What are you doing that requires you to use Twisted?
That wasn't even the sort of discord I wanted to sow.
Maybe you should post all those cock pictures you collected.
max
['That'll stir something up.']
You know, a precursor of Twisted was outlined in a paper by Leśniewski in the 1920s.
I have yet to hear anything good about Twisted. Why does the Unfoggedbot use it?
Shorter Ben: Make the bugs in the jar fight the way that I want them to.
5: I couldn't find anything other python OSCAR implementation. And there was some reason why we didn't use Tom's perl bot. (A bad reason, but a reason.)
I've actually heard some really good things about twisted, but mostly from, IIRC, twisted gurus.
(I'm the only one who uses the ubot, I think, mostly because it's been extremely unreliable, partly because it gets disconnected by bits of the protocol it doesn't undertand—I'm attempting to have it reconnect itself.)
A good thing: Twisted may be one of the best (if not *the* best) ways of writing concurrent programs today, …
Since it's not a framework I'm familiar with and Becks has resisted my entreaties to start a two-minute-hate thread, I'll attempt a hijack and say that someone really needs to punch that smug racist pigfucker Daniel Pipe in the neck.
Mr. Pipes refers to this new enemy as the "lawful Islamists."
Hey look, the NY Times uses free indirect discourse too!
Make the bugs in the jar fight the way that I want them to.
I read this and can't help but think, "When tweetle beetles battle with their paddles in a puddle and the puddle's in a bottle, that's called a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle."
The sowing discourse thread looks interesting, but it is long, and I'm supposed to be working. Is it worth reading, or should I just grade and move piles of paper around my office?
I know what you're saying, Ben, but I'm just a sucker for Ashley Judd flicks.
14: Just skip to the end to savor D^2 unloading on the poor guy who showed up trying to defend the entire field of Analytic Philosophy.
Sucker.
14: No, it's not worth reading. You'd be better off moving piles of paper around.
If I owned a sow, I'd name her "Discord." And then I'd feed Daniel Pipes to her.
16: hey, I unloaded on the guy, too.
Geez.
I remember looking at Twisted when I was dabbling with Python. I remember thinking: "Wow! VoIP, IM, HTTP -- this library can do everything!" Then later: "Hm. This library tries to do everything." Later still: "This library does some things, may someday do others, and nobody has written comprehensible documentation for where those boundaries lie."
There were probably many good reasons for not using my Perl bot. I don't know how to write Perl responsibly.
If you're really stuck, I'd suggest trying to adapt the bot to Jabber. There's a good chance that the available Python libraries are better, and there are definitely fewer headaches to be had using that protocol.
Sorry, Sifu, I saw the tail end of that, but then D^2 showed up with a lorry-load of "cunts,"* and I swooned.
* Actually not, but it's a placeholder for his colorful style of argumentation.
Humans eating pigs isn't kosher. But what about pigs eating humans?
19: Yes, but D2s ranty trolling really is in a class by itself. Even I have to admit he's a master of the form.
unloading on the poor guy
In the pr0n sense of unloading, sure.
You're totally right. All true juggalos know that ICP is way better than Twiztid.
Ben, what sort of discord did you hope to sow? How can we serve you better in the future?
w-lfs-n sowed discord, but he intended to sow datcord.
27: I think he was expecting someone to defend Holbo. But it turns out Holbo was unanimously judged guilty of analytically philosophical wanking in the second degree.
It's too hectic to figure out which of the other threads is the angriest right now. Does anybody want to fight with me about anything here?
Facial hair is a sign of moral weakness!
Maybe I'm just argued out. You know what's nice? Everything! You know who I agree with? Everybody!
I have always thought Daniel Pipes very attractive, in a Daniel Day-Lewis kinda way.
For what it's worth, I apologize for joining the fray in that other thread.
I was hoping to sow intranecine blogger discord. But in fact Wife X barely blinked.
You should have come to me for advice, grasshopper.
Maybe I'm just argued out.
"You look bushed, dear. Hard day at commenting?"
And in other should-be-fed-to-the-hogs news, Vox Day's Daddy is being tried on charges of tax evasion, conspiracy and failure to appear in court.
intranecine
Seems like your standards are slipping in several ways.
I think he was expecting someone to defend Holbo. But it turns out Holbo was unanimously judged guilty of analytically philosophical wanking in the second degree.
Hey now! I defended Holbo. Granted, its was a "defense" in much the same sense that defense counsel argues for mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase of a capital murder trial, but still.
We can argue about what constitutes proper barbecued ribs since someone here seems to think it requires a grill, but is clearly wrong.
I wanted to show how independent I'd grown, ogged. But I failed. I made a mistake when I did go and now I'm dissatisfied. I'll go back to my father's house—I'll fall down on my face.
I'm a little bit scared 'cause I haven't been home in a long time.
I believe I'll go back home, and acknowledge I done wrong.
"intranecine" seems to be a favored mistake of mine.
