So, uh, when and why did morality evolve? Surely it's better to screw over everyone else so I can win the Darwinian race? Why do people cooperate?
The same reason that ants cooperate. Because an individual's survival is greatly enhanced when the combined talents of a large group are working in concert for the betterment of all.
No man is an island. I have certain skills, you have different skills. By cooperating and using BOTH of our skills, we greatly enhance the probability of survival for both of us. Add a third person with another set of skills and all three of our odds go up even more.
"Screwing over everyone else" is the surest way to ensure your NON-survival.... and that's why the majority of us do not.
"morality" exists because it provides the surest path of survival for the most individuals.
Surely the brains of ants cannot comprehend the idea of "morality", yet they cooperate - they do so because it is the surest path to survival.
Let the juice ferment for a while. Voila -- water to wine.
Nice recipe. Only it doesn't turn water into wine. It turns water+seeds+soil into wine. That's cheating, pal. A recipe that turns water to wine WITHOUT the aid of seeds and soil would be relevant.
Some people would argue that science that isn't driving by market demands is a waste of money (Ayn Rand, and
Republicans). On the other hand if we ever want answers to questions like, "How the hell did we get here." No
corporation is going to foot the bill for that.
Conservatives aren't interested in the "How the hell did we get here?" question because they already know. God did it in 6 days about 6000 years ago.
The bible told 'em so. Why waste money on research into our origins when Genesis tells them everything they need to know?
It's not hard to understand their motivations once you understand who they are and what they believe.
The space program is a waste of money to conservatives. Because with each scientific breakthrough, one more unexplained phenomenon that was previously attributed to "God" is gone. Can't have any more demysticizing of the supreme being, dontcha know.
Well, it's very simple. Straight porn is played out. People aren't interested in blonde, big chested airbrushed bimbos anymore. That's not where the money is any more.
I must be old-fashioned.
I'm VERY interested in blonde, big-chested, airbrushed bimbos.
Re:everything I "know" about flight is wrong?
on
Flying on Mars
·
· Score: 1
What would be even neater than flying in Mars would be flying in Venus or Jupiter.
Flying on Jupiter would be an interesting concept.
Just where, on a gas giant, would you land? (or take off from, for that matter)
If market share affected the number of vulnerabilities reported, then Apache would have three times the number of reported vulnerabilities than IIS has.
In reality, it is the opposite.
In reality, some products are built to be more secure than others...regardless of market share.
George O'Leary was a very successful football coach at Georgia Tech. So successful, that he recently was hired to be the new head coach at Notre Dame.
A week after being hired, he was forced to resign because on his resume he stated that he earned three letters in football at the University of New Hampshire over 30 years ago. Turns out that he didn't.
So....does the fact that he lied about his college career on his resume mean he was "posing" as a head coach when he was winning games at Georgia Tech?
Because the DOJ is no longer "Under the Clinton administration".
Bush/Ashcroft have been bought by Microsoft.
Don't let anyone ever tell you again that the GOP is the "tough on crime" party.
When it's an individual committing the crime (especially if he's poor and his skin is dark), they are VERY tough on crime. But when a corporation commits a crime? They're friggin' liberals. Just watch how the higher-ups at Enron manage to avoid paying for their crimes. Same as Microsoft.
The Clinton/Reno DOJ was attempting to apply justice in this case.
The Bush/Ashcroft DOJ is attempting to subvert justice in this case.
The people who voted for George W. Bush are responsible, more than any other factor, for Microsoft getting off the hook.
You may like Bush, hell - you may love him. But don't be upset about Microsoft getting off the hook if you voted for him. Especially if you live in Florida.
People like you are one of the reasons that Microsoft is getting off the hook.
Guess what? It's people like you who are the reason MS is off the hook. People who always vote for the 2 major parties rather than their conscience, guaranteeing that just the Dems and GOP will be in power and giving every corporate lobbyist a convenient two-stop shopping trip.
If more states would have the balls not to do winner-takes-all selection of electors, it would be a nice start. What would be even better would be to adopt a better method of reckoning the winner than first-past-the-post.
I don't disagree. But that's idealism, as opposed to realism.
"If more states....", "...would be a nice start," "would be even better...," etc. See the pattern there in your comments?
Yes...it would be a better world if no child were to go hungry and there would be world peace and we all lived in harmony. But we don't live in a John Lennon song, we live in the real world.
And in the real world, Ralph Nader has no chance to ever become President of the United States. By running for office and garnering just enough support, he guaranteed us at least four years (and probably eight) of conservatives running rampant in Washington.
By the time we get a chance to un-do all the damage they will create, we won't even recognize the Bill of Rights anymore and it may be too late.
But you naive idealists would have at least voted your conscience and made your point. Bravo.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Bush was the enemy to all who favor free-market competition, environmental protection, and the fourth ammendment. He had to be stopped. He wasn't. God help us.
Comments like this are mind-boggling. I understand where you are coming from and all, but still, asking a citizen living in a democratic country to vote for his second choice (Gore) instead of Nadar is such an annoying comment.
It's called pragmatism, as opposed to the naive idealism of the Nader voters.
