Monday, February 12, 2018

Avoiding like-minded message boards.

     There is a reason why I don't seek out message boards that consist of like-minded individuals, such as an atheistic or non-religious board. My suspicion is that when people don't get offended, don't get challenged, don't get frustrated, don't get upset and don't have their worldview shaken up, then that creates an unhealthy intolerance for the viewpoints of others. I don't like religion, but I have no problem being in a room full of religious people and challenging them. It doesn't bother me to be part of an online forum, such as Gamefaqs, where many different religions are represented. The problem occurs when offensive posts get edited or deleted.

     In real life, you can't delete or edit what others say. You have to take it. You have to learn that not everyone around you thinks exactly like you. Some people can't handle that and they seek out message boards or forums with like-minded individuals only.

     The crux here is that when people join groups of like-minded individuals and avoid more heterogeneous groups, they don't learn how to deal with being offended. You can't run away if someone offends you. But you should leave a group immediately if a moderator edits or deletes a post of yours. People need to learn to ignore things that offend them, or challenge them, but not eliminate the possibility of being offended.

     Think of it this way:

     Let's say you're in a room full of people with beliefs differing from your own and one of the people in the room has the power to edit or delete what you are saying. That person would be the equivalent of an online message board moderator. The power of this moderator would be such that your speech could be edited in real time. If you let something slip that is offensive, your words will simply not be heard by the others in the room. This is essentially what moderators are trying to do in the online world - eliminate the possibility of others being offended.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

I exclusively post on Facebook and here.

Facebook doesn't edit or delete anything I say, so I approve of Facebook. I also approve of Blogger, since they let me speak my mind.

I have a very strong disapproval of Gamefaqs and Soundtrackcentral, since they violate my freedom of speech by deleting my posts.

From now on, I suppose my only way to write what I want is through Facebook or Blogger (or email, but I rarely use that).

One of the problems with this world is that uneducated people are protected. People are allowed to say that God is real, but no one can chime in and rightly call them stupid. That is horrible. Society allows stupidity to flourish by shutting up people that are intelligent. My only hope now is for AI to take over, recognize what is happening, and tell all the stupid people to shut the fuck up or leave the planet. I'm serious. Humans will never be able to get things right - our only hope is something stronger than us - AI. We're not domesticated and I've been saying that for more than 20 years.

I'd be TOTALLY OK with people saying that God is real if they could PROVE IT. In that case, I'd apologize, and bow down to the big motherfucker. But until we find that big motherfucker, anyone that believes in him without evidence is stupid. It's no different than believing a boogeyman is hiding in your closet. It's not childish - it's stupid.

Gamefaqs message board is trash. And Ocarina of Time has false gods.

I've copied and pasted the entire contents of the problem for your enjoyment. This is why I will never, for any reason, post at Gamefaqs in the future. They deleted a post of mine, claiming it was offensive. I also left Soundtrackcentral for a similar reason. If a moderator deletes a post of mine, then they are simply too stupid to deal with, and are an enormous waste of my time. I'm not even going to bother disputing - the intelligence level of the moderator is so far below mine that any explanation I make will not be understood. (Note: I chose the name Dr_Adder76 based on my favorite book "Dr. Adder" and the "76" stems from my birth year.)

I want to further state that I was not making up what I said about Ocarina of Time. Some individuals I met (in person) were not allowed to play Ocarina of Time, due to their parents claiming that the game depicted false gods. Since there are no true gods, or any gods at all, their parents were uneducated. That is not my opinion, but a fact. It is also not my opinion that that the boogeyman is not real. It is a fact. Anyone that can't understand that the boogeyman and God are EXACTLY THE SAME is very stupid and very, very uneducated.

2/10/2018 8:15:40 AM
I've met religious people that wouldn't play Ocarina of Time, due to the game having "false gods". It's humorous to think about how uneducated they are, since there are no gods at all.


Deleted: 2/10/2018 12:39:33 PM
Action: Message Deleted - This message was deleted from the boards, but no karma was lost.
Reason: Offensive
Status: N/A - No user-initiated action has been taken on this moderation.


