You seem to be using a loose definition of "Today we still fight each other". When you say "we still fight each other", I think of war and violent conflict, the kind that is the result of tribalism and the "everybody wants to rule the world" mindset. There was a time in ancient civilization when every human was part of some tribe and most tribes were at odds with each other willing to fight to the death over what they believed. The majority of humans are no longer doing this. There are some but they are very much the exception.
You've mentioned three social issues:
1) Violent human conflict
2) Alpha male behavior dominated by animal instinct and possibly also implied by that is a lack of egalitarian thinking
3) (new addition) Economic circumstances arising from free market economics/capitalism and ultimately the root cause is economic scarcity
In the case of #1, we are at a time in history when we are seeing the LEAST amount of violent human conflict ever. I'll take living today over living during World War 2 or during the Crusades in Medieval Europe. We have it very good. We could have been far less fortunate. It's getting better every day.
In the case of #2, even though a large portion of civilization lacks rational thinking capability, we have the most amount of rational thinkers mixed into society than ever. This will continue to get better because bullying jocks are no longer considered "cool" and geek is preferred even in terms of economic opportunity. The most lucrative jobs are in the STEM fields. That means that (no offense intend) the ladies are going to pick the brain surgeon over the auto mechanic. This natural selection is already underway and there are a lot of demographics information to show this is occurring. For one, Pew Research Center shows that we have historically high non-religious people and each successive generation has more. This is evidence that rational thinking is prevailing. The trend is clear. We also more now than ever in history are embracing egalitarian ideas. Think about what it was like in America in the 1950's. The majority of women didn't work and were expected to cook in the kitchen and rear children. Does that happen today frequently? Nope. It's the exception now.
In the case of #3, this is where the least amount of progress has been made and there is a lot of disagreement about where to go but with the advent of robot automation of labor, we can see the possibility exists to greatly lessen the need for labor and that will fundamentally alter our economic systems that are largely based on the idea that there is an infinite amount of human labor need and an infinite amount of innovation opportunities. In my opinion, both of those are false, it's just that we are in new territory and most people are looking backwards instead of forwards. Prominent politicians and academic experts are looking at this problem and believe me they are trying to figure it out. Moreso, the academic experts. The folks over at Gallup are well aware of these issues and have written article after article on these topics using hard data to back up their claims. Progress is being made but it is moving slowly but it's moving in a positive direction.
Ultimately, I think your concern, which seems to be consistent for many liberals, is that progress isn't happening fast enough under the current system therefore your solution is to replace it with something else that you think might move faster. You have to ask yourself, why are you so compelled to think that? And then you realize, it's because you want something to happen faster in your lifetime for your benefit. I leave it to you to think about whether that is a good reason to take such a risk of upsetting the entire system and all the progress that has been made for that reason. It will require you to be very honest with yourself. Cheers!
Very well, my point is this: Our ancestors fought each other to dominate the group and have all the females and resources of the group for themselves. Today we still fight each other to dominate the group and have all the females and resources from the group for themselves, the difference today is that instead of sticks and stones we now use assault rifles and nukes.
But have you considered what percentage today are engaged in this type of activity vs. the past? It's getting better the more time goes on.
Having said that, what would I consider good enough? It is a good question... I believe I would be satisfied when the behavior I described becomes an rare exception rather than being the rule (remember, I'm talking about us as a species and not individually).
It IS the exception not the rule. The majority of humans are not engaged in the activities you describe. If you disagree, then provide data that supports your position. The next question I would have is do you require the entire civilization to be sanitized to your standards or would some threshold satisfy you to the point you are no longer bothered by it?
What is wrong with you? I did not, at any time, suggest to be "fantasizing" some utopian society or etc, I was just hoping that humanity would be a little more civilized by now
By saying "I was just hoping that humanity would be a little more civilized by now" implies that, from your perspective, civilization has not met your standard of "civilized" and that you would like to have hope that it may one day meet your standard of "civilized". From my perspective, taking all things into considerations, humans are quite civilized and much more than they were 50-100 years ago. That's not to say things are perfect because they clearly aren't, but they are pretty good to the point that I'm quite fine with what we have today. I've had a pretty good life and I started out in poverty as a child. I had to work really hard to rise up in less than fortunate circumstances and today I have it pretty good compared to the humble beginnings I came from. I'm perfectly fine if the this is "as good as it gets" but you don't seem to be.
