Why do we have some fat dead skin cell eating hobo as our sticky instead of the true Jow Forumsentooman?

>RMS copy pasted some unix programs and made them open source
wow much freedoms!

>considering that Jow Forums hates pretty much any tech as well
I blame the influx from Jow Forums for this. True Jow Forums posters have always enjoyed tech.

>Name one (1) technological contribution Ted ever made.
Kaczynski expanded the science of boundary functions.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1967. Boundary Functions [abstract of doctoral dissertation]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1964. Another proof of Wedderburn's theorem. Am. Math. Month. 71:652-653.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1964. Distributivity and (-1)x = -x. Am. Math. Month. 71:689.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1965. Boundary functions for functions defined in a disk. J. Math. and Mech. 14(4):589-612.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1965. Distributivity and (-1)x = -x [with solution by Bilyeau, R.G.]. Am. Math. Month. 72:677-678.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1966. On a boundary property of continuous functions. Michigan Math. J. 13:313-320.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1969. The set of curvilinear convergence of a continuous function defined in the interior of a cube. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 23:323-327.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1969. Boundary functions and sets of curvilinear convergence for continuous functions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 141:107-125.

Kaczynski, T.J. 1969. Boundary functions for bounded harmonic functions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 137:203-209.

You may not care, kid, because all you do all day is play video games. But in the real world, free software actually matters, and even empower people.

cio.com/article/3112582/linux/linus-torvalds-says-gpl-was-defining-factor-in-linuxs-success.html

Industrial Society and its Future

>theoretical math publications
None of these have had any practical applications, so try again.

>None of these have had any practical applications, so try again.
[citation needed]

His manifest is just the ramblings of a lunatic. You'd might as well worship Terry Davis then.

I don't know why you fucking newfags celebrate mental illness so much. Must be a tumblr-generation thing.

>prove something didn't happen or doesn't exist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

>>His manifest is just the ramblings of a lunatic.
t. leftist

>promising mathematical mind gets fried by too much LSD under the supervision of CIA
>Jow Forums worships the madman who came out, rather than the well-functioning and skille mathematician he was before that happened
Classic Jow Forums, the same reason you don't give a fuck about Terry Davis' pioneering work with 3D printers in the 90s, and only shitpost videos of a homeless schizophrenic man and scare him by pretending to be characters from his mind.

Different user. You're the one who provided the information, so it's on you to show its relevance if it's challenged. Either way, it's dubious to say that providing a proof for what is essentially the distributive property of multiplication is a contribution to technology. The boundary theory I can't comment on, but it's still shaky since it's pure math. Most people wouldn't consider mahematicians as contributors to technology. Science is not technology since technology is the application of science

Nice red herring, but I just happen to think that the development of technology is the direct result of capitalism and that it is overall good that we can use refridgerators and no longer need to hunt ourselves but can outsource it.

>the development of technology is the direct result of capitalism

you got it backwards.
read his books

Not to mention that it is arguable if pure mathematics can even be considered a science since it doesn't rely on empiric evidence like hard sciences do.

>it is overall good that we can use refridgerators and no longer need to hunt ourselves
and you feel useless and devoid of a goal in life

meanwhile old men felt proud in bringing their food home, since they fulfilled their need for power process.

>the same reason you don't give a fuck about Terry Davis' pioneering work with 3D printers in the 90s
Source?

Just because you read it in a book, doesn't make it correct. He is a lunatic that got his brain fried by too much LSD, and he did suffer from cognitive issues such as memory problems when he was caught. Not exactly the most credible source of historical accuracy now, is it?

Also, you assume that I haven't read his manifesto. You're dead wrong, they aren't even that long, it's around 70 pages give or take.

>and you feel useless and devoid of a goal in life
I don't, I feel quite useful and I have a clear purpose. There's no reason for me to move in to the woods like a fucking hippie to discover the meaning of life.

>meanwhile old men felt proud in bringing their food home, since they fulfilled their need for power process.
If you feel proud for being able to care for yourself without dying, then your bar for feeling a sense of accomplishment should be a little higher, desu.

