Yeah, people working for them, like me. Redistribution of my wealth to corporations. I'm sure you approve. Wouldn't want to let that wealth be used to feed poor people though.
To try to argue against the military is to argue against reason.
Oh thank you Ms. Rand. That cleared it up nicely.
You can not choose whether or not to support the military because you use the military, whether you want to or not. It defends our shores, and makes sure people don't show up from overseas to put bullets in our heads.
Hardly. Perhaps I have a huge stockpile of guns, tanks, planes, etc. on my land out in Utah. Perhaps I have an agreement with many other people that we will all form an army if someone tries to attack the US. Or perhaps I just don't give a fuck. If I want to let someone invade and kill me, that's my business. Why do you have a right to take my property at gunpoint to provide me protection I do not want?(in fact, protection I could better provide myself, since we all know the government in inefficient)
And don't cite the Constitution. You are trying to make some sort of philosophical case against the government stealing property against the people's will, so make it. I do not want the government to take one cent of my money to pay for the military, so how dare you support their socialist theft?
"Could you please explain to me how women's sufferage had anything to do with the systematic redistribution of wealth? Could you please point out where the Emancipation proclaimation cites Karl Marx?"
In the 1860s Americans say that blacks have a right to not be held as property(thus helping blacks, and taking away property from rich people).
The 1930s-1990s Americans say that citizens have a right to health care, food, etc.(thus helping many poor people, and taking away property from rich peiople).
It's pretty obvious he was talking about the articles of confederation. The point being that we tried having a very weak anarchist type government and everything went to shit, which is why we made the constitution that today guides the government you hate.
The point it's supposed to prove is that you're a hypocritical motherfucker. You go around yelling about the government using your money for science, but don't seem to care when they give your money to corporations.
What's more, you hold said corporations up as shining examples of capitalism when they are in fact just little piglets sucking at the taxpayer teat.
And to answer your question: NASA does not need to be dismantled for private spaceflight to occur. Are they in some cases holding it back? Yes. Can they be stopped from holding it back without being destroyed? Yes.
I could post this in response to about 500 messages talking about how "one earth day" is stupid. It had nothing to do with one earth day. The point was that once the person goes to sleep, and loses consciousness, they're gone. If you wanted to sit there with coffee and stay up for a really long time, you could. Yeah it was sorta lame, but not as bad as people here are making it out to be. It does make sense on some level.
Just don't complain when we put a $10/gallon tax on gas, to reflect the damage you cause to the environment by burning it. Or how about a tax on your massive vehicle for the increased damage it does to the roads you drive on?
This is about paying for the true costs of your actions.
Yeah, what a complete dick. I'd seen the Spectacle article, but it didn't have that update. He *renewed* the fucking domain? That is just unbelievable.
Slashdot should definitely do an article on this whole issue. Has kuro5hin? Maybe I'll submit something.
Re:Make companies pay for software they can't use?
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Why should they get to use it in their own closed-source projects? The code is the property of the US government, which means US citizens. They shouldn't be able to take that code, modify it, and charge people for the modifications.
It's just like pharm corps taking research done by uni profs/students, taking that one last small step, and then patenting the new drug and selling it for 1000% profit.
If it's GPL, they can use it. If they choose to use it they can't exactly say they were "forced" to open their code.
would be to launch the Jupiter mission *from* Mars, once we have a base built up there. it's closer, and has less gravity. Hell, we could even launch from Phobos or Deimos.
Once you are human, you can logically extend the law to say that you are human for the rest of your life.
And why is that exactly? What is life? Is someone who essentially has his entire brain destroyed in an accident still deserving of human rights? What part of you makes you human? With enough technology, it would be possible to replace pretty much every organ in your body with something artificial(even just some simply artificial brain to tell you to keep breathing and what not). Could someone(something?) like that still be said to be human? If not, when and why does the change in status occur? Your definition of what is human is extremely lacking.
Well, read the challenge again. He explicitly stated two possible conclusions. Conclusion 1 was a fetus is a human, Conclusion 2 was a fetus is no more a human being than a human cell. That logically implies that human cells are not human beings.
But I am made up of human cells. Am I not a human being? So what makes me human? You are saying that a fetus with a brain but not kidneys isn't human...why? This does not follow logically from saying cells aren't a human being. You seem to think that because you used a definition which can distinguish a clump of cells from a newborn, you have a definition that can distinguish a human from a non-human.