Why don't you clarify your position? Are you happy with your life and the way things are? If not, what does the level humanity being "civilized" have to do with it and what level of civility would we need to achieve, in your opinion, to be "good enough".
I know that. I just hoped that in the 21st century we, as species, would be a bit more civilized now than a bunch of monkeys fighting each other to be the alpha male and have all the females in the pack for itself.
There is only now and what is going on now. If that doesn't match up to what's in your imagination, you have two choices: 1) accept the fact that your mental model of reality is probably flawed and could benefit from refinement or 2) keep projecting onto reality what's in your imagination and be perpetually depressed and disappointed that reality didn't meet up to your standards. You may be surprised to know that #2 is actually a choice. It sometimes takes a bit of knowledge of psychology to understand why.
It seems i'm wrong in having hope.
There is nothing wrong with having hope. There is actually a lot to be hopeful about and also quite a bit to be thankful for. One need only crack open a history book to see clear evidence of how much progress the human race has made in a short period of time relative to the length of time we have existed on Earth. You are lucky to be here in this time as opposed to Medieval Europe or 19th century America. What you seem to mean by hope is to have hope that the world will some day match your imagination. Since we all have different imaginations and can paint any picture we fancy without any regard for reality, it's highly unlikely that your specific vision of the future is what we will arrive at. By projecting your imagination onto reality, you seem to want to control things. Why can't you just accept we are evolving, our civilization is making progress in significant ways and that we don't necessarily know exactly what the future holds but it is likely it will be better because things have been getting progressively better for a long time?
Beat Up/. all you want. But don't talk like Reddit isn't a festering septic pond.
They both are that by virtue of being composed of largely ignorant human beings. At least on reddit I can subscribe to topics selectively and if I find an idiot that keeps posting shit I can block them and not see it anymore. I can essentially customize my experience whereas on slashdot I have to deal with what is effectively a top down dictatorship.
And I was disturbed about... how we looks way more "animal" than we would like [snip]
We ARE animals. You're just now coming to grips with that on this site of all things? Have you not read about our evolutionary roots which we know more about now than we ever did? Apes are our cousins. If you want a primer, here you go.
Polygamy is a VERY advanced topic for this crowd considering many of them have not had one sexual partner let alone MULTIPLE. It's definitely NOT news for nerds.
Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests
Did you not read the other person's post? The government investigated this claim and determined that it doesn't hold up in COURT. If you really give a shit about this problem, go get a legal degree and try to fight it in court. Until then, shut up and take your liberal shit elsewhere. The government doesn't need to be invoked for every single fucking thing that you personally disagree with. No one fucking gives a shit about your opinion.
The problem isn't just the mouse. Not the movie theater's problem, anyway.
The problem with movie theaters is the onslaught of ads, the uncomfortable jammed-in seating, the stunningly overpriced snackage and tickets, and the lack of great new movies in favor of Yet Another Retread Idea.
Don't forget that for a very reasonable price $3000-4000 you can build a pretty nice home theater that when coupled with a blu-ray player is very similar to a movie theater experience. The movies tend to come out 2 months-ish after movie theater release so it isn't that long to wait. I only go to the theater when it's something I really want to see and can't wait. But TBH it's not about the movie theater experience. In fact, I like the experience in my home theater much better. I have comfortable seating (roomy and reclining even), surround sound speaker set up with a powered sub-woofer (explosions shake the room), decent TV and a blu-ray player. I didn't buy top of the line gear but I guarantee you most people can't tell the difference between my setup and one that costs 10x as much. Also, I can cook my own food that is much better than what is offered at the theater and much cheaper. And on top of it all, I can pause the movie when I need to use the bathroom.
Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.
Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.
Why would this not sort itself out naturally? If many of the merchant's customers want to pay with cash and are alienated, the merchant loses valuable business. Merchants are in business to make profit and if cash customers are vital to that profit, they would never take such an incentive. However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it. What's the problem here? It's a free market. No one is being forcefully coerced to do anything here unless you didn't explain adequately. That also includes you're not being forced to shop at the merchant. Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.
Has you seen the posts my msmash? Very hit or miss. I'm sure Slashdot has received numerous complaints but it falls on deaf ears. I find myself spending more time on reddit than slashdot because the quality of this site is not what it used to be.
lol, thanks for the laugh. Successful people get their success by cutting others off, stepping on them, sabotaging, etc.