13 is awesome. I look forward to teaching it to my niece.
44: instead of a smoker, you mean?
45: They have barbecued ribs there, I believe.
46: I was wondering who you were hoping to pit against whom. Becks v. Labs? Ogged v. Ogged? Everyone v. Bob?
Everyone v. Bob?
Attention! But you probably meant the masthead Bob, and I'm just bein paranoid again.
39: Was this all an elaborate plot to sow discord between the X's and get Wife X for yourself, young Ben?
1. You are bein' paranoid again.
2. Masthead Bob is Bob, you are bob or mcmanus or bob mcmanus in my idiolect.
47: It's from Fox in Sox by Dr. Seuss. FYI
I think bbq has to involve some kind of slow cooking, especially if one wants to eat tender bbq ribs.
We can argue about what constitutes proper barbecued ribs since someone here seems to think it requires a grill, but is clearly wrong.
Hey, can anyone point me to a good site with tips for DIY pit barbecue? In a moment of drunken folly, I agreed to take charge of the pit barbecue for a neighbor's pig* pickin' next weekend. I have a rough idea of how it's done, but I've never tried myself. My reputation as a cook in the neighborhood is impeccable, so I stand to lose face if I screw this up.
*Not really a whole pig; just a shoulder and a couple of slabs of ribs.
23: Having now read some of that thread, including its rump, it's a huge relief to watch from afar, in casual appreciation, as D2 works. Rather, than, say, being on the business end of his efforts.
Oops. Extra comma up there. Sorry. (Apology to cover all of the other mistakes I'm sure I made in those two sentences.)
58: Say 5 Hail Marys and 2 Glory Bes and you will be absolved.
54: Really? I haven't read Fox in Sox in a long time, and think I had it classed it the very simple "Hop on Pop" category. Damn those Lorax for stealing the spotlight.
57,
I didn't even notice I was being attacked harshly. You should try giving a paper at a philosophy conference someday!
56: Chopper and Armsmasher, on the double! Knecht needs you.
Baby back ribs you can do under the broiler, just turn them frequently. My baby back rib consumption has risen dramatically since getting a stove with a broiler tray.
56: Will it actually be a pit, or just using a traditional grill to approximate?
For the shoulder, it's actually pretty simple: put all the coals on one side of the grill, put the spice-berubbed shoulder on top of a piece of tin foil, fold the foil up to cover the side of shoulder facing the coals. Cover, refreshing coals occasionally (like, a dozen or so briquets every ~30 minutes). Water-soaked wood chips in a multiply-pierced foil packet should sit atop the coals.
This is off the top of my head, but is definitely close enough. You can modify with mops and the like per your regional intentions.
It will not be easy to do the ribs simultaneously; they work basically the same way, but you can skip the foil. If the grill is big enough, you could probably stick a couple slabs between the coals and the shoulder, turning frequently. One trick to conserve space with ribs is to stand them vertically in an inverted V-rack, or similar device.
Oh, to establish my bona fides: Suckling pig, homemade pit.
I actually have more/better pics, but not online.
Hop on Pop taught my children to jump on me.
My take was that analyticphilosopher was successful in defending analytic philosophy, and D-squared was successful in heaping abuse on him for doing it. So everyone went home happy!
rob, don't listen to these reprobates who hate the life of the mind. The discord thread was awesome. I even downloaded an analytical philosophy paper better to figure out who pwned who.
66: Is taking Fox in Sox too literally how they handed up with only 8 1/2 fingers apiece?
Jonathan defended Holbo on essentially the level that Ben was attacking him. He at least argued that Holbo's deployment of passive-aggressivity was appropriate ("earned") in context.
Will it actually be a pit, or just using a traditional grill to approximate?
It will be a pit. I've done both shoulder and ribs on the grill before, so I am familiar with the basics. This time I'm actually digging a hole and putting rocks in it. I have one of those probe-style meat thermometers that's attached to a long wire, so I plan to bury it inside the shoulder to be able to take above ground temperature readings. My questions are mostly along the lines of:
- rocks just on the bottom of the pit, or on top of the coals as well?
- what fuel to use? Wood fire coals? Charcoal briquettes?
- what to put on top of the coals? Wet wood chips? Cordwood?
- what to put on top of the meat before covering it with dirt? Wet burlap?
- how long can I expect it to take to cook? Same as in a low grill / low oven? Longer?
PGD, I invite you to consider that AP might not be a dude.
alameida is it sexist to imagine that no woman could be that thin-skinned and defensive about the field? I argue no.
AP is apparently nymous to some of us. Not me, though.
I took the fact that AP took offense at being assumed to be a man as evidence that AP was, in fact, a man.
Knecht-
TBH, I don't think it's worth burying a shoulder and some ribs. They cook well enough on a grill (as you apparently know), and the benefit of the pit - extremely steady, low, smoky heat - are overkill for these cuts. At least get a fresh ham (the whole one that weighs ~15 lbs).
