As much as I liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein and "Earth" by Brin that aspect of the story always bothered me. Ultimately I think it is just an acknowledgment of the sentiment that utopia cannot be achieved by Human beings alone.
Super power is a new term, before WWII there were just world powers or (fading)Empires. The term super power came about due to the Cold War and the competing influences of the US and Russia across the economic(and real) battle grounds of the world.
Between WW I and WW II the US occupied a similar position to where China stands now.
What would be the incentive to invest and generate wealth in a deflationary economy? This is not a snarky comment, I'm genuinely curious why you say a deflationary model would be less painful.
Gold is in a bubble right now so it's kind of disingenuous to say "look how much value gold has gained relative to inflation, let's pin our economy on that".
Somalia is not an example of an anarchist society. Just because a government collapses doesn't mean that people respect the non-aggression principle any more than blowing up all the churches in a country turns everybody into atheists.
Wonko is on to something here. Somalia isn't an example of utopian anarchist society, but that's only because real life gets in the way. Once we get rid of the "real life" problem all of societies' ailments will be solved! People will live in perfect harmony with their neighbors and no one will ever try to pursue their happiness to the detriment of others.
Also the world's energy problems will be solved because all of those theoretically 100% efficient models will work!
Clearly we must wage war on real life; I see there are several groups of people who have already started this process. Who to join...
Oh they're supremely competent... at gradually upping the invasiveness of their security theater. Scary passenger-thwarted shoe bomber! Take off your shoes. Scary passenger-thwarted underpants bomber. Go through this untested machine that takes naked pictures. Scary fictional pacemaker bomber! Defense contractors* profit.
So instead of seeking to prevent one person, the tyrant, from having that power you want to change everyone else's circumstances so that they have no incentive to follow a tyrant? This sounds suspiciously like socialism.
Except that one guy is not trying to feed his family but make millions of dollars. And he hiring thousands of people to do it using the collective money of millions of people. And those are the people that are trying to feed their family.
Sure it would be nice if everyone of those people said "Sure my kids will starve, but I can't go murder person for money". However the more realistic thing to hope for is that you nail the bastard causing the mess to the wall.
Airport security does not have to be this way as a matter of course. I reserve more blame for the one who shaped it, especially when that particular shaping ends in financial gain at the cost of the American people in terms of liberty and dollars.
Each security officer may have their "freedom gropes" weigh on their conscience, but this man should have every single one. There will always be people desperate enough to take distasteful jobs. However this man had the power to influence policy that few have and abused it.
It's predictable though that no one likes the goons. The tragedy is they won't have any hate left over for former DHS head Michael Chertoff who got them into the mess by lobbying for this scanner boondoggle. Of course the fact he made millions off them is completely irrelevant.
Well, for starters libertarian is different from Libertarian. Libertarian is the party which asserts a strong laissez-faire economic view. While libertarian is more general and can encompass more.
The net as it is now yes. But if ISP's aren't content neutral they could become rent-seeking middle-men which set up those barriers to entry. "Oh you can't pay us anywhere near as much as Google/Micorsoft/Yahoo? Sorry, we will not be guaranteeing the delivery of your traffic at this time."
If they become "Google's files because they're in the cloud" and Google or someone else makes them makes them search-able without your permission through Google's fault then Google's on the hook not you.Google is distributing not you. And believe me the RIAA would love to dip into the deep pockets with a case that juicy.
Seriously, it doesn't matter. The crazy lawsuits are for distributing music and only that, which you're not doing. The whole idea of these being "honeypots" is ridiculous. There's nothing you can actually be charged for even if the RIAA could influence Apple or Google or Amazon. Which is doubtful because they each make far more money than the RIAA and would have to destroy their reputations to go along with such a "trap".
If you have some ethical issue then just buy a legal copy of the music for anything you're unsure of. Having multiple copies for personal use IS still fair use.
That's what I was thinking too. If silverlight had wide adoption they would have stuck with it. But if they can't have the vendor lock in they don't want anybody to have it so HTML5 it is.