Welcome to reality. I'm sorry you're disappointed with it but it's always been survival of the fittest. Competition for mates and resources. Your complaint is not with your fellow humans but with reality itself. If you figure out where to register such a complaint, let me know. I wish to complain about a great many things myself. I do really hope we arrive at utopia some day. It's never happened in the history of human civilization yet so complaining about that is quite irrational. You have it better today than any humans have had it ever in our entire history. It's ironic that no one seems to be the least bit thankful for that. I wish they would invent time machines so people like you could live a week or do in Medieval Europe and see how you like it compared to your life now.
Actually, I read several research papers, a few years ago, which found that richer people are indeed less empathetic than poor ones.
It's more along the lines of people who realize what "kindness that can kill" is. I'd say the people you are speaking of are quite charitable probably more so than your average citizen, you just hold them to higher standards really for arbitrary reasons. This is when you declare they are not "empathetic enough" but they probably have more empathy and give more than you do.
No, rational thinking would lead you to cut the military budget and corporate subsidies, since they have far less utility to society.
If we gave society everything they wanted with zero regard for how much it cost to provide those benefits, the country would disintegrate very quickly and no one would get anything. That's not a good rational choice or a good outcome. You need to look at the big picture from a macro-economic point of view. You need to ask yourself a fundamental question "What does it take in order for a country to continue to functional without either being taken over, revolution or something else that would cause the country to cease to be." When you start looking at macro-economics you realize countries like China own a significant portion of our debt. If we default on our debt, our credit rating gets lowered (again). This has ripple effects throughout the global economy and often not in a favorable way to us.
Yes it's psychological. Just because it's psychological doesn't mean it's not being rationally and purposefully chosen. If you were a rational thinker that was in complete control of their decision making process you would already know this is possible. People like me can choose anything we like based on any reasoning. Our minds are fully under our control and what I'm telling you is that when everything is considered in an unbiased, rational way, the choices that get made, based on the circumstances, are what makes the most sense. It's not the people that are usually the problem (that does happen sometimes though). It's the circumstances. If you change the circumstances, everything will change organically around it. The problem is primarily the circumstances. Attack the problem, not the people.
You are excluding the possibility that many successful people succeed because of their lack of empathy, not despite it.
Get off your moral high horse. It's not that they don't have empathy, it's that they don't allow their decision making process to be exclusively dominated by it. People who make decisions exclusively based on emotions do not fare as well as those who also mix in rational thinking. Rational thinking coupled with extensive knowledge and experience can do remarkable things that emotions alone cannot.
We still live in a world of economic scarcity unfortunately and as such you must make decisions according to that. When we arrive at a utopia, which I sincerely hope we do, it will fundamentally alter the decision making and it will be rational to behave the way you ideally think we should. We are not your enemy.
Basically, compromise is a survival skill for anyone without the strength (today, financial strength) to beat everyone else up until they do what you tell them to do.
You have the part correct that it is about survival instinct. You're compelled to learn more to increase your chances of survival until you don't need to worry about survival anymore. In the post-industrial service based world where knowledge is key, he who has the knowledge to compete best, thrives best.
It will reflect more badly on you and your profession than on your employer, so I don't recommend it. It's always best to leave on the best terms possible
I don't think you understand, hurt me how? I have millions of dollars in an investment portfolio and don't need a job anymore. My profession? I'm exiting the profession. The next stop for me is the golf course and whatever I damn well please before I land in the grave. Why do I care?
My current employer will not pay out my unused vacation if I do not give at least two weeks notice.
Who cares? That's peanuts compared to what you ought to have in the bank and you're going on a permanent vacation. If your employer treated you like crap and you kissed their butt all those years, don't tell them until the last second and then flip them the bird because you'll be on the golf course while they're pushing papers around and attending meetings all day pretending to be important.
Any manager worth their weight should have a general idea of when you are close to retirement. I have the personnel files, and I know what official age you are set, the only thing that is the X factor is the amount of money you've saved up, and if you are waiting for a spouse to retire as well.
You are owed ZERO. This is all business. The party that has leverage in the situation is the party that can do anything they like and you can do NOTHING about it. It's all in your little management and business text books you studied. That's how you treat us and you get treated the same way in kind. It's all business, nothing personal, just like you tell everyone else. It's fun when the tables are turned isn't it? Yet you attempt to assert like you are something important in the grand scheme of a retiree's life. You are nothing.