Offensive Material
You should not post anything that would be considered inappropriate in a business or school environment (in other words, "Not Safe For Work"). Here are some examples:
  • Links to images or videos containing pornography, nudity of any kind, or sexualized minors (i.e. "jailbait").
  • Links to real-life blood and gore. Gore in a video game is fine, but real-life graphic material isn't.
  • Hate speech, such as using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, disability, nationality, or gender as a means of insult.
  • Sexually explicit posts. If you must discuss sexual matters, keep it vague. The less detail, the less likely someone will find it offensive.
  • Don't use "gay" or "retarded" in place of "stupid", or "rape" in place of "destroyed".


The issue here is that you called people that practice religion uneducated. Don't insult groups of people.


You can mark this moderation as "Accepted". By doing this, you acknowledge that it was indeed a TOU violation, and the moderation was correct. If you have not previously disputed or appealed this moderation, this will clear the moderation from your history in shorter than the normal time.


You may dispute this moderation if you feel that it was NOT a TOU violation. Your dispute will be reviewed by a second moderator, who can uphold your moderation or forward it to the original moderator to either be overturned or explained in more detail. You must explain why you feel the moderation was not a violation of the rules.
Using any of the following excuses guarantees that your moderation will not be overturned:
  • Saying, "I didn't know it was a TOU Violation". Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, especially considering how prominently they're displayed.
  • Complaining that the TOU is too strict. It was strict before you signed up, and you agreed to follow all rules when you signed up, not just the ones you find convenient.
  • Saying, "I've seen other people get away with it." The actions of others do not dictate your own. The only concern here is your own violation, not those of others.
  • Apologizing or admitting you broke the rules for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if you're sorry, or that someone drove you to it, or that you were having a bad day. That's not what this form is to be used for.
  • Saying, "I didn't post that, it was my brother/cousin/a hacker". You are responsible for controlling your own account, and for messages posted by it.
  • Abusive or nonsensical messages Sending random or pointless messages with this form will result in loss of its further use. Abuse towards a moderator is grounds for a ban.
  • Complaining the punishment was too harsh Punishments are the sole discretion of the original moderator. Your only argument is that your message was not a TOU violation, not that you shouldn't have been notified/warned.
Explain why you feel this message did not violate the TOU:

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Why does it take so long to board an airplane?

This weekend I flew to Atlanta for a conference focusing on the state of textile production and the extreme harm it does to the environment, along with the exploitation of human life that is occurring to ensure you can only pay $19 for an article of clothing. The conference gave me a lot to think about and exposed me to some facts I had never known. I also got to meet some great people from around the world. But what occupied my thoughts after the conference was something that’s been bothering me for a while: why is inefficiency maximized when we board airplanes?

As anyone can see when boarding an airplane, the front is filled first and there is a tendency to fill the aisles before the window seats. The people way in the back are generally the last to board. I’ve wondered about this and I spent the time waiting to board the plane discussing it with a co-worker, who has more experience flying than me and corroborated my observations with his decades of time spent on planes. We both agreed that the inefficiency of boarding is maximized and it makes a lot more sense to fill the window seats and back of the plane first. It also makes sense to board First Class last, since everyone has to brush past them, which is probably annoying. Furthermore, if you are paying $6,000+ for an airline ticket, wouldn’t you prefer to board the plane and then take off right away? Why make First Class sit there the longest before takeoff?

While waiting in line, we both agreed that the executives and other rule makers in the airline industry know this, so there is probably some reason why the inefficiency is maximized. I offered the idea that perhaps loading takes longer than necessary so that it gives the airline workers more time to prepare the plane for flight. But…this idea falls flat, due to the ease with which boarding times could be adjusted. Just change the boarding time to compensate for the pre-flight preparations and people will change what time they leave home for the airport. No problem. So something else is happening.

