iouswuoibev

Ask any Indian, he'll tell you.

In IRC, a channel is "claimed" by someone by them being the first user to join it. That user is given operator status, and thus the ability to grant and take away operator status on other users. The presence of a BOT (a computer program that looks like a user) with operator status is required to provide a means of maintaining order and remembering a users' authority in his absence, as well as being there 99% of the time to prevent a user joining while the channel is empty and thus taking over the channel. The IRC Network itself sometimes has a "channel service" which basically provides a BOT for those channels that want permenant status. Also, being a part of the server itself, the "chanserv" BOT will not dissapear if the network goes down, meaning that the channel can never be taken over via the BOT being temporarily absent due to network problems.

Could you not put a BOT of your own in there in the meantime?

India.

Welfare and charity have no moral status qua themselves. Their morality should be based on whether it is selfish to donate or not. Welfare provided by the government is ALWAYS immoral, because the sustenance they distribute was taken by force, not given to them voluntarily. (Charity is voluntary for all parties involved, so government charity is a contradiction in terms.) Have you not read the Virtue of Selfishness? It is all there.

In which case, it is not a sacrifice, and therefore not altruism. Sacrifice is the exchange of a greater value for a lesser or non-existent value. So long as the gain is real and not something imagined, there is no altruism in contributing en-mass. Though I would say that there is no objective benefit in giving to a homeless person, neither for you or him. His problem is not his next meal, but his entire approach to life, and no short term aid on your part is going to change that.

How is that necessarily true?

By what method can you examine alternatives, if you do not have an accepted metaphysics to base it on? You cannot judge independantly of philosophy, as judgement REQUIRES philosophy. Whether or not you know it, you are operating on philosophical premises every time you examine something. If you decide "I don't want to be biased or narrow-minded, so I'll arbitrarily flit between various explicit philosophical premises as a means of 'running different tests'" then that is your accepted philosophy. You cannot think, without a certain method of thinking, guided by certain principles. Your only choice is in choosing the right method and the right principles. And making that choice requires inductive observation, not science. You cannot reverse the relationship between philosophy and science, no matter how hard you try.

I don't think between his confession of impotence and pulling a knife on you is quite as obvious as that of actually attacking you. Anyway, I don't claim that humor will necessarily keep you safe. I am claiming that it can sway a persons confidence. With humor, you can communicate that you are not afraid of them. If you don't seem afraid (because you are able to joke about their threats), it will confuse the hell out of them and plant doubts in their head. Even if they do decide to eventually attack, it will take more a mental effort to do so, and will likely even put fear into them that confuses them. This is particularly to your advantage if they are not armed and you are good with self-defense. I also want to clarify that by humor I don't mean cracking jokes, but rather the humor is in failing to observe the danger they are trying to represent themselves as. They might begin to believe that you should not be messed with, even if they can't rationally explain why based on anything except your demenour. If this sounds far fetched, I would say it is far fetched that most people could achieve the kind of attitude that would allow them to act in this way, but I think it is perfectly possible. if anyone wants an example of what I mean, and happens to own the book "Temple of the Winds" by Terry Goodkind, they can read Chapter 21-22 and compare the characters of Nathan and the Abbott. Ok, but I was thinking of humor that is actually clever and funny. Saying "Capitalism isn't bad like you say it is because you have a crap hairdo" is just sad. But as I said before, it depends on WHAT you are making light of and mocking. In the violin example, the object of mockery is not necessarily classical music. I already accept that humor involves regarding something as unimportant (at least in a lot of cases). If they don't think its funny whilst grasping the intent (providing they really did grasp the true intent), then its as you've already suggested: they are spitting on what is good. I don't think I ever disagreed with that.