If you're retiring and you have the financial means to take care of yourself, you can retire any way you like. You've achieved freedom and it's time to exercise that freedom ASAP because you're not getting any younger.
The only reason that I would consider the employer is in the situation whereby how you retire might affect someone in your social circle that you genuinely care about their well-being. Retire in any fashion you deem makes sense based on your own values and considerations. You don't owe your employer ANYTHING.
No, it's about the right to get to any bank to pay your bills online. The right to get to any job site to apply for jobs. The right to consume media (video, music, books, etc.) from any online vendor.
You are not entitled to access content on the internet. However, your ISP for some fee provides you access to the internet and they advertise different speeds of access to said internet. That access only applies to the network segment between you and the ISP's network. Once you leave the ISP's network, you leave the ISP's jurisdiction. The internet is a medium that allows you to get to content on the internet. The internet connects different parties together in much the same way as a highway or town market. Your dealings with the parties in the framework are between you and the other party. The terms of your ability to access what the other party has to offer is agreed upon by you and the other party. For example, the ISP has nothing to do with accessing your bank account or pay walls to access content that is not provided by the ISP. It's shocking how much people do not understand these concepts after 25 years. smh
Wait. So your argument for NN is that people must have guaranteed snappy access to the site of their choice
No and you obviously don't understand the internet or network neutrality. If a portion of the internet network is saturated then the sites that should be slow would be based on network topology and other circumstances not because of artificial throttling. Network Neutrality does not constitute an SLA. It doesn't guarantee a level of service. What it does guarantee is that ISP's can't create selective bottlenecks based on specific content and/or party.
The issue of quality of service can be sorted by the free market provided that we allow for adequate competition (a completely different topic). In a free market of choice and competition, consumers would give business to the better consumer choice. If a company is interested in making money, they would be compelled to do what it necessary to be competitive just like any other business.
Maybe if the author had a hobby or something to occupy his free time, he wouldn't be worrying so much about how other people choose to spend theirs.
I don't care how you run your life. If you want live a life like that, fine. It's not OK to have a system the imposes this lifestyle on everyone because people like you prefer it. That's forced coercion.
Slashdot Mirror
Today we still fight each other
You seem to be using a loose definition of "Today we still fight each other". When you say "we still fight each other", I think of war and violent conflict, the kind that is the result of tribalism and the "everybody wants to rule the world" mindset. There was a time in ancient civilization when every human was part of some tribe and most tribes were at odds with each other willing to fight to the death over what they believed. The majority of humans are no longer doing this. There are some but they are very much the exception.
You've mentioned three social issues:
1) Violent human conflict
2) Alpha male behavior dominated by animal instinct and possibly also implied by that is a lack of egalitarian thinking
3) (new addition) Economic circumstances arising from free market economics/capitalism and ultimately the root cause is economic scarcity
In the case of #1, we are at a time in history when we are seeing the LEAST amount of violent human conflict ever. I'll take living today over living during World War 2 or during the Crusades in Medieval Europe. We have it very good. We could have been far less fortunate. It's getting better every day.
In the case of #2, even though a large portion of civilization lacks rational thinking capability, we have the most amount of rational thinkers mixed into society than ever. This will continue to get better because bullying jocks are no longer considered "cool" and geek is preferred even in terms of economic opportunity. The most lucrative jobs are in the STEM fields. That means that (no offense intend) the ladies are going to pick the brain surgeon over the auto mechanic. This natural selection is already underway and there are a lot of demographics information to show this is occurring. For one, Pew Research Center shows that we have historically high non-religious people and each successive generation has more. This is evidence that rational thinking is prevailing. The trend is clear. We also more now than ever in history are embracing egalitarian ideas. Think about what it was like in America in the 1950's. The majority of women didn't work and were expected to cook in the kitchen and rear children. Does that happen today frequently? Nope. It's the exception now.
In the case of #3, this is where the least amount of progress has been made and there is a lot of disagreement about where to go but with the advent of robot automation of labor, we can see the possibility exists to greatly lessen the need for labor and that will fundamentally alter our economic systems that are largely based on the idea that there is an infinite amount of human labor need and an infinite amount of innovation opportunities. In my opinion, both of those are false, it's just that we are in new territory and most people are looking backwards instead of forwards. Prominent politicians and academic experts are looking at this problem and believe me they are trying to figure it out. Moreso, the academic experts. The folks over at Gallup are well aware of these issues and have written article after article on these topics using hard data to back up their claims. Progress is being made but it is moving slowly but it's moving in a positive direction.