Oh no, I am by no means the first(as I found out awhile ago). Many people have done the same to lesser or even greater degrees. Ayn Rand is one such person.
I derived it for you right there. Point out my mistake.
Your definition for a human being is arbitrary. There are exceptions that are pretty clearly humans yet under your definition are not. You say you need certain organs to be considered human. So does that mean that a person, born to two human parents, whose kidneys were destroyed by disease, and who is living on a dialysis machine, and with whom you could carry out a normal intelligent conversation, is not human? Does that sound logical to you?
I'm sorry, but one of the criteria is that human cells are not human beings. An embryo is a single cell, therefore it does not qualify.
That's one of your criteria, and it's based on your beliefs of what makes a human human. If what makes a human human is having a brain, then you are correct. If it is having a soul that is put there by god at conception, then you are wrong. If it is neither of those, then who knows?
They had these vital organs to start with, but they failed during the course of their life. I think this could easily fit with the def'n I gave for a human.
"c) must have the basic anatomical features(organs) of a human being necessary for sustaining its life"
I don't see how a person without kidneys "easily" fits into a definition which requires that you have the basic organs(and you listed kidneys as one of them). are you going to change your definition to say that if you are born with them but later lose them you're still human? if so, what would be the logical reason for saying that a fetus with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys isn't human, but an adult with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys is???
I started with the challenges' criteria and I came to a logical conclusion.
What criteria? There was none listed. The poster simply said: here are two different possible views, now you try to logically say why one is right and the other isn't. It would appear that you drew criteria out of thin(i.e. illogical) air.
On the other hand, if you started from scratch and logically defined all of your morals from a logical foundation there would be none of this confusion and it would be quite clear what a human being is, what would be a proper course of action etc.
Wow, congrats. I don't think anyone in human history has been able to give a logical from the ground up definition of morality. Wonderful that you were able to...
Your flaw is in thinking that your definition of what is human is logical.
Some Christians say that the fetus/embryo is human the moment conception occurs. Because that's when God puts the soul in. If their religious beliefs are correct, then that is the logical answer.
OTOH, I personally disagree with your criteria. I think a human is a very hard thing to define, and I won't really try, but I'll give you some examples of things I think are human, or at least as deserving of human rights, as normal human beings:
1) beings that cannot survive by themselves, but could with help. examples: patient with failed kidneys on a dialysis machine. patient with failed heart with an artificial heart. patient with failed lungs with an iron lung or something of the sort.
2) some sort of freak chimp that is as smart/sentient/conscious as a human(I won't even get into normal chimps, which are probably on the level of small children, and which I have huge reservations about using in medical research)
3) a computer with human-level intelligence
4) some being from another planet with human-level intelligence
5) related to #1, a human fetus that, even if it cannnot sustain itself outside the womb, has human-like brainwaves, and can survive inside the womb
some other people might add exceptions to the list that I don't agree with, or say some of mine are invalid. I don't think I or anyone else can give a completely logical reason for saying: this one is human, this one is not.
BTW, going back to chimps: the whole idea that there are mentally retarded people who are given the same rights as all of us, while chimps who are far more intelligent/capable of human-like feeling and thoughts are kept in cages and killed in painful ways for research is frankly something that makes me uncomfortable to think about.
I don't there is any black and white in this issue
Thank you. Exactly the example I would've chosen. Someone can post one way or the other what is "right", but in the end it comes down to values and beliefs. And those aren't based on logic.
I thought Scalia was the one that Thomas always voted with. I mean really it's like Scalia has two votes.
And yeah, Souter is great. When I look at these case, he's on the right side nearly 100% of the time. I also got a very good impression of him as a human being from Warren Rudman's book, Combat(Rudman was a good friend of Souter, and was the one who convinced Bush to nominate him).
How do you get it to look nice like yours? You seem to have some nicer looking UI installed, and I don't see a term window(which I couldn't get rid of).
BTW, is there any way to get some graphics acceleration in GIMP? It's slow as shit on my machine.
Then you ought to be able to sue its ass. That's certainly not incompatible with capitalism.
But it is incompatible with the abilities of poor/working class people. To sue a large corporation. Yeah, a definite possibility, assuming the poor person has millions of dollars and years of his life to dedicate to the task.