I'm not offering a definition here, but here are my thoughts on what the essential characteristic of humour might be. I think that humor (or perhaps, just one particular kind of humor) is about contradicting an established context. I am not sure whether contradiction is the essential attribute of humor, but it certainly plays a significant role as I keep observing its reappearence. This established context may be implicit or explicit. An implicit context is one that hasn't been explained beforehand and is assumed to be true by both the teller and/or tellee(s) of the joke. An explicit context is one where it is deliberately and clearly explained beforehand (as in the case of one-liners). Or to put it another way, implicit humor is where the context is assumed, explicit is where it is spelled out and "unmistakable". Humor with implicit/explicit context is implicit/explicit humor. I don't think either implicit or explicit humor are necessarily more effective at making people laugh, but with the implicit humor you take a risk. If a person wants to see whether you're really funny and can keep up the same line of reasoning, they can contradict you by acting as if they didn't understand the joke. Or they may even just not understand the joke, in which case it was either poor judgement on your part or poor awareness on part of the recipient. It requires a certain way of thinking and considering things in order to produce a joke (except those which happen "by accident" which are rare) and it doesn't come easily to most people. Here is an example of contradiction in humor. The following is implicit humor. "A man walks into a bar. Ouch." Here the established context is that the man is walking into a bar [to buy drinks], and the contradiction is that he in fact walking into a METAL BAR. This is implied, and relies on the fact that people are used to hearing bar jokes where it is assumed to be the other sort of bar. The joke would not be nearly as effective and might not work at all on someone who had never heard such jokes before. Now here's another example of humor. You've just made passionate love to your girlfriend/wife and she is gazing adoringly into your eyes, and you can tell it was one of the highest points in her life. You say matter-of-factly: "Rubbish, wasn't it?" Here again, the humor is implicit, because you are counting on the fact that she did enjoy the sex (EDIT: and that she assumes that you are refering mainly to her experience, not yours). And you can be pretty certain of whether that is true, but it is implicit because you didn't (verbally) create the situation yourself, and so you lack some of the control in how the recipient takes the situation to be. Humor is HIGHLY context dependant. If I used that same line after sex with a woman of low self-esteem who is clearly showing a feeling of guilt, she might burst into tears. If I used it while out shopping on my own, it wouldn't make any sense. Some humor is very subtle. For example, someone tells you "Don't be a jerk." You reply with "Would you believe me if I told you I wasn't a jerk?" Here you are contradicting something very implicit. You are not contradicting the words "Don't be a jerk" but the reasoning behind them, by treating it as if the words were meant in a completely different sense. In "Don't be a jerk" he was really saying "You are a jerk, and I don't like it, so please stop it." And when you respond with "Would you believe me to be..." you have shown the assumption that he in fact isn't convinced you are a jerk. That's where the contradiction lies. Thoughts anyone?

Based on my observation of people in general, I can induce that there is a higher probability that he will be intellectually spineless and inequipt to fight someone verbally. For a man to attack a victim physically - after the victim has totally beaten him verbally - is the ultimate confession of his own cowardice and powerlessness. He would have to be severely psychotic to not grasp this implicitly, and it would be very hard for him to ignore the resulting emotion, which would be preventing him from doing physical harm despite how technically easy it is. He can't go ahead and teach you a lesson without shouting out to the world and his soul; "I am totally impotent and useless and cannot deal with reality." Of course, he might already have accepted this and therefore be psychotic. That's the risk you take. He'd probably attack you anyway if he is that predisposed to violence. Can you give me an example of a joke in this scenario, that would make you look like you don't care about Capitalism? I personally can't think of one. EDIT: Fixed grammar. Changed "mindlessness" to "powerlessness". EDIT: Fixed typo.

Have you ever experienced attraction to the intellect of a woman? If so, why would you confine the definition of "attractive" solely to the physical side? Perhaps you need to divide it into the concepts of intellectual and physical attraction. I can't say I didn't understand it, but nor can I see what your main point was.

I could be out on a limb here, but maybe he doesn't see anything wrong with it? I do see something wrong with it, incidently. I'll post my thoughts when I get the chance, but I think most of the reasons have been (scatteredly, inconsistently) hinted at already.

I've read his "Hackers and Painters" article before and I think I even posted a link here. I remember he wrote some pretty enlightening stuff but I'd have to read it again to clarify what he said. I'll also consider buying his book, now that you've reminded me of its existence.

Me too. I think I'll write one some day. Ayn Rand's epistemology (and the only true epistemology) - or, more precisely, the method it teaches - is absolutely essential to being a good programmer. The extent to which and the skill at which you make abstractions, plays an enormous role in your ability to write good code. This is an excellent question, and one that I, or someone else, would have to think carefully about. Languages are very unique and individual. There's no better word for describing the way C++ does things, than "C++". Discovering what qualities it posesses that make it suited to a particular task, and why, requires an extensive process of deduction, and isn't something anyone could post about offhandedly in this forum. But maybe someone else has already done the necessary thinking, and will enlighten us. There's not much I can say here except that I totally agree with you. I wonder how many programmers really keep that in mind...