Ultimately, I think your concern, which seems to be consistent for many liberals, is that progress isn't happening fast enough under the current system therefore your solution is to replace it with something else that you think might move faster. You have to ask yourself, why are you so compelled to think that? And then you realize, it's because you want something to happen faster in your lifetime for your benefit. I leave it to you to think about whether that is a good reason to take such a risk of upsetting the entire system and all the progress that has been made for that reason. It will require you to be very honest with yourself. Cheers!
Very well, my point is this: Our ancestors fought each other to dominate the group and have all the females and resources of the group for themselves. Today we still fight each other to dominate the group and have all the females and resources from the group for themselves, the difference today is that instead of sticks and stones we now use assault rifles and nukes.
But have you considered what percentage today are engaged in this type of activity vs. the past? It's getting better the more time goes on.
Having said that, what would I consider good enough? It is a good question... I believe I would be satisfied when the behavior I described becomes an rare exception rather than being the rule (remember, I'm talking about us as a species and not individually).
It IS the exception not the rule. The majority of humans are not engaged in the activities you describe. If you disagree, then provide data that supports your position. The next question I would have is do you require the entire civilization to be sanitized to your standards or would some threshold satisfy you to the point you are no longer bothered by it?
What is wrong with you? I did not, at any time, suggest to be "fantasizing" some utopian society or etc, I was just hoping that humanity would be a little more civilized by now
By saying "I was just hoping that humanity would be a little more civilized by now" implies that, from your perspective, civilization has not met your standard of "civilized" and that you would like to have hope that it may one day meet your standard of "civilized". From my perspective, taking all things into considerations, humans are quite civilized and much more than they were 50-100 years ago. That's not to say things are perfect because they clearly aren't, but they are pretty good to the point that I'm quite fine with what we have today. I've had a pretty good life and I started out in poverty as a child. I had to work really hard to rise up in less than fortunate circumstances and today I have it pretty good compared to the humble beginnings I came from. I'm perfectly fine if the this is "as good as it gets" but you don't seem to be.
Why don't you clarify your position? Are you happy with your life and the way things are? If not, what does the level humanity being "civilized" have to do with it and what level of civility would we need to achieve, in your opinion, to be "good enough".
I know that. I just hoped that in the 21st century we, as species, would be a bit more civilized now than a bunch of monkeys fighting each other to be the alpha male and have all the females in the pack for itself.
There is only now and what is going on now. If that doesn't match up to what's in your imagination, you have two choices: 1) accept the fact that your mental model of reality is probably flawed and could benefit from refinement or 2) keep projecting onto reality what's in your imagination and be perpetually depressed and disappointed that reality didn't meet up to your standards. You may be surprised to know that #2 is actually a choice. It sometimes takes a bit of knowledge of psychology to understand why.
It seems i'm wrong in having hope.
There is nothing wrong with having hope. There is actually a lot to be hopeful about and also quite a bit to be thankful for. One need only crack open a history book to see clear evidence of how much progress the human race has made in a short period of time relative to the length of time we have existed on Earth. You are lucky to be here in this time as opposed to Medieval Europe or 19th century America. What you seem to mean by hope is to have hope that the world will some day match your imagination. Since we all have different imaginations and can paint any picture we fancy without any regard for reality, it's highly unlikely that your specific vision of the future is what we will arrive at. By projecting your imagination onto reality, you seem to want to control things. Why can't you just accept we are evolving, our civilization is making progress in significant ways and that we don't necessarily know exactly what the future holds but it is likely it will be better because things have been getting progressively better for a long time?
Beat Up /. all you want. But don't talk like Reddit isn't a festering septic pond.
They both are that by virtue of being composed of largely ignorant human beings. At least on reddit I can subscribe to topics selectively and if I find an idiot that keeps posting shit I can block them and not see it anymore. I can essentially customize my experience whereas on slashdot I have to deal with what is effectively a top down dictatorship.
And I was disturbed about ... how we looks way more "animal" than we would like [snip]
We ARE animals. You're just now coming to grips with that on this site of all things? Have you not read about our evolutionary roots which we know more about now than we ever did? Apes are our cousins. If you want a primer, here you go.
Polygamy is a VERY advanced topic for this crowd considering many of them have not had one sexual partner let alone MULTIPLE. It's definitely NOT news for nerds.
Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests
Did you not read the other person's post? The government investigated this claim and determined that it doesn't hold up in COURT. If you really give a shit about this problem, go get a legal degree and try to fight it in court. Until then, shut up and take your liberal shit elsewhere. The government doesn't need to be invoked for every single fucking thing that you personally disagree with. No one fucking gives a shit about your opinion.
The problem isn't just the mouse. Not the movie theater's problem, anyway.
The problem with movie theaters is the onslaught of ads, the uncomfortable jammed-in seating, the stunningly overpriced snackage and tickets, and the lack of great new movies in favor of Yet Another Retread Idea.
Don't forget that for a very reasonable price $3000-4000 you can build a pretty nice home theater that when coupled with a blu-ray player is very similar to a movie theater experience. The movies tend to come out 2 months-ish after movie theater release so it isn't that long to wait. I only go to the theater when it's something I really want to see and can't wait. But TBH it's not about the movie theater experience. In fact, I like the experience in my home theater much better. I have comfortable seating (roomy and reclining even), surround sound speaker set up with a powered sub-woofer (explosions shake the room), decent TV and a blu-ray player. I didn't buy top of the line gear but I guarantee you most people can't tell the difference between my setup and one that costs 10x as much. Also, I can cook my own food that is much better than what is offered at the theater and much cheaper. And on top of it all, I can pause the movie when I need to use the bathroom.
Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.
Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.
Why would this not sort itself out naturally? If many of the merchant's customers want to pay with cash and are alienated, the merchant loses valuable business. Merchants are in business to make profit and if cash customers are vital to that profit, they would never take such an incentive. However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it. What's the problem here? It's a free market. No one is being forcefully coerced to do anything here unless you didn't explain adequately. That also includes you're not being forced to shop at the merchant. Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.
Has you seen the posts my msmash? Very hit or miss. I'm sure Slashdot has received numerous complaints but it falls on deaf ears. I find myself spending more time on reddit than slashdot because the quality of this site is not what it used to be.
lol, thanks for the laugh. Successful people get their success by cutting others off, stepping on them, sabotaging, etc.
Welcome to reality. I'm sorry you're disappointed with it but it's always been survival of the fittest. Competition for mates and resources. Your complaint is not with your fellow humans but with reality itself. If you figure out where to register such a complaint, let me know. I wish to complain about a great many things myself. I do really hope we arrive at utopia some day. It's never happened in the history of human civilization yet so complaining about that is quite irrational. You have it better today than any humans have had it ever in our entire history. It's ironic that no one seems to be the least bit thankful for that. I wish they would invent time machines so people like you could live a week or do in Medieval Europe and see how you like it compared to your life now.
Actually, I read several research papers, a few years ago, which found that richer people are indeed less empathetic than poor ones.
It's more along the lines of people who realize what "kindness that can kill" is. I'd say the people you are speaking of are quite charitable probably more so than your average citizen, you just hold them to higher standards really for arbitrary reasons. This is when you declare they are not "empathetic enough" but they probably have more empathy and give more than you do.
No, rational thinking would lead you to cut the military budget and corporate subsidies, since they have far less utility to society.
If we gave society everything they wanted with zero regard for how much it cost to provide those benefits, the country would disintegrate very quickly and no one would get anything. That's not a good rational choice or a good outcome. You need to look at the big picture from a macro-economic point of view. You need to ask yourself a fundamental question "What does it take in order for a country to continue to functional without either being taken over, revolution or something else that would cause the country to cease to be." When you start looking at macro-economics you realize countries like China own a significant portion of our debt. If we default on our debt, our credit rating gets lowered (again). This has ripple effects throughout the global economy and often not in a favorable way to us.
No, I'm speaking psychologically, not morally.
Yes it's psychological. Just because it's psychological doesn't mean it's not being rationally and purposefully chosen. If you were a rational thinker that was in complete control of their decision making process you would already know this is possible. People like me can choose anything we like based on any reasoning. Our minds are fully under our control and what I'm telling you is that when everything is considered in an unbiased, rational way, the choices that get made, based on the circumstances, are what makes the most sense. It's not the people that are usually the problem (that does happen sometimes though). It's the circumstances. If you change the circumstances, everything will change organically around it. The problem is primarily the circumstances. Attack the problem, not the people.
You are excluding the possibility that many successful people succeed because of their lack of empathy, not despite it.