Literally all your ancestors managed to do the same thing.

anti-tech revolution is over double that.

also
>the development of technology is the direct result of capitalism

explain why China got modern technology and went from socialist to capitalist in less than 50 years.

It's more reasonable to think tech progress brings capitalism by necessity (of being in a tightly coupled world economy/technology)

Is there any political philosophy more retarded than anarcho-primitivism? You could literally just not use technology, but you can't hack that because of how stupid and difficult that is. So instead of realizing it's stupid and difficult for you because it's stupid and difficult generally, you figure it would work great if everyone had to live like that, sprinkle some fairy dust about how that's really freedom and call it a political philosophy.

Attached: you-have-died-of-dysentery.jpg (1280x960, 91K)

Ted is too good for this board.

>You could literally just not use technology
there is nowehere to go anymore

>explain why China got modern technology and went from socialist to capitalist in less than 50 years.
They turned capitalist before they started producing technology, you history revisionist.

Mao literally marched 80 million people into the desert and watched them die, because he wanted them to become simple farmers without using technology to transfer the desert into growable soil.
Communism = anti-technology.

>It's more reasonable to think tech progress brings capitalism by necessity (of being in a tightly coupled world economy/technology)
The current discussion on how AI will free us all and we needing to have universal income should prove that sentiment wrong.

>explain why China got modern technology and went from socialist to capitalist in less than 50 years.

I mean, Mao's policy was literally named "one step back, two steps forward" because they realized they had to allow some capitalist mechanisms in order to bring in technology and prosperity.

While a good choice, I think this guy
youtube.com/watch?v=rzK7aSxzGN0
is more representative.

>So instead of realizing it's stupid and difficult for you

I am an engineer certified for deploying Apache Spark multi-clusters on major European Banks,
and I still think technology is wrong and Ted had a point.

fuck off with your projector

>I am an engineer certified for deploying Apache Spark multi-clusters on major European Banks,
Sure you are, kid.

>The current discussion on how AI will free us all
you will not be free to work anymore ;-)))

You seem to think that the advancement of mathematics is useless, as it doesn't bolster your pay check, or provide you with entertainment. End your life, you self-absorbed luddite scum.

The clue is that you can work on what you want, rather than having to slave away.

Just like capitalism and industrialization allowed people to spend more time at home, so people could do stuff like going to school and having hobbies.

you are deluded.

>You seem to think that the advancement of mathematics is useles
Don't tell me what I think, because you're not right at all. I never said those words. I simply asked for proof that those mentioned publications had real-life applications (aka "technology").

I'm sure your pure mathematics degree is about as useful as an English literature major :^)

I'm historically correct. Before the industrial revolution, the average work day was 17 hours. Not even 50 years after the industrial revolution, the average work day had dropped to 10 hours, and now people work 5-7 hours.

luddites were anti technology, not anti science.

>and now people work 5-7 hours.
and have to have 3 media subscriptions (netflix, amazon prime, hulu/hbo) to doze off and try not to think about how useless their life is.
Wow

take the invention of car for example:
you are now NOT free not to use/have one in USA, since you NEED one to go to work or shop.
Because cities and work changed to accomodate new tech (the car).

New tech restricts your freedom, always.

"free time" is a lie

>has no idea what xis talking about
>xe blabbers anyway
Ahhh, gotta love underage shitposting.

>and have to have 3 media subscriptions (netflix, amazon prime, hulu/hbo) to doze off and try not to think about how useless their life is.
Nice projection user.

>you are now NOT free not to use/have one in USA, since you NEED one to go to work or shop.
Not everyone lives in the US, but I disagree anyway. Owning a car immensely increases your freedom of movement, user. I

>New tech restricts your freedom, always.
Wrong.

>"free time" is a lie
For lazy fucks like you that didn't put in an effort to get into college, maybe.

>literally uses his freedom of speech to communicate his uneducated opinions with a stranger across the glove in a matter of seconds
Tell me more about how technology has not improved your life.

He is more of an guy.