However, if you take just a little step back you'll realize that radio spectrum isn't an unlimited resource, and with data usage growing at such phenomenal rates there's no real way to get people to be more efficient about their usage (like, for example, pulling your podcasts over landlines instead of clogging up cell towers with them) without usage limits of some sort
Utter bullshit. I live in NYC and it seems like everyone here has a smart phone. I can still connect download and do everything no problem. There is no crisis of "radio spectrum limitations". They just want to turn data usage into SMS 2.0; don't fucking buy it for a second.
What a bizarre argument. There is obviously a difference. Atheists not believing in something does not lead directly to immoral behaviour and the persecution of others. Christians discriminate against women and homosexuals, and they seek to impose their dogma on others.
I truly can't say if you honestly believe in this absurd oversimplification, or if this is supposed to a parody.
The typical response at this point is that atheism is as much dogma and seeks to impose its will on other too, but that is incorrect.
Of course it is. A dogma is an abstract concept and quite unable to impose its will on anyone, since it doesn't have any. People holding to a dogma are a different matter entirely. And at that point it doesn't really matter what the dogma is; it has become a flag, a symbol to divide the world to us and them and justify oppressing or outright killing the latter.
You neatly sidestep his argument by saying "dogma is an abstract concept" and that different religions have different dogmas. But that is not a valid response. Atheists by definition have no dogma, they must form their world view and beliefs based on their experience. They have no dogmatic mandate to "encourage" others believe as they do, and no centralized powers that influence the dogma.
Let me put it this way: religion is to atheism as monarchy is to democracy. Monarchy and democracy are both political systems, but that doesn't mean they are all that similar.
Most people aren't obsessive-compulsive enough to impose their dogmas on others, but some are, and at that point it's up to the rest of the society whether they'll kill all opponents or write propaganda books.
So on one hand you try and argue that dogma doesn't influence bad outcomes because each individual can choose any dogma, but then argue that it's societies' fault for the bad outcomes? Do you not see the contradiction there? Dogma is a codification of religious society. Dogma choice and adherence to it is reciprocally influenced by society.
Since there is no God to hand down morality and punish you for disagreeing everything is up for debate and only a persuasive argument will work.
Go to any forum where atheists and theists debate each other and watch the arguments used. Are they persuasive? Or are they just a pack of chimps flinging feces at each other? Because I've rarely seen the former - in fact, the only times I have has been when the people haven't tried to persuade each other, but have simply debated for fun.
Weird ad-hominim. Are you ironically channeling William Jennings Bryan?
Then again, I guess this doesn't really disagree with you: only a persuasive argument will work, and short of a personal appearance of God(s) there simply aren't any persuasive arguments about their existence.
It should also be noted that the whole concept of "God hands down morality and punishes you for disagreeing" is pretty much confined to monotheistic religions; and even for them, it's an oversimplification (and sometimes downright incorrect - even with basic Christianity, there's a view that sin creates its own punishment without any interference from God) - exactly the kind of oversimplification people engage in to make other people and their beliefs seem ridiculous, so they can be dismissed without bothering to actually argue them. This is also know as the "strawman argument".
Huh, are you actually claiming there is no actual concept of Hell in Christianity and that polytheistic religious didn't/don't have religious tenants? Sounds like you might be engaged in some selective blocking of facts there.
Yes. Everyone. Except the the intelligence agencies that didn't. Like the CIA and UNSCOM. So really if you discount those two primary sources then he didn't lie. And if you discount the fact that Bush himself doubted he would find any WMDs when talking to Blair before the war. So if you discount those three things... Ah fuck it. Obama's bad; maybe even as bad as Bush, but Bush was bad.
You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?
We hoped for an outsider that was savvy enough to get things done. He said the right things to take on that appearance. It's not like a senator more entrenched in political mire is favorable.
What we got was someone who listened to his handlers as much as Bush Jr. And apparently they're 80% the same handlers. Personally, I'm voting 3rd party and independent where I can.
You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?
We hoped for an outsider. A leader that would ignore political convention if the outcome would be better. He said the right things in his campaign (IMO), but apparently he listens to his handlers just as much as Bush Jr. did. And apparently they are the same handlers.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein and "Earth" by Brin that aspect of the story always bothered me. Ultimately I think it is just an acknowledgment of the sentiment that utopia cannot be achieved by Human beings alone.