The object of one's vote should be to bring about the most beneficial result possible. Every person, every intelligent person, who voted for Nader knew going in that Ralph would not and could not win. Only the most naive believed otherwise.
The most beneficial possible outcome, with respect to Microsoft v. the DOJ, was for Bush to not win. The only possible way for Bush to not win was for Gore to win. Every Nader voter knew that (or should have) when then voted.
By all means, vote your conscience. But understand the consequences of the "statement" you were making.
On the other hand, perhaps it was your vote for Gore that prevented Nader from becoming president.
That would be true if Nader got 49% of the vote and Gore only got 2%.
For those of us that wanted to see Microsoft punished for its illegal acts, our number one priority last November should have been to keep Dubya from winning at all costs.
Nader had no chance to win. You knew that going in. One should always vote one's convictions, but that comes with a price.
If you wanted to make sure Microsoft was punished, the worst thing you could do was to vote for Bush. The next worst thing you could do was to vote for Nader.
If you're comfortable with the results of your vote, fine. But don't belly-ache about Ashcroft bending over for Ballmer and Gates if you voted for Nader.
One of Nader's biggest campaign tactics was to portray Gore and Bush as being one and the same politically ("Republicrats" was the word). The actions of this DOJ clearly demonstrate that to have been incorrect, to say the least.
There was a big difference between how a Gore DOJ would behave toward MS versus the Bush DOJ. And worse yet, this difference was known to us before the election via Bush and Gore's public comments about the trial.
You reap what you sow. Those of you that wanted to "make a point" by voting for Nader (and admit it, that's all you were doing. Only a complete moron would have voted for Nader with the realistic expectation that he could win) have to live with the consequences.
I tried to do my part to stop Microsoft. The only realistic way to do so was to keep the Clinton DOJ in place....warts and all.
You helped put Ashcroft where he can do great damage to our civil liberties and to the competitiveness of the tech world. If you have no problem with that, fine. But don't pretend that you didn't help make it happen.
To think that a man who ran for President "gets it" with respect to Free Software boggles the mind. As days go by I just keep feeling more and more vindicated for having voted for him.
Except that your vote for him helped to effectively put Dubya in the White House... and by extension, Ashcroft as the head of the DOJ.
Whereas, if you'd voted for Gore (along with just a few hundred Nader-ite dimwits in Florida or New Hampshire), the DOJ would not be caving to Microsoft, and Nader would have had no need to type an open letter to the judge in the first place!
See? Your vote for Nader helped make the situation possible in which Nader now needs to lobby on your behalf against Microsoft.
You had as much to do with Ashcroft being the Attorney General as the most strident, right-wing, religious, gun-nut, reactionary conservative.
...and the funny thing is...you're proud of it.
People like you are one of the reasons that Microsoft is getting off the hook.
Ironically, Nader and his supporters are the best thing that ever happened to Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
The same reason that ants cooperate. Because an individual's survival is greatly enhanced when the combined talents of a large group are working in concert for the betterment of all.
No man is an island. I have certain skills, you have different skills. By cooperating and using BOTH of our skills, we greatly enhance the probability of survival for both of us. Add a third person with another set of skills and all three of our odds go up even more.
"Screwing over everyone else" is the surest way to ensure your NON-survival.... and that's why the majority of us do not.
"morality" exists because it provides the surest path of survival for the most individuals.
Surely the brains of ants cannot comprehend the idea of "morality", yet they cooperate - they do so because it is the surest path to survival.
Nice recipe. Only it doesn't turn water into wine. It turns water+seeds+soil into wine. That's cheating, pal. A recipe that turns water to wine WITHOUT the aid of seeds and soil would be relevant.
Conservatives aren't interested in the "How the hell did we get here?" question because they already know. God did it in 6 days about 6000 years ago.
The bible told 'em so. Why waste money on research into our origins when Genesis tells them everything they need to know?
It's not hard to understand their motivations once you understand who they are and what they believe.
The space program is a waste of money to conservatives. Because with each scientific breakthrough, one more unexplained phenomenon that was previously attributed to "God" is gone. Can't have any more demysticizing of the supreme being, dontcha know.
I don't want to even think about mausoleums.
I must be old-fashioned.
I'm VERY interested in blonde, big-chested, airbrushed bimbos.
Flying on Jupiter would be an interesting concept.
Just where, on a gas giant, would you land? (or take off from, for that matter)
Just got to wonder about the intelligence of someone who says, "You are such a looser!"
Probably would be some ex Enron lawyer that Dubya owed a favor to.
In reality, it is the opposite.
In reality, some products are built to be more secure than others...regardless of market share.
We can call it "Bob". My girlfriend Melinda thought it up.
Bill
Go CPU! (woof woof woof!)
George O'Leary was a very successful football coach at Georgia Tech. So successful, that he recently was hired to be the new head coach at Notre Dame.
A week after being hired, he was forced to resign because on his resume he stated that he earned three letters in football at the University of New Hampshire over 30 years ago. Turns out that he didn't.
So....does the fact that he lied about his college career on his resume mean he was "posing" as a head coach when he was winning games at Georgia Tech?