Why not Theo de Raadt?
>Founder of OpenBSD
>Imposes high standards to ensure quality is made
>Refuses to allow any proprietary blobs into his OS
>Regularly BTFO SJWs and other retards keeping them out of the project just by being himself. Practically has turned this into a hobby of his.
>Has a nice touch of humor doing a song every OpenBSD release that he clearly enjoys doing
>Reliable, trustworthy, and hasn't failed us yet

Attached: 1505548929494.jpg (605x420, 33K)

>For lazy fucks like you that didn't put in an effort to get into college, maybe.
again I'm
>an engineer certified for deploying Apache Spark multi-clusters on major European Banks,
feel free not to believe me,
I accept fully what posting on anonymous imageboards implies.

these Reddit fucks thinking this shit is a group, every man for his fucking self.

>feel free not to believe me,
I will.

>I accept fully what posting on anonymous imageboards implies.
Yes, it implies that you are a massive hypocrite, see

Friendly reminder that Ted would have sent moot a mail bomb if he was still active today.

>scientific contributions == technological contributions

Attached: 1526359330192.jpg (350x375, 23K)

>he thinks wasting time on Jow Forums improves his life

I was 19 once too.

>gentoo man
>hated technology
>advocated we all abandon technology
>killed people who traded with or made technology

hmmmmm

Attached: test.gif (512x481, 644K)

Pure mathics isn't even a science.

>mathematical theorems
>technological contributions

I'm sorry you are miserable and hate your life, but I'm having a great time enjoying your butthurt when you're told over and over again how wrong you are :^)

>automatically implies that stating "sometimes maths doesn't have real life implications" is the equivalent of studying science only to earn more money
You're the one that should end his life

Ted did make some valid points, but imho he was attacking the wrong enemy.
All technology, even large-scale technology, as he calls it, is a tool, which can be used for good and bad.
The real issue is leftism and what those who are in power use technology for.

>you're told over and over again how wrong you are
you could do this all day and not move my beliefs one inch.
Have a nice day.

>you could do this all day and not move my beliefs one inch.
I wouldn't expect more from a glorified computer janitor, even when confronted with facts and history, you spin around and make up your own alternate reality where everything sucks because some dude with a higher IQ told you so.

>technology, as he calls it, is a tool, which can be used for good and bad.

once it reaches AI, the tool will also be the owner/agent, so the real issue is itself.

In fact we're already depending on it for many mission critical scenarios, imagine runnin an airport with the current number of daily flights, without computers planning the best times and landing track reservation.

>computers help us do things that would literally be impossible without them
>therefore computers are bad
Please explain to me this broken logic, without invoking right-wing objectivistic fantasies about the self-made superhuman please.

>without invoking right-wing
we're back to square one:

>t. leftist

>The real issue is leftism
And what does Ted say the problem with leftism is, exactly? Isn't it ironic that he implies that it leads to control and fear, and then proceeds to blow up people he disagrees with in order to control them and make them fear him?

>AI
Stopped reading there.

Attached: 1505343265524.png (480x529, 106K)

Actions speak louder than words, user. If you claim to agree with Ted while actually being the sort of person he would have mailed a bomb to, you don't actually agree with him.

>can't explain a line of reasoning without involving politics
You're sounding like a typical leftist sjw, desu senpai.

Attached: Dfl-J39WsAEMA7n[1].png (1200x960, 1.91M)

>while actually being the sort of person he would have mailed a bomb to
I read him after I chose my path

it's ironic since I wouldn't have stumbled upon him without my choices in life, but then I wouldn't have made the same choices if I read him earlier.

Such is life.

And yet somehow it had no effect on the path you took after discovering him. Interesting. It's almost like you like to believe retarded things as a hobby.

Excuses excuses. Ted had a promising career and abandoned it to live consistently with his views. You are too afraid to abandoned your glorified """"devops"""" position.

I literally read him two weeks ago, among many other works.

It's not like I've been preaching him for years while serving the machines.

>buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword

the only """"buzzoword"""" is self-prop system, which was introduced in the previous chapter and defined.

Everything else is common english.

>I literally read him two weeks ago
Abandon thread!!! This is a bait thread.

