I see, you are linking them in irrationality, while I was looking for a rational linkage between them. It is possible to construct a rational world view from combining elements of Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto (a very wrong, and likely evil, world view, but one that is internally consistent). I just don't see any way to construct a rational world view from elements of Mein Kampf and the works of Ayn Rand.
My rule is that I when the comparison is close I always use product that is not from Microsoft. I only use Microsoft products when they are distinctly superior to the other options I am aware of.
He listed "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" among his favorite books. He listed Ayn Rand among his favorite authors. There is a certain philosophical consistency to liking both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", but Ayn Rand doesn't fit there anywhere. I just don't see how the line of logic that goes through both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" ever intersects any lines of logic that go through Ayn Rand.
It is important to be aware that the question he asked her was something very close to, "How do you know words mean anything?" How do you answer that question when it comes at you out of nowhere? So, her answer wasn't a politician's non-answer to a politically dangerous question. it was a non-answer to a question that didn't really have an answer (at least in that context).
I think the poster you are responding to is referring to the clause in the U.S. Constitution that says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The idea here being that many ideas and inventions were lost because the originator died before they shared them with others. Some craftsman invented a new device. He made these devices using a technique that no one else knew. He didn't tell anyone else so that he would have a business advantage. He, maybe thought he would teach someone when he got old, but he died young and never did. I know there were several things built in the Middle Ages that no one knows how they were built because the builder never told anyone his secret.
Why shouldn't McDonald's employees be expected to pay for their own training?
McDonald's chooses to pay for their employees training because if they did not they would not be able to hire enough employees to fill all of the positions they need. McDonald's doesn't pay for their employees training because of some law, but because the free market forces them to.
As a customer of your company, why should I be expected to pay for your health insurance?
There is no reason why you should, feel free to do business with a company that does not pass that expense on to you. Of course, god luck finding one, but the free market allows you to do that. Now the problem is, since health insurance is an expense, any company that does not pass it on to their customers will soon be out of business. A company could of course choose not to pay for health insurance for their employees and thus reuce their expenses. This is perfectly valid and many companies do this. Many companies find that if they do not offer health insurance, they cannot find good employees. So they choose to offer health insurance because they find that they are able to hire more productive workers when they do so.
So the workers who do the actual work, under a contract management freely signed are the parasites?
Not the execs who walk away with golden parachutes after losing market share and billions?
WTF is wrong with you?
You do know that his phrase that most closely supports the idea that he considered the workers parasites included the people with the golden parachutes as parasites as well? "All those Union dollares, and the entrenched management..."
So there is nothing wrong with him. He apparently considers the UAW and the management of GM and Chrysler to be equally parasites. I think that there is a good case to be made for that position (although parasites is not the word I would use).
Actually, you bring up a good point. It, also, points out where the line should be for mandatory vaccines. There was some talk about making Gardasil a mandatory vaccination. The problem with making Gardasil mandatory is that the risk it guards against is relatively low (compared to polio or measles). Additionally the risk is behavior dependant. Therefore, the decision as to whether or not to use Gardasil should be a decision that is made by the parents in consultation with their family doctor after weighing the various risks. I used Gardasil because it was big news in the last few years and I am somewhat familiar with it. I am pretty sure there are other vaccinations out there that would be good examples as well. I am afraid that some of them are mandatory, but I hope I am mistaken.
The reason they are called "enemy combatants" and not POWs is because POW has specific meaning under the Geneva convention and the U.S. is fighting people who do not follow the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention only applies to those who agree to abide by it.
So, what should they do with them? They cannot find any country willing to allow them entry. The few exceptions to that are places the one's at Gitmo don't want to go. I do not have the reference currently, but three or four Gitmo detainees were offered the opportunity to be released into an Arab country, but they refused because they were afraid the government there would promptly pick them up for "questioning".
The question remains, if no country will accept them inside their borders, where exactly should the U.S. release them to?
I am unaware of any Gitmo detainees who were picked up in circumstances that did not justify detaining them in the first place. Most of them were picked up in the vicinity of combat related events. One of the problems with this situation is that since the military opponents of the U.S. in the current conflict do not as a general rule wear uniforms, it is very difficult to determine who in the vicinity of combat was an enemy combatant and who was just a civilian that happened to be in the area when the attack occurred.