Super power is a new term, before WWII there were just world powers or (fading)Empires. The term super power came about due to the Cold War and the competing influences of the US and Russia across the economic(and real) battle grounds of the world.
Between WW I and WW II the US occupied a similar position to where China stands now.
What would be the incentive to invest and generate wealth in a deflationary economy? This is not a snarky comment, I'm genuinely curious why you say a deflationary model would be less painful.
Gold is in a bubble right now so it's kind of disingenuous to say "look how much value gold has gained relative to inflation, let's pin our economy on that".
I wish they had picked different wording. It's exactly the same as the pop ups you shouldn't click on.
Excellent article. His point on shields replacing agility is well taken.
Somalia is not an example of an anarchist society. Just because a government collapses doesn't mean that people respect the non-aggression principle any more than blowing up all the churches in a country turns everybody into atheists.
Wonko is on to something here. Somalia isn't an example of utopian anarchist society, but that's only because real life gets in the way. Once we get rid of the "real life" problem all of societies' ailments will be solved! People will live in perfect harmony with their neighbors and no one will ever try to pursue their happiness to the detriment of others.
Also the world's energy problems will be solved because all of those theoretically 100% efficient models will work!
Clearly we must wage war on real life; I see there are several groups of people who have already started this process. Who to join...
Oh they're supremely competent... at gradually upping the invasiveness of their security theater. Scary passenger-thwarted shoe bomber! Take off your shoes. Scary passenger-thwarted underpants bomber. Go through this untested machine that takes naked pictures. Scary fictional pacemaker bomber! Defense contractors* profit.
*With connections to Chernoff.
Ajax considers sub-domain to be cross domain. GP is right.
So instead of seeking to prevent one person, the tyrant, from having that power you want to change everyone else's circumstances so that they have no incentive to follow a tyrant? This sounds suspiciously like socialism.
Except that one guy is not trying to feed his family but make millions of dollars. And he hiring thousands of people to do it using the collective money of millions of people. And those are the people that are trying to feed their family.
Sure it would be nice if everyone of those people said "Sure my kids will starve, but I can't go murder person for money". However the more realistic thing to hope for is that you nail the bastard causing the mess to the wall.
Airport security does not have to be this way as a matter of course. I reserve more blame for the one who shaped it, especially when that particular shaping ends in financial gain at the cost of the American people in terms of liberty and dollars.
Each security officer may have their "freedom gropes" weigh on their conscience, but this man should have every single one. There will always be people desperate enough to take distasteful jobs. However this man had the power to influence policy that few have and abused it.
A tyrant can't take your power from you. You have to surrender it.
Unless they can hire enough goons with the millions they made.
It's predictable though that no one likes the goons. The tragedy is they won't have any hate left over for former DHS head Michael Chertoff who got them into the mess by lobbying for this scanner boondoggle. Of course the fact he made millions off them is completely irrelevant.
Well, for starters libertarian is different from Libertarian. Libertarian is the party which asserts a strong laissez-faire economic view. While libertarian is more general and can encompass more.
The net as it is now yes. But if ISP's aren't content neutral they could become rent-seeking middle-men which set up those barriers to entry. "Oh you can't pay us anywhere near as much as Google/Micorsoft/Yahoo? Sorry, we will not be guaranteeing the delivery of your traffic at this time."
Hi there, CEO of Fonolo here.
I can't help, but hear Cave Johnson's voice in my head when I read that.
If they become "Google's files because they're in the cloud" and Google or someone else makes them makes them search-able without your permission through Google's fault then Google's on the hook not you.Google is distributing not you. And believe me the RIAA would love to dip into the deep pockets with a case that juicy.
Seriously, it doesn't matter. The crazy lawsuits are for distributing music and only that, which you're not doing. The whole idea of these being "honeypots" is ridiculous. There's nothing you can actually be charged for even if the RIAA could influence Apple or Google or Amazon. Which is doubtful because they each make far more money than the RIAA and would have to destroy their reputations to go along with such a "trap".
