Postby eberntson » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:50 pm
As for chicken, pertaining to :
[quote] not afraid of intelligence, artificial or not. [/quote]
@melissa, we have both been accused of being "cute", and together doubly so.
@Bailey: Just because we don't know of any publicly performing female geek, doesn't mean there weren't any in time gone by. I think social norms would surely have prevented a little girl from becoming a performing geek in the carnival, public morality being what it was. Women could only be a mother, wife, whore, adventurer, bearded ladies, nurse, school teacher (spinster), fortune teller, witch, queen, princess, damsel (see “distress”), trapezes artist, rubber women, dancer, fat women, nun, widow (see burden or nun), or lovely assist. Actually, the carney subculture seems more liberal then the rest of society, since they allowed women to have more opportunity then the mainstream culture. Society and opportunity for women was very limited in the west until the 1900's. (sorry if the frank verbiage offends)
(line to cross)
--------------------------------------
To paraphrase several great minds and mash it all up, and to give "geekerthol" his due.
Let use Bailey’s intended original definition for “geek” I painfully know the classical definition, I was there when the classical definition was used to hurt "computer geeks". And at that time we only used the word between ourselves ( 1-computer-geek-to- another) in solidarity. Society as always take a will to recognize language drift; the dictionary, even online, lags way behind.
I digress, here is my mashed up twisted thought; Aesop said "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." Smart old Aesop, and let's count the chickens we do have:
[b]1) Chicken[/b] - Always ready to cross any road, is considered not to be the smartest animal. I think we can agree with that, even without it's head it runs around the same as it has, granted for a limited few moments more.
[b]2) Intelligence [/b]- this is truly in short supply, so much so that we have an abundance of "stupidity" in this world.
[b]3) Artificial Intelligence[/b] - the art of making computers that behave like the ones in movies. I am right by MIT and if there was an intelligent computer out there I am sure I would suspect something about it.
[b]4) Geek-erthol[/b] - is assumed to have always been male, (never an "auntie"), bit the heads off chickens for entertainment (his or the publics one can bot be sure), and was thought to be stupid and did this because "he" had no other choice.
[b]5) Geek [/b]- [i]{modern}[/i] originally called "computer geek", but now assumed to all but the luddites, to be a adept technician specializing in skills and knowledge in relation to technology based on computer science and/or electronic. Secondly not limited to technology, but can be anyone focused on intellectual challenge, artificial or not; but to the exclusions of social skill or normality or a broader world view outside of intellect.
[b]6) Computer[/b] - a calculating machine that is used to foul things up so fast it would take a human many man months to undo or equal the err. This devise is only limited in it ability by the level of quality of the information put into it. "Computers do exactly what you tell them, not what you intend them to do." Oh, and "they do it at the speed of light." Remember GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
So here we have our triad of characters as follows:
[list]A geek who is smarter then is thought, and fearless to boot. And unable to express this genius in social settings except to friends of a similar mind set (i.e. geek clan).
Then a chicken that is thought to be stupid, and stands on the precipice of the tarmac waiting for compulsion or reason to do something (e.g. cross the road).
And finally the Computer, that some ascribe/describe Artificial Intelligence too. Which will do what it is told, and very well. [/list]
I would call this a "rock, paper, scissors" situation, where the rules are as follows:.
[list]Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity of the chicken.
Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world. But the geekerthol is willing to bite it’s head off.
The geek is not afraid of the computer intelligence, but is worried about the products of science such as cloning of humans, along with behavior control, genetic engineering, transplanted heads, computer poetry and the unrestrained growth of plastic flowers. But he does tend to count chickens before they are hatched, even though he knows he shouldn't. [/list]
So what is the solutions to this "Computer, Geek, & Chicken" game? (besides silliness & absurdity whose line was crossed a while ago) I will paraphrase Oscar Wilde whom I assume once quipped,
[quote]"People who count their chickens before they are hatched, act very more intelligent then those that are stupid, because chickens run about so absurdly that it is impossible to count them accurately at any moment without a computer. And even then the chicken might be hit by any imaginable conveyance crossing a road."[/quote]
Which brings me back to my original thought which Bailey will probably agree with, "I (geek or not) while in front of the computer like to eat chicken, evil or not."
EBERNTSON
Fear less, hope more;
eat less, chew more;
whine less, breathe more;
talk less, say more,
and all good things will be yours.
--R. Burns