I'll add that the more expressive (read: high-level) a language is, the easier it is to understand. The more flexible a language is, the more you can learn about computers in general from it.

The quality of a language should be measured by its power. Power is the combined sum of two powerful qualities: The most you can express in a certain amount of code, and the extent and the closeness to which you can manipulate the computer at the concrete level. (In the old days, concrete would mean accessing the hardware directly; nowadays it means getting as close to the OS as possible). Usually these two sub-components of the word "power" are also refered to as "power" (it would be ok to describe them as "powerful"); these need to be given new words to differentiate them. I recommend the words "expressiveness" and "flexibility". C++ is a language of very high flexibility, and user/programmer-dependant expressiveness, that defaults to very low expressiveness. C++ can be made into a highly expressive language, the extent to which that is achieved depends on the skill of the programmer. There is an upper-bound to how expressive you can make C++ before you have to turn it into another language. I submit that C++ is POTENTIALLY the most powerful programming language in existence. EDIT: Deleted my opening paragraph which was redundant.

Saying C++ is too low-level and therefore useless is missing the point. The main selling point of C++ is CONTROL. C++ is low-level by default, but you can bring it up as many tiers as you want with the use of libraries and API's (both your own and others'). And then modify them as it suits you. It is true that you can't immediately code something useful in C++, but if you're willing to do the gruntwork of coding your own environment (think: making abstractions), the power it gives you is hard to let go of.

I would need to analyse it further to come up with a formal definition. I've given you some of its (semi-essential) attributes, and you probably have enough concrete examples to at least be able to point to something and say "that's humor". As soon as I think of a formal definition I'll post it here.

It's a verbal defense. Do I need to clarify further what I mean by this? What on earth makes you think he is MORE likely to stab you? If he pulls a knife on you, he's certainly capable of doing it regardless. If you act like a pushover that will embolden him into doing it, won't it? You know, you're right, humor DOES say that something is not worth valuing. But that leaves the question open: WHAT is not worth valuing? The object of the mocking isn't necessarily violin/classical music. It might be mocking that he doesn't know how to play it properly, or it might be mocking how crude rock music is. How you receive the joke depends on a] how abstract you are when observing humor, both habitually and in any particular context and B] how benevolent your attitude is towards people in general. (You're more likely to think "This guy is mocking violin music, how dare he" if you are predisposed to judging him negatively). Because of these two factors involved, it is no wonder that there is so much diversity as to what someone finds funny. You can tell a fair bit about someone by what makes them laugh. How would I feel about it? I think it's mildly amusing, because it's an OK joke. (And no, I don't dislike classical or find it worthy of mocking). EDIT: Added missing word. Fixed labelling.

How do you tell the difference between a comment that is "made seriously" and being said in jest? I think the more serious it comes across, the more funny it is. But perhaps you need the "j/k" afterwards just to reassure you that it is a joke... That's unfortunate because we haven't finished.

But, get this: it's a joke. And it still doesn't state WHAT you should read from it; for all you know the joke could be saying "I'm a high value which is ridiculous, so you should all point and laugh". That you decided it was stating "I am of romantic value to you" is an assumption. If he came out and said "I am of romantic value to all the ladies here, and every one of them is unfortunate not to have me"; well, then that would be wrong... I am. (And if you're offended by what I just said there; then I suggest you not place so much importance on what other people think. And do some introspection!!) Tell me: if someone came up to you and said: "You're an idiot", what would your reaction be? Well, if it's anything other than "And your point is...?" you probably have some work to do. Except for one thing: it's a joke. It is a joke, remember? That's true; a truly self-confident man also see's no reason why he shouldn't anyway.

This is not determinism? If you KNOW you have insecurities, you should and can do something about it. God you're brutal. I didn't see him recommending oppression, specifically. That is not the only way to eradicate an insecurity. In fact, it's not a way. Which ones!? IF he had insecurities. Great; if Ayn Rand made a mistake, we have all necessarily made a mistake because their is absolutely no way we can make fewer mistakes of that nature than Ayn Rand did... I guess logic isn't needed here. I must have missed where he said that. Which haughty condemnations are those? TomL stated that he was trying to help, and I don't see any indication of him being anything other than helpful.