If you have some ethical issue then just buy a legal copy of the music for anything you're unsure of. Having multiple copies for personal use IS still fair use.
That's what I was thinking too. If silverlight had wide adoption they would have stuck with it. But if they can't have the vendor lock in they don't want anybody to have it so HTML5 it is.
However, if you take just a little step back you'll realize that radio spectrum isn't an unlimited resource, and with data usage growing at such phenomenal rates there's no real way to get people to be more efficient about their usage (like, for example, pulling your podcasts over landlines instead of clogging up cell towers with them) without usage limits of some sort
Utter bullshit. I live in NYC and it seems like everyone here has a smart phone. I can still connect download and do everything no problem. There is no crisis of "radio spectrum limitations". They just want to turn data usage into SMS 2.0; don't fucking buy it for a second.
I truly can't say if you honestly believe in this absurd oversimplification, or if this is supposed to a parody.
Of course it is. A dogma is an abstract concept and quite unable to impose its will on anyone, since it doesn't have any. People holding to a dogma are a different matter entirely. And at that point it doesn't really matter what the dogma is; it has become a flag, a symbol to divide the world to us and them and justify oppressing or outright killing the latter.
You neatly sidestep his argument by saying "dogma is an abstract concept" and that different religions have different dogmas. But that is not a valid response. Atheists by definition have no dogma, they must form their world view and beliefs based on their experience. They have no dogmatic mandate to "encourage" others believe as they do, and no centralized powers that influence the dogma.
Let me put it this way: religion is to atheism as monarchy is to democracy. Monarchy and democracy are both political systems, but that doesn't mean they are all that similar.
Most people aren't obsessive-compulsive enough to impose their dogmas on others, but some are, and at that point it's up to the rest of the society whether they'll kill all opponents or write propaganda books.
So on one hand you try and argue that dogma doesn't influence bad outcomes because each individual can choose any dogma, but then argue that it's societies' fault for the bad outcomes? Do you not see the contradiction there? Dogma is a codification of religious society. Dogma choice and adherence to it is reciprocally influenced by society.
Go to any forum where atheists and theists debate each other and watch the arguments used. Are they persuasive? Or are they just a pack of chimps flinging feces at each other? Because I've rarely seen the former - in fact, the only times I have has been when the people haven't tried to persuade each other, but have simply debated for fun.
Weird ad-hominim. Are you ironically channeling William Jennings Bryan?
Then again, I guess this doesn't really disagree with you: only a persuasive argument will work, and short of a personal appearance of God(s) there simply aren't any persuasive arguments about their existence.
It should also be noted that the whole concept of "God hands down morality and punishes you for disagreeing" is pretty much confined to monotheistic religions; and even for them, it's an oversimplification (and sometimes downright incorrect - even with basic Christianity, there's a view that sin creates its own punishment without any interference from God) - exactly the kind of oversimplification people engage in to make other people and their beliefs seem ridiculous, so they can be dismissed without bothering to actually argue them. This is also know as the "strawman argument".
Huh, are you actually claiming there is no actual concept of Hell in Christianity and that polytheistic religious didn't/don't have religious tenants? Sounds like you might be engaged in some selective blocking of facts there.
Yes. Everyone. Except the the intelligence agencies that didn't. Like the CIA and UNSCOM. So really if you discount those two primary sources then he didn't lie. And if you discount the fact that Bush himself doubted he would find any WMDs when talking to Blair before the war. So if you discount those three things... Ah fuck it. Obama's bad; maybe even as bad as Bush, but Bush was bad.
You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?
We hoped for an outsider that was savvy enough to get things done. He said the right things to take on that appearance. It's not like a senator more entrenched in political mire is favorable.
What we got was someone who listened to his handlers as much as Bush Jr. And apparently they're 80% the same handlers. Personally, I'm voting 3rd party and independent where I can.
You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?
We hoped for an outsider. A leader that would ignore political convention if the outcome would be better. He said the right things in his campaign (IMO), but apparently he listens to his handlers just as much as Bush Jr. did. And apparently they are the same handlers.