Class-action is a possibility, but not always. Why should I have to find hundreds/thousands of other people to join me just so I can actually stand a chance of winning against a large company which is killing me? Real fair.
And BTW, it would be hard to pinpoint pollution on any one company. What do you suggest then? Enact a class action lawsuit of all the American people against all polluting companies maybe? Guess what, we can. It's called a law. It's the way things happen in Democracies when everyone wants massive entity to stop killing them.
If you and your buddies want to pool your funds, buy a plot of land, your own tools and equipment, and run your own little commune, be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of society to emulate your folly.
Be an ass if you want. I assume you are conceding the point since you don't respond to it. We don't know that practical communism is impossible.
I'm not saying that government needs to regulate more, but lower-class employees could certainly do better looking out for their wage prospects as a whole. Pity they seem incapable of banding together for anything more than gang fights.
Orwell again.
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."
I also want to mention that according to economists a yellow fin tuna has no worth until it's cut up and ends up in a sushi bar and a tree has no worth unless it's in your fireplace or your mantelpiece. This is plainly wrong and until you start measuring the worth of creatures not by what they provide to you but what they conribute to the ecosystem as a whole your math will always be wrong.
Excellent point. Right now companies use the earth as their personal shitting hole. They take good stuff from it and put bad stuff into it.
Now some people might be able to argue if they payed for the land, they have a right to do what they want with it. I don't in all cases agree, but nevertheless you also have corps who pollute our air and our water. How is that fair? The corp pays for the land to build a smokestack on a small piece of land, and then has the right to pump millions of pounds of pollution into the atmosphere? That would be like saying I have the right to buy a little piece of land and set off a thermonuclear device on it. Oh, that land happens to be in the middle of New York City? Oh well.
The resources of the earth are the collective property of everyone and everything on the earth. You don't shit where you eat, and you don't fuck up the planet you live on. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, people working for them, like me. Redistribution of my wealth to corporations. I'm sure you approve. Wouldn't want to let that wealth be used to feed poor people though.
To try to argue against the military is to argue against reason.
Oh thank you Ms. Rand. That cleared it up nicely.
You can not choose whether or not to support the military because you use the military, whether you want to or not. It defends our shores, and makes sure people don't show up from overseas to put bullets in our heads.
Hardly. Perhaps I have a huge stockpile of guns, tanks, planes, etc. on my land out in Utah. Perhaps I have an agreement with many other people that we will all form an army if someone tries to attack the US. Or perhaps I just don't give a fuck. If I want to let someone invade and kill me, that's my business. Why do you have a right to take my property at gunpoint to provide me protection I do not want?(in fact, protection I could better provide myself, since we all know the government in inefficient)
And don't cite the Constitution. You are trying to make some sort of philosophical case against the government stealing property against the people's will, so make it. I do not want the government to take one cent of my money to pay for the military, so how dare you support their socialist theft?
"Could you please explain to me how women's sufferage had anything to do with the systematic redistribution of wealth? Could you please point out where the Emancipation proclaimation cites Karl Marx?"
In the 1860s Americans say that blacks have a right to not be held as property(thus helping blacks, and taking away property from rich people).
The 1930s-1990s Americans say that citizens have a right to health care, food, etc.(thus helping many poor people, and taking away property from rich peiople).
It's pretty obvious he was talking about the articles of confederation. The point being that we tried having a very weak anarchist type government and everything went to shit, which is why we made the constitution that today guides the government you hate.
The point it's supposed to prove is that you're a hypocritical motherfucker. You go around yelling about the government using your money for science, but don't seem to care when they give your money to corporations.
What's more, you hold said corporations up as shining examples of capitalism when they are in fact just little piglets sucking at the taxpayer teat.
And to answer your question: NASA does not need to be dismantled for private spaceflight to occur. Are they in some cases holding it back? Yes. Can they be stopped from holding it back without being destroyed? Yes.
I could post this in response to about 500 messages talking about how "one earth day" is stupid. It had nothing to do with one earth day. The point was that once the person goes to sleep, and loses consciousness, they're gone. If you wanted to sit there with coffee and stay up for a really long time, you could. Yeah it was sorta lame, but not as bad as people here are making it out to be. It does make sense on some level.
Just don't complain when we put a $10/gallon tax on gas, to reflect the damage you cause to the environment by burning it. Or how about a tax on your massive vehicle for the increased damage it does to the roads you drive on?