>This is a bait thread.
I'm not OP

>call stallman a hobo
>say we should replace him with an actual hobo
It was always a bait thread user.

>In The Atlantic, Alston Chase reported that the text "was greeted in 1995 by many thoughtful people as a work of genius, or at least profundity, and as quite sane."
>UCLA professor James Q. Wilson, who was mentioned in the manifesto, wrote for The New Yorker that Industrial Society and Its Future was "a carefully reasoned, artfully written paper ... If it is the work of a madman, then the writings of many political philosophers — Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tom Paine, Karl Marx — are scarcely more sane."
Have you actually read his manifesto? It's pretty readable. He has a couple irrational obsessions/gripes with modern society but that's really it. His section on the future timeline of genetic engineering is pretty convincing and concerning.

if that's what you believe then you should support replacing stallman with kaczynski

This.

I read ted's manifesto out of curiosity I'm not an anarchist or even really political. His problem with technology is really simple and is commonly misinterpreted as "oh we need to go back to the forest and live like our ancestors nature is great" shit.
You should read it because even if you don't agree with his opinions it's pretty good science fiction. Anyone who says "ramblings of a madman" etc definitely hasn't read it. It's a pretty coherent manifesto he just felt that the only way to get people to read it was to kill people.

I'm assuming you read his manifesto so you probably know that he is very anti-leftist and explains why he thinks their methods + technology will always win.
If I remember correctly he basically calls out SJW culture within the first 10-20 pages as the beginning of the end. He came to all these conclusions by the late 1970s.

it's not that people SHOULD do it, the point is that most people COULDN'T survive in a cabin in the woods if they tried, even with all necessary mechanical tools provided. abandoning all technology and sending bombs isn't an option for most people either, but Ted made an important point of just how dependent we are on technology and just how powerless we are without it.

Now that Google is literally aiming to live everyone's life for them, you can't help but think there's undeniable truth in Ted's words, while the blind crowd cheers and welcomes their botnet overlords.

Attached: 333646-Frank-Herbert-Quote-Once-men-turned-their-thinking-over-to.jpg (3840x2160, 2.07M)

WATCH THIS

youtube.com/watch?v=QDVVo14A_fo

and then tell me Ted was wrong

The people he bombed were mostly enemies of his ideology but it was his way to get his manifesto published in major papers.
I'm not saying he cried as he mailed out the explosives but if he wanted to control people it was ideologically through his manifesto not fear of letter bombs which were just a means to an end.

yes you are right
here is the pic we should use in the sticky

Attached: Theodore_Kaczynski.jpg (555x414, 139K)

>you are now NOT free not to use/have one in USA, since you NEED one to go to work or shop.
That's not true, you can live in the woods and hunt your own food, or be a farmer like your ancestors

.
Somehow I had this idea that he was a manlet, but he looks around 5'10 there.

The good news is that natural selection is still happening and these autistic weirdos who can't integrate into modern society are just going to get selected out like Ted here, while our children/grandchildren/greatgrandchildren will enjoy its fruits.

Attached: privacy.png (684x1740, 232K)

5'10 IS manlet

Instead of just blindly accepting any shiny new technology that comes out we should examine it first to determine just how beneficial it is. If it has the capability to drive a wedge between the family unit and community then it's not worth it.

Attached: 1525163956664.jpg (720x707, 77K)

> reference.com/history/tall-alexander-great-e9b71b0787d695ea
> Alexander the Great was approximately 5 feet tall, which was the average height for Greek males of that time period.

I think your criteria for manlet is fucked up due to living with too many other brainlet sasquatches.

>comparing height of humans today to 2500 years ago
C O P E

>Have you actually read his manifesto?
Yes

>It's pretty readable
Doesn't make it inherently right or correct.

>He has a couple irrational obsessions/gripes with modern society but that's really it
And asserts a bunch of false premises.

>you will be able to remotely SSH into oneitis ass and smell it through your $1000 Brrrrrrraap Master's Ultra Scent Sniffer Kit
maybe the future isn't that bad after all

Attached: 1524623984879.jpg (525x350, 26K)

this guy makes me proud of my ancestry