Hey, that would be a great idea, then we could go back to what things were like in the 19th Century culminating in WWI. The reason the world has been a fairly stable place since WWII is in part because of the U.S. being in a position to kick the crap out of anybody else who got delusions of grandeur. The Soviets also played a role in that for awhile, although that was largely because they knew that the U.S. was in a position to kick the crap out of them as well. The Soviets just did a good job of maintaining the illusion that they were militarily on par with the U.S., while being aware of the fact that if they pushed the U.S. too far they would have gotten the stuffing beaten out of them. In all probability, even without maintaining the illusion the U.S. would have realized that it did not want to tangle with the Soviets, but the Soviets were trying to use the illusion to do things that would allow them to transform the illusion into reality.
While as other people have said, that equipment should not be on the main network, the reason you have this problem is that the person who wrote your validation documentation wrote it wrong. I work in a GxP laboratory environment and the key to this sort of thing is writing the validation correctly so as to allow patching of the systems and updating/changing the antivirus client without requiring a change control. Unfortunately, it has only been in the last 2-4 years that it has become accepted that it is ok to do so.
Even with the way that your validation documentation is written (at least as it appears to be from your comment), you could patch your systems and install an antivirus client on them, it is just that you would need to do a change control in order to do so. Actually, unless the original documentation was unusually anal, you could probably patch the systems without a change control. Of course that would require someone who both knows and understands computers and knows and understands the specific regulations as they apply to your specific application to have sufficient pull within the organization to do this.
My experience with ostrich is as a hamburger. It was a perfectly adequate substitute for ground beef in that form. It was a bit on the dry side. On the other hand my experience with duck is with wild duck, which to my taste is a bit on the fishy side.
We do say that anyone who retires and has no savings is bankrupt. Social Security has no savings because it invested all of its surplus (when it had a surplus) in Treasury Bonds. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has been spending over 20% of GDP while only receiving less than 19% of GDP in revenue. So, at some point (about the same time that SS expenditures exceed intake at current rates of increase), interest on U.S. Federal debt will exceed the amount of revenue raised by taxes.
It turns out that this guy has posted stuff on the Internet about his political philosophy. He is a fan of "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf". He is also an avowed atheist. Everything I have seen about him (that is based on actual facts, not supposition) indicate that he is a complete nutjob who has more in common with the left than the right (although I want to repeat here that he is a complete nutjob, not representative of the left).
Of course it turns out that two of the shooter's favorite books were "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", so it doesn't look like you will be able to hold people like Beck responsible, directly or indirectly.
I think the state of literacy in Sudan and Liberia have more to do with the fact that parents have more important things to focus on, like feeding their children.
I'm sorry, but the last two years proves that not to be true. The Democrats got tired of people claiming that the Republicans spent more than they did and put spending into overdrive the last two years. Even under Bush the biggest increases to the deficit occurred when the Democrats controlled Congress (you know the people that actually determine what the budget is going to be). Under Clinton, the reductions in the deficit occurred when the Republicans controlled Congress. You are the one who is a sucker for soundbites. You bought into the idea that the President controls spending and therefore since Clinton was a Democrat and deficits went down under him and Bush was a Republican and deficits went up under him, Democrats must be the deficit busters.
There is no chance that a centralized database will emerge, unless of course this catches on, in which case a centralized database will be necessary to address abuses.
I assume that you disagree with the statement that raising taxes does not solve the problem. The fact is that we have historical evidence that it does not. As I pointed out, historically the U.S. government has received tax revenues between 18-19% of GDP. It does not vary much even though tax rates have in the past been much higher than they are today. Since the U.S. government has never had tax revenues above 20% of GDP, even when the top marginal tax rate was 92%, how do you propose raising taxes enough to cover the government spending 24% of GDP?
A variety of scientific studies have been done, most of which conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between school funding and student achievement.
Let me guess, they were conducted by people who work at "education" colleges and many of them were paid for by the NEA/AFT?
I am really skeptical of any study of education, there are too many variables.
Besides would you want your kids subjected to whatever religious nonsense I believe in?
No, but the thing is I would home school my own children because I don't believe that even a good school can do as good of a job at teaching my children as I can (this is, by the way, based on my observation of people I know who home schooled their kids).