I guess after a year, he is free to break any law he pleases?
Bush/Ashcroft have been bought by Microsoft.
Don't let anyone ever tell you again that the GOP is the "tough on crime" party.
When it's an individual committing the crime (especially if he's poor and his skin is dark), they are VERY tough on crime. But when a corporation commits a crime? They're friggin' liberals. Just watch how the higher-ups at Enron manage to avoid paying for their crimes. Same as Microsoft.
The Clinton/Reno DOJ was attempting to apply justice in this case.
The Bush/Ashcroft DOJ is attempting to subvert justice in this case.
The people who voted for George W. Bush are responsible, more than any other factor, for Microsoft getting off the hook.
You may like Bush, hell - you may love him. But don't be upset about Microsoft getting off the hook if you voted for him. Especially if you live in Florida.
As a person who has a gun-nut brother-in-law, I can tell you that you severely underestimate Joe Q. Gunowner.
If they make it, the gun nuts will get it.
The Montana militia will be using these on prairie dogs before you know it.
We'll just tell them it stands for .com(munist).
in a citizen of the world
than the pride that divides
when a colorful rag is unfurled."
-- Rush, from the song "Territories" on the "Power Windows" album ---1985
Guess what? It's people like you who are the reason MS is off the hook. People who always vote for the 2 major parties rather than their conscience, guaranteeing that just the Dems and GOP will be in power and giving every corporate lobbyist a convenient two-stop shopping trip.
If more states would have the balls not to do winner-takes-all selection of electors, it would be a nice start. What would be even better would be to adopt a better method of reckoning the winner than first-past-the-post.
I don't disagree. But that's idealism, as opposed to realism.
"If more states....", "...would be a nice start," "would be even better...," etc. See the pattern there in your comments?
Yes...it would be a better world if no child were to go hungry and there would be world peace and we all lived in harmony. But we don't live in a John Lennon song, we live in the real world.
And in the real world, Ralph Nader has no chance to ever become President of the United States. By running for office and garnering just enough support, he guaranteed us at least four years (and probably eight) of conservatives running rampant in Washington.
By the time we get a chance to un-do all the damage they will create, we won't even recognize the Bill of Rights anymore and it may be too late.
But you naive idealists would have at least voted your conscience and made your point. Bravo.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Bush was the enemy to all who favor free-market competition, environmental protection, and the fourth ammendment. He had to be stopped. He wasn't. God help us.
It's called pragmatism, as opposed to the naive idealism of the Nader voters.
The object of one's vote should be to bring about the most beneficial result possible. Every person, every intelligent person, who voted for Nader knew going in that Ralph would not and could not win. Only the most naive believed otherwise.
The most beneficial possible outcome, with respect to Microsoft v. the DOJ, was for Bush to not win. The only possible way for Bush to not win was for Gore to win. Every Nader voter knew that (or should have) when then voted.
By all means, vote your conscience. But understand the consequences of the "statement" you were making.
That would be true if Nader got 49% of the vote and Gore only got 2%.
For those of us that wanted to see Microsoft punished for its illegal acts, our number one priority last November should have been to keep Dubya from winning at all costs.
Nader had no chance to win. You knew that going in. One should always vote one's convictions, but that comes with a price.
If you wanted to make sure Microsoft was punished, the worst thing you could do was to vote for Bush. The next worst thing you could do was to vote for Nader.
If you're comfortable with the results of your vote, fine. But don't belly-ache about Ashcroft bending over for Ballmer and Gates if you voted for Nader.
One of Nader's biggest campaign tactics was to portray Gore and Bush as being one and the same politically ("Republicrats" was the word). The actions of this DOJ clearly demonstrate that to have been incorrect, to say the least.
There was a big difference between how a Gore DOJ would behave toward MS versus the Bush DOJ. And worse yet, this difference was known to us before the election via Bush and Gore's public comments about the trial.
You reap what you sow. Those of you that wanted to "make a point" by voting for Nader (and admit it, that's all you were doing. Only a complete moron would have voted for Nader with the realistic expectation that he could win) have to live with the consequences.
I tried to do my part to stop Microsoft. The only realistic way to do so was to keep the Clinton DOJ in place....warts and all.
You helped put Ashcroft where he can do great damage to our civil liberties and to the competitiveness of the tech world. If you have no problem with that, fine. But don't pretend that you didn't help make it happen.
Ummm.....don't you mean pedal?
I don't think selling one's wares would help much in a game of Quake...
Except that your vote for him helped to effectively put Dubya in the White House... and by extension, Ashcroft as the head of the DOJ.
Whereas, if you'd voted for Gore (along with just a few hundred Nader-ite dimwits in Florida or New Hampshire), the DOJ would not be caving to Microsoft, and Nader would have had no need to type an open letter to the judge in the first place!
See? Your vote for Nader helped make the situation possible in which Nader now needs to lobby on your behalf against Microsoft.
You had as much to do with Ashcroft being the Attorney General as the most strident, right-wing, religious, gun-nut, reactionary conservative.
People like you are one of the reasons that Microsoft is getting off the hook.
Ironically, Nader and his supporters are the best thing that ever happened to Microsoft.