This is about paying for the true costs of your actions.
Yeah, what a complete dick. I'd seen the Spectacle article, but it didn't have that update. He *renewed* the fucking domain? That is just unbelievable.
Slashdot should definitely do an article on this whole issue. Has kuro5hin? Maybe I'll submit something.
Why should they get to use it in their own closed-source projects? The code is the property of the US government, which means US citizens. They shouldn't be able to take that code, modify it, and charge people for the modifications.
It's just like pharm corps taking research done by uni profs/students, taking that one last small step, and then patenting the new drug and selling it for 1000% profit.
If it's GPL, they can use it. If they choose to use it they can't exactly say they were "forced" to open their code.
would be to launch the Jupiter mission *from* Mars, once we have a base built up there. it's closer, and has less gravity. Hell, we could even launch from Phobos or Deimos.
Once you are human, you can logically extend the law to say that you are human for the rest of your life.
And why is that exactly? What is life? Is someone who essentially has his entire brain destroyed in an accident still deserving of human rights? What part of you makes you human? With enough technology, it would be possible to replace pretty much every organ in your body with something artificial(even just some simply artificial brain to tell you to keep breathing and what not). Could someone(something?) like that still be said to be human? If not, when and why does the change in status occur? Your definition of what is human is extremely lacking.
Well, read the challenge again. He explicitly stated two possible conclusions. Conclusion 1 was a fetus is a human, Conclusion 2 was a fetus is no more a human being than a human cell. That logically implies that human cells are not human beings.
But I am made up of human cells. Am I not a human being? So what makes me human? You are saying that a fetus with a brain but not kidneys isn't human...why? This does not follow logically from saying cells aren't a human being. You seem to think that because you used a definition which can distinguish a clump of cells from a newborn, you have a definition that can distinguish a human from a non-human.
Oh no, I am by no means the first(as I found out awhile ago). Many people have done the same to lesser or even greater degrees. Ayn Rand is one such person.
ROTFL. OK, I think we're done here.
I derived it for you right there. Point out my mistake.
Your definition for a human being is arbitrary. There are exceptions that are pretty clearly humans yet under your definition are not. You say you need certain organs to be considered human. So does that mean that a person, born to two human parents, whose kidneys were destroyed by disease, and who is living on a dialysis machine, and with whom you could carry out a normal intelligent conversation, is not human? Does that sound logical to you?
I'm sorry, but one of the criteria is that human cells are not human beings. An embryo is a single cell, therefore it does not qualify.
That's one of your criteria, and it's based on your beliefs of what makes a human human. If what makes a human human is having a brain, then you are correct. If it is having a soul that is put there by god at conception, then you are wrong. If it is neither of those, then who knows?
They had these vital organs to start with, but they failed during the course of their life. I think this could easily fit with the def'n I gave for a human.
"c) must have the basic anatomical features(organs) of a human being necessary for sustaining its life"
I don't see how a person without kidneys "easily" fits into a definition which requires that you have the basic organs(and you listed kidneys as one of them). are you going to change your definition to say that if you are born with them but later lose them you're still human? if so, what would be the logical reason for saying that a fetus with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys isn't human, but an adult with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys is???
I started with the challenges' criteria and I came to a logical conclusion.
What criteria? There was none listed. The poster simply said: here are two different possible views, now you try to logically say why one is right and the other isn't. It would appear that you drew criteria out of thin(i.e. illogical) air.
On the other hand, if you started from scratch and logically defined all of your morals from a logical foundation there would be none of this confusion and it would be quite clear what a human being is, what would be a proper course of action etc.
Wow, congrats. I don't think anyone in human history has been able to give a logical from the ground up definition of morality. Wonderful that you were able to...
Your flaw is in thinking that your definition of what is human is logical.
Some Christians say that the fetus/embryo is human the moment conception occurs. Because that's when God puts the soul in. If their religious beliefs are correct, then that is the logical answer.
OTOH, I personally disagree with your criteria. I think a human is a very hard thing to define, and I won't really try, but I'll give you some examples of things I think are human, or at least as deserving of human rights, as normal human beings:
1) beings that cannot survive by themselves, but could with help. examples: patient with failed kidneys on a dialysis machine. patient with failed heart with an artificial heart. patient with failed lungs with an iron lung or something of the sort.