Slashdot Mirror
I see, you are linking them in irrationality, while I was looking for a rational linkage between them. It is possible to construct a rational world view from combining elements of Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto (a very wrong, and likely evil, world view, but one that is internally consistent). I just don't see any way to construct a rational world view from elements of Mein Kampf and the works of Ayn Rand.
I do not see how the extreme libertarianism of Ayn Rand fits in with the collectivism of Mein Kampf.
My rule is that I when the comparison is close I always use product that is not from Microsoft. I only use Microsoft products when they are distinctly superior to the other options I am aware of.
He listed "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" among his favorite books. He listed Ayn Rand among his favorite authors. There is a certain philosophical consistency to liking both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", but Ayn Rand doesn't fit there anywhere. I just don't see how the line of logic that goes through both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" ever intersects any lines of logic that go through Ayn Rand.
It is important to be aware that the question he asked her was something very close to, "How do you know words mean anything?" How do you answer that question when it comes at you out of nowhere? So, her answer wasn't a politician's non-answer to a politically dangerous question. it was a non-answer to a question that didn't really have an answer (at least in that context).
So, where in my post do you find any defense for the "bankers"?
I think the poster you are responding to is referring to the clause in the U.S. Constitution that says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The idea here being that many ideas and inventions were lost because the originator died before they shared them with others. Some craftsman invented a new device. He made these devices using a technique that no one else knew. He didn't tell anyone else so that he would have a business advantage. He, maybe thought he would teach someone when he got old, but he died young and never did. I know there were several things built in the Middle Ages that no one knows how they were built because the builder never told anyone his secret.
Why shouldn't McDonald's employees be expected to pay for their own training?
McDonald's chooses to pay for their employees training because if they did not they would not be able to hire enough employees to fill all of the positions they need. McDonald's doesn't pay for their employees training because of some law, but because the free market forces them to.
As a customer of your company, why should I be expected to pay for your health insurance?
There is no reason why you should, feel free to do business with a company that does not pass that expense on to you. Of course, god luck finding one, but the free market allows you to do that. Now the problem is, since health insurance is an expense, any company that does not pass it on to their customers will soon be out of business. A company could of course choose not to pay for health insurance for their employees and thus reuce their expenses. This is perfectly valid and many companies do this. Many companies find that if they do not offer health insurance, they cannot find good employees. So they choose to offer health insurance because they find that they are able to hire more productive workers when they do so.
So the workers who do the actual work, under a contract management freely signed are the parasites?
Not the execs who walk away with golden parachutes after losing market share and billions?
WTF is wrong with you?
You do know that his phrase that most closely supports the idea that he considered the workers parasites included the people with the golden parachutes as parasites as well? "All those Union dollares, and the entrenched management..."
So there is nothing wrong with him. He apparently considers the UAW and the management of GM and Chrysler to be equally parasites. I think that there is a good case to be made for that position (although parasites is not the word I would use).
Actually, you bring up a good point. It, also, points out where the line should be for mandatory vaccines. There was some talk about making Gardasil a mandatory vaccination. The problem with making Gardasil mandatory is that the risk it guards against is relatively low (compared to polio or measles). Additionally the risk is behavior dependant. Therefore, the decision as to whether or not to use Gardasil should be a decision that is made by the parents in consultation with their family doctor after weighing the various risks. I used Gardasil because it was big news in the last few years and I am somewhat familiar with it. I am pretty sure there are other vaccinations out there that would be good examples as well. I am afraid that some of them are mandatory, but I hope I am mistaken.
The reason they are called "enemy combatants" and not POWs is because POW has specific meaning under the Geneva convention and the U.S. is fighting people who do not follow the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention only applies to those who agree to abide by it.
So, what should they do with them? They cannot find any country willing to allow them entry. The few exceptions to that are places the one's at Gitmo don't want to go. I do not have the reference currently, but three or four Gitmo detainees were offered the opportunity to be released into an Arab country, but they refused because they were afraid the government there would promptly pick them up for "questioning".
The question remains, if no country will accept them inside their borders, where exactly should the U.S. release them to?
I am unaware of any Gitmo detainees who were picked up in circumstances that did not justify detaining them in the first place. Most of them were picked up in the vicinity of combat related events. One of the problems with this situation is that since the military opponents of the U.S. in the current conflict do not as a general rule wear uniforms, it is very difficult to determine who in the vicinity of combat was an enemy combatant and who was just a civilian that happened to be in the area when the attack occurred.
