to feel superior.” to justify his contention that the arrogance of the Linux/Open Source community over their model of computing was unjustified, and that we should “back off of the rhetoric” at the risk of making Windows users uncomfortable.

An operating system is just an operating system, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. Ideological relativism is all fine and dandy until you are the one on the operating table and the surgeon is cutting into you. Do you want the surgeon to understand real objective medicine (he is cutting now, the blade is entering your actual body as you speak) or is it OK for him to have just any old idea, being that ideas are just ideas?

I must say, the computer-automobile analogy is the core of the problem regarding people and operating systems.

A computer is not a commodity — that shift of thinking is something which has happened over the last 25 years — it is mostly the fault of Microsoft, however Apple gets hate points for trying.

A computer is an ABILITY. A Universal Turing Machine is an IDEA — and effectively using that idea is the heart of what makes a computer work. Not every computer needs a keyboard. Not every computer needs a screen. But they all follow the same basic rules and from those rules come their power, and from understanding those rules comes the Human Genome Project, the Hubble Space Telescope and ITER — none of which could exist without computers. Some people believe that you, dear reader, are grown up enough to handle learning those rules, some people (like the Church in the Middle Ages) would rather you stay illiterate.

The computer is as fundamental an addition to the arsenal of human understanding as language was. Not the printing press, language. We haven’t even begun to explore how much we are going to be changed by this device — and that fucking toaster sitting on your desk isn’t a tenth of it.

The problem with Windows is not that it is an operating system with advantages and disadvantages — the problem with Windows is that it hides the fact that you can put any pattern of ones and zeros whatsoever on that massive grid of switches called a Microprocessor. The Windows operating system is as offensive to intellectual integrity and human creativity as purchasing a notebook, and having it come with drop down menus with the words that an average user might be expected to use , and maybe a page in the back where you can write groups of 5 words (in whatever order you want).

The point of getting the source code is THAT YOU CAN CHANGE IT IF YOU ARE WILLING TO LEARN HOW. I am using all caps because I am yelling. That means you should pay attention or I might hit you.

Proprietary operating systems fundamentally limit what a person can do with that wonderful (and brand new!) gift of the computer. Arguing about computer literacy is like arguing about literacy, not poking around under the hood of a car. It is fine that only a few people want to tinker with their cars — but it is not fine if we were to decide that we didn’t need everyone to be literate. Language is the currency of civilization today, computer language is going to be the currency of civilization tomorrow.

You might feel bad that people think you are stupid because you can’t read, but you know it’s true, and that makes you try (dyslexics are forgiven here — there is obviously more to language skills than the task of rote word recognition — facility with language is what I really mean in this metaphor) and the fact that everyone tries damn hard, and is ashamed when they fail, is part of why our society is as strong as it is. You wouldn’t let an illiterate person operate on your child. I don’t trust Microsoft with my data.

I would like to see more people feel bad for not living up to their computers. Nothing would benefit our society more than the instantiation of a norm of technical literacy.

Anyone who tells you that it is OK for you not to know how to read because they will tell you everything you need to know (unless you are one of those “radicals” the blog I cite above spends so much space disparaging, who needs to think things out for themselves – but of course we all know they are smug elitist geeks) either is stupid themselves, or is assuming you are. — and ANYONE who uses the “tinkering” metaphor with regard to free software is mistaking recognizing a thought for the ability to think. That way lies the dark ages.

December 13, 2007 Posted by | People who fucking Suck | 3 Comments