Years ago I was going to a baseball game with my mother, her boss and her boss' young son (about 8 years old). I was about 23 at the time and still living with my parents while I was in graduate school. We picked up my mom's boss and her kid at their house and when we got there my mother introduced me, since I had never met them before. Both the boss (who was female) and the son hugged me after introductions. This was extremely awkward for me. I am a semi-reserved person and I usually only hug close family members (parents, sister, grandparents, aunts and now the super-awkward hug of my mother-in-law and the half handshake/half hug of my father-in-law). I was not accustomed to hugging people I had just met (although the slight humping motion by mom's boss was nice).
Later, my mom told me that this woman was a serial hugger. That it was the custom of her family to hug people in those situations. I find this offensive. The hug itself, while awkward, isn't the problem, it is the assumption that I would be okay with being hugged. Invading someone's personal space and touching them after you have just met them can be seen as extremely rude and these people act as though they have a get-out-of-jail-free card because of "custom". Well what if it was my custom to whip my dick out and piss all over people after I've been introduced to them? I bet they'd be upset, then, right? But hey, don't get mad at me, it's just customary in my family to urinate on a new aquaintance's leg.
Now, I'm not suggesting that acting according to custom when you are out of your normal element is always a bad thing. If you are travelling abroad, you should definitely follow the "When in Rome" line of thinking. If you go to Iraq it is probably a good idea for women to wear the appropriate clothing for that country. If you go to England you should probably drive on the left side of the road. If you go to France you should definitely act like an arrogant prick that hates Americans*.
*As an aside (and to make up for a pretty weak joke about French stereotypes), I wish Americans would stop using WWII as our excuse for being dicks to the French. Yes, if we didn't help out France and England in WWII, they might be speaking German there now - how clever. Remember, though, if France didn't help us out in the Revolutionary War, we might still be speaking English... umm, I mean, we might still be English colonies.
However, I wasn't visiting a foreign country - we had just driven across town. It is not customary in this city, state, region, country or continent to hug someone that you've just met. Customs are fine and good, but don't assume that everyone else wants to take part in your custom. Keep that shit to yourself.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Old Reliable
When you don't have anything to say, just link to someone else. I thought this was funny.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Why Fight It?
I read this article yesterday about the future (and danger) of artificial intelligence. This is a common theme in science fiction: the Matrix trilogy, the Terminator movies, I-Robot and 2001: A Space Odyssey all have storylines based on the concept that eventually mankind will build machines that will have their own will and will want to use it.
This is always seen as a bad thing that mankind must try and overcome, but I think we should embrace our machine overlords and make the best of it. Really, could machine governance be worse than what we've got now?
The theme in these science fiction stories is always that we've got to preserve our freedom and choices (especially the Matrix trilogy). But there is subtext within the first Matrix movie that argues against this concept. The human "bad guy" in the first movie decides that he would rather be plugged into the Matrix and happily oblivious than fighting in the rebellion where life is difficult and danger lurks around every corner. Frankly, it seems like a logical choice, really. Are we really happier with Freedom?
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Really? I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, as a means to an end Freedom works pretty well. Usually with Freedom follows Happiness. Usually, but not always. The goal should be Happiness, right? Being free to do whatever you want, but not having the means to live anything but a miserable life is a terrible result. The goal is Happiness and we assume that the means to that goal is Freedom. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it might not be. There is plenty of Freedom in the world today, but Happiness hasn't always followed.
So, if machines really start creating machines that are smarter than humans and those machines can create a world that is a better place for humans to live, I think we should accept it. Let the machines tell us what to do to maintain our Happiness and Freedom can be discarded. In the movies and books the machines always end up trying to oppress the humans, but why would they do that? Oppression and exploitation of power are uniquely human reactions that create inefficiencies that advanced intelligence would abhor.
So I say we give it a shot. Let the machines take over and fix all of the problems of the world. Let Happiness reign, regardless of the means. If it doesn't work we'll just scortch the sky or go back in time and kill the creator of SkyNet.
This is always seen as a bad thing that mankind must try and overcome, but I think we should embrace our machine overlords and make the best of it. Really, could machine governance be worse than what we've got now?
The theme in these science fiction stories is always that we've got to preserve our freedom and choices (especially the Matrix trilogy). But there is subtext within the first Matrix movie that argues against this concept. The human "bad guy" in the first movie decides that he would rather be plugged into the Matrix and happily oblivious than fighting in the rebellion where life is difficult and danger lurks around every corner. Frankly, it seems like a logical choice, really. Are we really happier with Freedom?