Hey, that would be a great idea, then we could go back to what things were like in the 19th Century culminating in WWI. The reason the world has been a fairly stable place since WWII is in part because of the U.S. being in a position to kick the crap out of anybody else who got delusions of grandeur. The Soviets also played a role in that for awhile, although that was largely because they knew that the U.S. was in a position to kick the crap out of them as well. The Soviets just did a good job of maintaining the illusion that they were militarily on par with the U.S., while being aware of the fact that if they pushed the U.S. too far they would have gotten the stuffing beaten out of them. In all probability, even without maintaining the illusion the U.S. would have realized that it did not want to tangle with the Soviets, but the Soviets were trying to use the illusion to do things that would allow them to transform the illusion into reality.
While as other people have said, that equipment should not be on the main network, the reason you have this problem is that the person who wrote your validation documentation wrote it wrong. I work in a GxP laboratory environment and the key to this sort of thing is writing the validation correctly so as to allow patching of the systems and updating/changing the antivirus client without requiring a change control. Unfortunately, it has only been in the last 2-4 years that it has become accepted that it is ok to do so.
Even with the way that your validation documentation is written (at least as it appears to be from your comment), you could patch your systems and install an antivirus client on them, it is just that you would need to do a change control in order to do so. Actually, unless the original documentation was unusually anal, you could probably patch the systems without a change control. Of course that would require someone who both knows and understands computers and knows and understands the specific regulations as they apply to your specific application to have sufficient pull within the organization to do this.
My experience with ostrich is as a hamburger. It was a perfectly adequate substitute for ground beef in that form. It was a bit on the dry side. On the other hand my experience with duck is with wild duck, which to my taste is a bit on the fishy side.
We do say that anyone who retires and has no savings is bankrupt. Social Security has no savings because it invested all of its surplus (when it had a surplus) in Treasury Bonds. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has been spending over 20% of GDP while only receiving less than 19% of GDP in revenue. So, at some point (about the same time that SS expenditures exceed intake at current rates of increase), interest on U.S. Federal debt will exceed the amount of revenue raised by taxes.
It turns out that this guy has posted stuff on the Internet about his political philosophy. He is a fan of "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf". He is also an avowed atheist. Everything I have seen about him (that is based on actual facts, not supposition) indicate that he is a complete nutjob who has more in common with the left than the right (although I want to repeat here that he is a complete nutjob, not representative of the left).
Of course it turns out that two of the shooter's favorite books were "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", so it doesn't look like you will be able to hold people like Beck responsible, directly or indirectly.
I think the state of literacy in Sudan and Liberia have more to do with the fact that parents have more important things to focus on, like feeding their children.
How do they know who the "securfob" belongs to? What if I lose this item?
I'm sorry, but the last two years proves that not to be true. The Democrats got tired of people claiming that the Republicans spent more than they did and put spending into overdrive the last two years. Even under Bush the biggest increases to the deficit occurred when the Democrats controlled Congress (you know the people that actually determine what the budget is going to be). Under Clinton, the reductions in the deficit occurred when the Republicans controlled Congress. You are the one who is a sucker for soundbites. You bought into the idea that the President controls spending and therefore since Clinton was a Democrat and deficits went down under him and Bush was a Republican and deficits went up under him, Democrats must be the deficit busters.
There is no chance that a centralized database will emerge, unless of course this catches on, in which case a centralized database will be necessary to address abuses.
I assume that you disagree with the statement that raising taxes does not solve the problem. The fact is that we have historical evidence that it does not. As I pointed out, historically the U.S. government has received tax revenues between 18-19% of GDP. It does not vary much even though tax rates have in the past been much higher than they are today. Since the U.S. government has never had tax revenues above 20% of GDP, even when the top marginal tax rate was 92%, how do you propose raising taxes enough to cover the government spending 24% of GDP?
A variety of scientific studies have been done, most of which conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between school funding and student achievement.
Let me guess, they were conducted by people who work at "education" colleges and many of them were paid for by the NEA/AFT?
I am really skeptical of any study of education, there are too many variables.
Besides would you want your kids subjected to whatever religious nonsense I believe in?
No, but the thing is I would home school my own children because I don't believe that even a good school can do as good of a job at teaching my children as I can (this is, by the way, based on my observation of people I know who home schooled their kids).