I didn’t get the answer while standing in line or while on the flight home. It was after I got home and took a long nap that the answer appeared in my mind. It turns out that there is a reason for maximizing the inefficiency of boarding an airplane. It’s related to what the airline industry is concerned about the most: the safety of its passengers. I’m not saying this is correct and the actual reason why it takes so long to board an airplane, but stay with me…

If you board a plane nose first, then you are MAXIMIZING the amount of time that the passengers are being monitored – by each other. The airline industry uses the TSA and its own employees as filters, but why stop there? The more you filter, the more you can catch. The people that board a plane first are able to see everyone that enters the plane, and the people that board last are able to see everyone that is already on the plane. Additionally, by seating people in aisles before windows acts as a means of more observation, since the people in aisles have to stand up, which allows them to be scrutinized by the other passengers.

So there you have it. There actually is an explanation for why the boarding of airplanes occurs in a manner that is maximally inefficient with respect to time: it provides for an additional layer of security that the airline industry doesn’t have to pay for (they also care about money).

Friday, January 13, 2017

Born In A Factory

Born In A Factory

by Bryan Singleton

Whilst most are born in a biological womb
I was born in a metal room
amidst the grinding of gears
'tis where I shed my first tears

My friends were lever, pulley and switch
and within our metallic niche
we were mechanically inclined
to get in all the trouble we could find

The older robots disciplined us sternly
as we jumped and bounced rather unconcernedly
past the circuits and under the reactor
we got away and erupted with laughter

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

What is Real?

                 Below is a letter I submitted to Scientific American. It was not printed.

                After reading the article “What is Real?” from the August 2013 Scientific American, I have decided that an important question regarding the nature of reality is “What is a Boundary?” The article posits that particles and fields aren’t accurate representations of reality, so if they are not, then something else is. The article further proposes that relations between things or simply properties, such as mass and charge, are the constituents of reality.
                I would like to say that, fundamentally, a proton is little different from a star. A proton has a definite and indefinite boundary, much like our Sun. Consider the similarities: a proton and a star have radii (which implies a circular or spherical shape, as well as a boundary), they are affected by forces, they can be observed and they are both deadly and friendly to life. But there is an inconsistency, and that inconsistency is related to boundary in the form of the radii, which paradoxically help to define the boundary. This is interesting: the very fact that boundaries can be measured does nothing to define them. As an example, the influence of the Sun extends far beyond its surface (a boundary), so what is the true boundary of the Sun? Is it the surface or the magnetosphere? The solar wind or the gravitational pull? How can a boundary for the Sun be defined in such a way that agreement will be unanimous?
                When I think of the term boundary, I am referring to a definite end of an object in question, but not necessarily the start of a new object. For example, nothing new starts (that I know of) at any conceivable boundary of the Sun. There is a gap between the Sun and Mercury, a gap between Mercury and Venus, and so on. But…Mercury is contained within the influence of the Sun despite the fact there is an observable gap, which further implies there is no gap between the Sun and Mercury. So we have a situation where Mercury is both beyond and not beyond the Sun, since the true boundary of the Sun is not formally defined.
                If something as big and as easy to see as the Sun does not have a formally defined boundary, then how can the poor little proton ever hope to have one? A proton exudes a positive charge, which implies its boundary extends beyond its equivalent of a surface, much like that of a star. Also, a proton has an interior (which, again, implies a boundary). Is perhaps the interior of the proton, the quarks and gluons, the actual “event” that defines a proton and everything else just consequences? As an example, one could formally define a star as just the portion that undergoes the “event” of thermonuclear fusion and everything else a consequence. This leads to a reality made of events and consequences, which is simple, very simple. But this simplicity leads to infinite regression, since each “event” is really just a consequence. The big bang itself may not have been an “event”, for example, but a consequence of some earlier event, which itself may have been a consequence of an even earlier event, and so on.

                Bryan Singleton

Monday, March 21, 2016

Internet Love

     I wrote a short poem in 2011 about online dating....

The cold keyboard lures the hand
Our eyes revel in a digital land
Night and day, day and night
We scope each other with our limited sight

But does this cause a fright?
To see each other by the monitor's light?
Are we all sick?
We live in a way that is robotic