Reading Diana Hsieh's comments on this thread got me thinking about the role of humour in romance (if any) and it's proper function (if any). Here are my conclusions on the matter. First of all, if you think funny, confident guys are necessarily arrogant without good reason to be; or if you think that shy, unassuming men are always harbouring an inner beauty; you should check the origins of your value judgements. It is true that being funny does not make you intelligent, or moral. Hell, even the unemployed can be funny. And it is also true that some people are funny and confident without any good reason to be - an awful lot of them are (though the "confident" conformists are usually acting, and can be spotted easily). And yes, it is also true that a lot of intelligent men are shy and unassuming. But so what? Let's ask this: what is the purpose of humour? I think that it is a defensive (it can be used offensively, but few people do and it would be immoral to use it in such a manner) survival mechanism. You can potentially disarm any heated situation with humour. Notice that a thug will rarely launch at somebody with an unprovoked attack just out of the blue, without trying to cow and intimidate their victim first (which they usually do in short order). There is a reason for this; they want to be absolutely sure they are not making a mistake by attacking this person. After all, it can't hurt to be sure, can it? (Note that thugs probably don't think this in their heads, they just "feel" it). Anyway, if someone acts totally unafraid in such a situation, and ignores the most deadly serious threats with a witty jibe, implying in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that "I don't take you or your threats seriously" - it can keep you safe. Alternatively, you could get stabbed to death. But the point is, humour is your best chance at disarming such a threat, just as it can be used to rebuke an insult from somebody and not permit it to affect you. Humour is a defense mechanism that effectively and unmistakably communicates a total lack of respect, and a feeling of amusement and/or contempt towards something. Here's an example. I was walking through a public riverside park (damn socialism) in the middle of the night and came across a dubious character. He asked me if I had a cigarette. With a nonchalant, slightly curious look on my face I said: "Why do you ask?". In a flash, he went from too casual to very, very aggressive, cursing and calling me names while I thought for sure my ears would curl. Eventually he told me to hand a "fag" (that's a cigarrette in this country, not homosexual) over to him (as if I had any). My face sank into a deeper set of curiosity and I said: "Why on EARTH would I want to do that?". He cursed again (to which I made a remark about him having a potty mouth, and suggested he lower his voice) and walked away. Actually, none of this actually happened, but it is exactly how I would act (or try to act) in that given situation, because a veneer of confident humour would be my best chance to prevent myself being assaulted. I don't suggest you try the approach above until and unless it feels totally natural, obvious and normal for you to do it, or it will look fake. It needs to look real. Taking this line of reasoning further: the more it feels wrong or dangerous to say something, the more effectively it will be if you say it (so long as it doesn't sound like you're putting on an act, and can continue to perform evenly if and when given reason to). For instance, belittling someone with humour after they've tried their intimidation skills on you is all well and good, but it's even better to be pre-emptive: E.g., you're walking along and you see a group of potentially dangerous looking men, you could shout over to them "You'd better watch out fella's; there's a lot of dangerous types around here." Get my drift? How do you acquire a manner of super-confident humour without having to practice among viscious gangs and getting it wrong and getting killed all the time? Well that calls for a different topic. If anyone is interested in hearing my advice, message me. Now what on earth does this have to do with dating and romance? It's like this. Humour (when elicited by a male) can subtly and quickly reveal a valuable quality to a female. What is that valuable quality? He can keep her safe and protect her. It is the non-physical equivilent of flexing one's muscles; though humour is far more efficient and safe to use than using one's muscles to deal with problems, as well as hintingly betraying other qualities such as intelligence (if he is funny enough). My conclusion about this (in addressing what originally got my started on the topic), is that if you dismiss a guy out of hand because he's using humour, you may be filtering out the trash, but there is absolutely no necessity about it. It is equivilent to saying: "Any guy who works out in the gym all day, and where's a thin shirt, is arrogant with no good reason to be, or a brute", and no less false. Granted, if humour is all that he relies on, then he is likely to be shallow and arrogant, but it WOULD be ASSUMING of YOU to decide that solely on the basis that he said something humourous. The trouble with the internet is that the voice-tone and body language employed in the telling of a joke is lost, and therefore, the joke is more likely to fall flat. It's also easier for a woman to chuckle in private and then type off a message in a flat tone "That's not funny." - and also very dishonest of her I might add. And that, as they say in India, is that. EDIT: Corrected bad line breaking.

If it is true that he is in need of help, he may be squirming in his seat as you scrutinize and speculate about him (though it may also help him simultaneously). I don't think that's true, but I think anyone with even a small dash of insecurity will feel at least a little miffed at being the centre of a public discussion where an insecurity about him is being implied. I know I would. With that in mind, shall we continue?