That said - charcoal briquets, soaked chunks (not chips, but fist-sized chunks), banana leaves if possible (Asian stores should have them frozen), and it will take for-fucking-ever to cook. I'm not sure if you need rocks beneath the coals - if you dig down and the soil has even a little clay, I'd think rocks would be redundant, esp. for such a small amount of meat. If the soil is loose, then you don't want it smothering the coals, so go ahead and use rocks.
At least that's my take on it.
62: I don't know a blamed thing about pit barbecue--I've been told it absolutely kills the soil in which it's done, and I'm not willing to have a dead patch in my lawn. It sounds like JRoth has it covered. My only advice, which may be teach KR's grandma to suck eggs, is that he should brine the meat for a significant chunk of time, then let it air dry prior to rub/cooking.
Teaching, obvs.
I think we'll be buying another whole pig relatively soon, so I should have lots of stuff to write about on my blog about pork-related activities, including barbecue, but I haven't even had the time to write the post on The Omnivore's Dilemna (the whole impetus for my locavore/blog project), so we'll see.
I don't want to re-ignite anything, but I spent a good hour on this before noticing that the thread was closed, and I'll be goddamned if I let ogged deny you the benefit of my wisdom, though on present evidence you don't need it. So:-
Okay, I'm gonna go all Barack on you now. I want to understand you all and bring you together. Each side feels that their perspective has been misrepresented and/or disrespected, and that they don't deserve it. And each side is right. On each side there is a widespread gut-level tendency to fail to comprehend the go of the others' mode of doing philosophy.
The value of analytic philosophy doesn't lie in its being entertaining, or in leading to technological outcomes, nor in 'solved problems'. Like any philosophy, it lies in being illuminating . You investigate various ways of looking at the issues, and even if you don't come to any definitive conclusions you find yourself having lived with various more or less illuminating sets of concepts, which is interesting .
Now when outsiders ask about a given discipline why they should care whether it lives or dies, why it should be considered interesting, it's rare to be able to give an answer that will be compelling to people whose being doesn't naturally resonate in sympathy with the discipline in question. Science and mathematics can do it because of the toaster ovens. More swashbuckling modes of philosophy have it easier in this respect than analytic philosophy precisely because non-experts do naturally respond to the implicit promise of some sort of 'human significance'. The thing about analytic philosophy is that it too makes this implicit promise, but doesn't like to talk about it.
All philosophy does and should proceed, a rortiori , via a dialectic between the technical on the one hand and the 'significant', 'world-disclosing', or whatever, on the other. Often within the same philosopher. Even the echt world-disclosing kinda guy, say, Heidegger, will usually be heavily invested in some sort of technicality. And conversely technical philosophy will never be merely technical; whatever its self-image, it always has one eye on the big picture - otherwise it ceases to be philosophy. World-disclosure without problem-solving is empty, problem-solving without world-disclosure is blind.
I think the real charge being made here against analytic philosophy, when it's accused of being sclerotic and hermetically enclosed, is "Why is this interesting? Where's the world-disclosure?". Those analytic philosophers (probably not you, ap) who claim that they are just rigorously solving problems, and deny that they are invested in any such kitschy grand projects, don't help matters. The claims to unique levels of rigor are perceived as being not all that well-founded, and hence intended disingenuously, to denigrate other modes of philosophy. But what's worth pointing out is that even if the claims to special rigor are false, it doesn't mean that analytic philosophy is worthless, just that it has a distorted self-image, because it still has the repressed world-disclosing moment at work within it.
But, as ap has I think been trying to say, the real high-water mark of analytic philosophical insularity and triumphalism passed decades ago. There are well-known people in the analytic tradition interested in Heidegger and Foucault, as has been pointed out. Sure, they "translate what you've said into their own language, whereupon it immediately means something different" (some love for you there, John Emerson), but sometimes there's a payoff to that. I don't think ap was trying to say "we're doing good work, therefore you all suck", but merely "we're doing good work". The more aggressive reading was perhaps understandable, though, because others sometimes do intend the inference.
Anyway, go now, my children. You're all beautiful people. Love one another. Aww... group hug.
Anyone who responds to Amit will have his comment deleted. Seriously.
I'll be damned, he'll really do it.
Censorship is wrong, Ben.
i thought 'his' meant Amit's, that would be really really unfair
what about female commenter's comments?
At least one deleted comment was not a response to Amit.
I had to show that I'm an unstable motherfucker, who, despite beinga motherfucker, is not to be fucked with.
Well, sure. Who doesn't want a "shut up!" button?
See the Dante thread, though. Censoring hilarity like my now-deleted comment is a venial sin at least.
OH NO BEN IS ABUSING HIS POWER LET US RISE UP AGAINST HIM.
But you deleted a link to a dog and a cat posing like they're fighting! Monster.
88: are you sure "HIM" is right? let's not be hasty.