Get off your moral high horse. It's not that they don't have empathy, it's that they don't allow their decision making process to be exclusively dominated by it. People who make decisions exclusively based on emotions do not fare as well as those who also mix in rational thinking. Rational thinking coupled with extensive knowledge and experience can do remarkable things that emotions alone cannot.
We still live in a world of economic scarcity unfortunately and as such you must make decisions according to that. When we arrive at a utopia, which I sincerely hope we do, it will fundamentally alter the decision making and it will be rational to behave the way you ideally think we should. We are not your enemy.
Basically, compromise is a survival skill for anyone without the strength (today, financial strength) to beat everyone else up until they do what you tell them to do.
You have the part correct that it is about survival instinct. You're compelled to learn more to increase your chances of survival until you don't need to worry about survival anymore. In the post-industrial service based world where knowledge is key, he who has the knowledge to compete best, thrives best.
It will reflect more badly on you and your profession than on your employer, so I don't recommend it. It's always best to leave on the best terms possible
I don't think you understand, hurt me how? I have millions of dollars in an investment portfolio and don't need a job anymore. My profession? I'm exiting the profession. The next stop for me is the golf course and whatever I damn well please before I land in the grave. Why do I care?
My current employer will not pay out my unused vacation if I do not give at least two weeks notice.
Who cares? That's peanuts compared to what you ought to have in the bank and you're going on a permanent vacation. If your employer treated you like crap and you kissed their butt all those years, don't tell them until the last second and then flip them the bird because you'll be on the golf course while they're pushing papers around and attending meetings all day pretending to be important.
Any manager worth their weight should have a general idea of when you are close to retirement. I have the personnel files, and I know what official age you are set, the only thing that is the X factor is the amount of money you've saved up, and if you are waiting for a spouse to retire as well.
You are owed ZERO. This is all business. The party that has leverage in the situation is the party that can do anything they like and you can do NOTHING about it. It's all in your little management and business text books you studied. That's how you treat us and you get treated the same way in kind. It's all business, nothing personal, just like you tell everyone else. It's fun when the tables are turned isn't it? Yet you attempt to assert like you are something important in the grand scheme of a retiree's life. You are nothing.
If you're retiring and you have the financial means to take care of yourself, you can retire any way you like. You've achieved freedom and it's time to exercise that freedom ASAP because you're not getting any younger.
The only reason that I would consider the employer is in the situation whereby how you retire might affect someone in your social circle that you genuinely care about their well-being. Retire in any fashion you deem makes sense based on your own values and considerations. You don't owe your employer ANYTHING.
No, it's about the right to get to any bank to pay your bills online. The right to get to any job site to apply for jobs. The right to consume media (video, music, books, etc.) from any online vendor.
You are not entitled to access content on the internet. However, your ISP for some fee provides you access to the internet and they advertise different speeds of access to said internet. That access only applies to the network segment between you and the ISP's network. Once you leave the ISP's network, you leave the ISP's jurisdiction. The internet is a medium that allows you to get to content on the internet. The internet connects different parties together in much the same way as a highway or town market. Your dealings with the parties in the framework are between you and the other party. The terms of your ability to access what the other party has to offer is agreed upon by you and the other party. For example, the ISP has nothing to do with accessing your bank account or pay walls to access content that is not provided by the ISP. It's shocking how much people do not understand these concepts after 25 years. smh
Wait. So your argument for NN is that people must have guaranteed snappy access to the site of their choice
No and you obviously don't understand the internet or network neutrality. If a portion of the internet network is saturated then the sites that should be slow would be based on network topology and other circumstances not because of artificial throttling. Network Neutrality does not constitute an SLA. It doesn't guarantee a level of service. What it does guarantee is that ISP's can't create selective bottlenecks based on specific content and/or party.
The issue of quality of service can be sorted by the free market provided that we allow for adequate competition (a completely different topic). In a free market of choice and competition, consumers would give business to the better consumer choice. If a company is interested in making money, they would be compelled to do what it necessary to be competitive just like any other business.
It is the most productive use you will ever find for your time.
Nay, forget napping, it is a more productive use of your time to post on slashdot
Maybe if the author had a hobby or something to occupy his free time, he wouldn't be worrying so much about how other people choose to spend theirs.
I don't care how you run your life. If you want live a life like that, fine. It's not OK to have a system the imposes this lifestyle on everyone because people like you prefer it. That's forced coercion.