2) some sort of freak chimp that is as smart/sentient/conscious as a human(I won't even get into normal chimps, which are probably on the level of small children, and which I have huge reservations about using in medical research)
3) a computer with human-level intelligence
4) some being from another planet with human-level intelligence
5) related to #1, a human fetus that, even if it cannnot sustain itself outside the womb, has human-like brainwaves, and can survive inside the womb
some other people might add exceptions to the list that I don't agree with, or say some of mine are invalid. I don't think I or anyone else can give a completely logical reason for saying: this one is human, this one is not.
BTW, going back to chimps: the whole idea that there are mentally retarded people who are given the same rights as all of us, while chimps who are far more intelligent/capable of human-like feeling and thoughts are kept in cages and killed in painful ways for research is frankly something that makes me uncomfortable to think about.
I don't there is any black and white in this issue
Thank you. Exactly the example I would've chosen. Someone can post one way or the other what is "right", but in the end it comes down to values and beliefs. And those aren't based on logic.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=564792
Notice when that was posted. Nice try, though.
...this story was submitted 22,000 times.
- Cmdr Taco
I thought Scalia was the one that Thomas always voted with. I mean really it's like Scalia has two votes.
And yeah, Souter is great. When I look at these case, he's on the right side nearly 100% of the time. I also got a very good impression of him as a human being from Warren Rudman's book, Combat(Rudman was a good friend of Souter, and was the one who convinced Bush to nominate him).
Here's what it looks like on mine(screenshot)
How do you get it to look nice like yours? You seem to have some nicer looking UI installed, and I don't see a term window(which I couldn't get rid of).
BTW, is there any way to get some graphics acceleration in GIMP? It's slow as shit on my machine.
Then you ought to be able to sue its ass. That's certainly not incompatible with capitalism.
But it is incompatible with the abilities of poor/working class people. To sue a large corporation. Yeah, a definite possibility, assuming the poor person has millions of dollars and years of his life to dedicate to the task.
Class-action is a possibility, but not always. Why should I have to find hundreds/thousands of other people to join me just so I can actually stand a chance of winning against a large company which is killing me? Real fair.
And BTW, it would be hard to pinpoint pollution on any one company. What do you suggest then? Enact a class action lawsuit of all the American people against all polluting companies maybe? Guess what, we can. It's called a law. It's the way things happen in Democracies when everyone wants massive entity to stop killing them.
If you and your buddies want to pool your funds, buy a plot of land, your own tools and equipment, and run your own little commune, be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of society to emulate your folly.
Be an ass if you want. I assume you are conceding the point since you don't respond to it. We don't know that practical communism is impossible.
wow, great point. "stop talking...convince others of your position" - hear it all the time
I'm not saying that government needs to regulate more, but lower-class employees could certainly do better looking out for their wage prospects as a whole. Pity they seem incapable of banding together for anything more than gang fights.
Orwell again.
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."
There are MILLIONS of cigarette smokers who don't get lung cancer. Therefore, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. QED.
dumbass
"The people we starve and torture have the unsociable tendency to steal and murder. We think it's because their brows overhang." - Ann Druyan
Less power in government = less power to be bought
Right. It also means that government(i.e. the extension of the people in Democratic countries) now has no power, and corporations have all of it.
Want to stop a corporation from polluting the air you breathe? Sorry, you took away the power of your government to do that. Good work.
I also want to mention that according to economists a yellow fin tuna has no worth until it's cut up and ends up in a sushi bar and a tree has no worth unless it's in your fireplace or your mantelpiece. This is plainly wrong and until you start measuring the worth of creatures not by what they provide to you but what they conribute to the ecosystem as a whole your math will always be wrong.
Excellent point. Right now companies use the earth as their personal shitting hole. They take good stuff from it and put bad stuff into it.
Now some people might be able to argue if they payed for the land, they have a right to do what they want with it. I don't in all cases agree, but nevertheless you also have corps who pollute our air and our water. How is that fair? The corp pays for the land to build a smokestack on a small piece of land, and then has the right to pump millions of pounds of pollution into the atmosphere? That would be like saying I have the right to buy a little piece of land and set off a thermonuclear device on it. Oh, that land happens to be in the middle of New York City? Oh well.
The resources of the earth are the collective property of everyone and everything on the earth. You don't shit where you eat, and you don't fuck up the planet you live on. Period.