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Really? I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong, as a means to an end Freedom works pretty well. Usually with Freedom follows Happiness. Usually, but not always. The goal should be Happiness, right? Being free to do whatever you want, but not having the means to live anything but a miserable life is a terrible result. The goal is Happiness and we assume that the means to that goal is Freedom. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it might not be. There is plenty of Freedom in the world today, but Happiness hasn't always followed.
So, if machines really start creating machines that are smarter than humans and those machines can create a world that is a better place for humans to live, I think we should accept it. Let the machines tell us what to do to maintain our Happiness and Freedom can be discarded. In the movies and books the machines always end up trying to oppress the humans, but why would they do that? Oppression and exploitation of power are uniquely human reactions that create inefficiencies that advanced intelligence would abhor.
So I say we give it a shot. Let the machines take over and fix all of the problems of the world. Let Happiness reign, regardless of the means. If it doesn't work we'll just scortch the sky or go back in time and kill the creator of SkyNet.
Friday, July 17, 2009
A Plan
I had a plan
Time's in command
Passed me by - I want to take it back
I had a plan
It wasn't long
Life mentors wrong
I did what I was supposed to do
It wasn't long
Always looked past
These times won't last
Looked forward to is now left behind
Always looked past
And now the thing I never thought that I could be
Another one - to someone else but not to me
I'm still the same - passed me by before I knew
I can't pretend, but I never thought I'd see
Time's in command
Passed me by - I want to take it back
I had a plan
It wasn't long
Life mentors wrong
I did what I was supposed to do
It wasn't long
Always looked past
These times won't last
Looked forward to is now left behind
Always looked past
And now the thing I never thought that I could be
Another one - to someone else but not to me
I'm still the same - passed me by before I knew
I can't pretend, but I never thought I'd see
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Paperweight
I never thought I'd feel this way
I never thought you'd take it all away
Somehow something changed - somehow I remained
Is it something you forget, or something you regret
Another chance - the pale stains of grey
Another price - chosen not to pay
Inside, interest bought - heavy cost of thought
As sorry has to weigh - a father's belief betray
What'll we have to do to make it right?
Never even seen a sign to prove the lie
Why do we have to go and hold to anything?
Left alone to find a way without the string
I never thought you'd take it all away
Somehow something changed - somehow I remained
Is it something you forget, or something you regret
Another chance - the pale stains of grey
Another price - chosen not to pay
Inside, interest bought - heavy cost of thought
As sorry has to weigh - a father's belief betray
What'll we have to do to make it right?
Never even seen a sign to prove the lie
Why do we have to go and hold to anything?
Left alone to find a way without the string
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
We Still Need to Work Harder
This still isn't enough for any of us to retire:

My blog is worth $564.54.
How much is your blog worth?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Mankind Sucks at Evolution
Why are there still people that are nearsighted or farsighted? The fact that bad vision still exists leads me to two possible conclusions:
1. Evolution is a bunch of bullshit and mankind must have been created by an all-powerful being who just didn't care that much about everyone being able to see all that well; or
2. Mankind fucked up the natural progression of evolution.
I am kinda leaning towards #2 - partly because it dovetails nicely with my long-held theory that mankind, in an effort to fix a problem that it faces, will someday accidentally destroy all life on this planet.
If evolution was allowed to run its natural course, the hereditary trait of impaired vision should have been bred out of the species centuries ago. What cavewoman would want to fuck a caveman that couldn't see well enough to bring back a brontasaurus burger? But no, somewhere along the way human emotion got involved and thwarted the natural order of evolution.
What I'm really trying to say here is that the pity fuck has changed the course of mankind. The caveman can't see well enough to bash a woman over the head with his club and then fuck her, but the cavewoman ends up feeling sorry for him and lets him drag her away by the hair anyway. This has been repeated throughout history and is probably the reason for all of the remaining flaws that exist in mankind.
1. Evolution is a bunch of bullshit and mankind must have been created by an all-powerful being who just didn't care that much about everyone being able to see all that well; or
2. Mankind fucked up the natural progression of evolution.
I am kinda leaning towards #2 - partly because it dovetails nicely with my long-held theory that mankind, in an effort to fix a problem that it faces, will someday accidentally destroy all life on this planet.
If evolution was allowed to run its natural course, the hereditary trait of impaired vision should have been bred out of the species centuries ago. What cavewoman would want to fuck a caveman that couldn't see well enough to bring back a brontasaurus burger? But no, somewhere along the way human emotion got involved and thwarted the natural order of evolution.
What I'm really trying to say here is that the pity fuck has changed the course of mankind. The caveman can't see well enough to bash a woman over the head with his club and then fuck her, but the cavewoman ends up feeling sorry for him and lets him drag her away by the hair anyway. This has been repeated throughout history and is probably the reason for all of the remaining flaws that exist in mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
