You do realise that he was right? The green revolution along with declining birth rates in the western world has ensured that we have enough food - but starvation is a reality elsewhere.
Not to mention that they could use it in protests and leave no evidence for those pesky excessive use of force accusations.
As an additional point tasers are not used instead of guns, rather they are used instead of physically restraining people - which leads to more casualties than there would have been otherwise. Non lethal weapons such as these cause more harm to society then they prevent.
While direct democracy is an interesting idea - if people are too drunk, stupid and lazy to keep their representatives honest, what is the likelihood they will take the issues any more seriously if they voted for it themselves? The parties involved would just run ad campaigns to help "educate" the voters on each issue, and you are back to the same problem with votes being won by the richest interests.
Solid education of the people helps any form of government run better - and I suspect that is the real issue.
How much time we have spent on quantum physics without much experimental evidence? These are not the sort of things you can just test out in a bathtub.
Not to be rude, but how is this insightful? The throat and mouth follow the commands of the brain, therefore unless they have independent intelligence they would not add any additional information.
Correction - cooperation is not the best strategy for iterated prisoners dilemma but tit-for tat. i.e. start by cooperation - then do what your opponent did last turn; if he cooperated then cooperate, if he defected then defect. Which is what we do in society - we start by giving people the benefit of the doubt - then if they betray that they get punished.
Another issue that humanity faces is what is called the hobbesian tragedy - if we have two decent groups of people that don't want to harm one another - but they cannot be sure of the others intention. If one strikes first then they get the advantage, therefore logically each has to attack in order to prevent the other for attacking. This can be prevented by having a mediating body which can enforce the peace, i.e. the police. This area of study is fascinating.
Apart from the name which has a swear word - the group description as can be seen from the article is rather measured. It specifically states that the groups is not for those who hate Muslims - and that Muslims are generally good people. It is against Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women - as do all religions.
Despite this being clearly visible the article still claims that the group is racist. Now I don't know the conduct of the people in the group but if the description is what they they are about then I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Yes but I was more questioning the mentality that allows you to classify former friends and family (as the first Muslims would have had plenty of contact with non-Muslims especially in their close circle) as filthy beasts. Plus looking down on people is not as effective at conversion as it sounds:).
A little of topic but I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say. We don't all speak the same 'language' but all languages use similar constructs which are pre-wired into the human brain allowing us to acquire language (something that only humans can do). The theory is not unnecessary - it is vital to understanding the development of language, and it is demonstratively true.
He is very well respected within linguistics - but his writings on politics are rather one sided.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert on this - but I'm sure there is a good reason why 3 legged things aren't popular in nature.
even if it is the inevitable outcome of it?
You bring up an interesting point, except that in reality philosophy is a waste of time, and mathematics run the world.
You do realise that he was right? The green revolution along with declining birth rates in the western world has ensured that we have enough food - but starvation is a reality elsewhere.
Not to mention that they could use it in protests and leave no evidence for those pesky excessive use of force accusations. As an additional point tasers are not used instead of guns, rather they are used instead of physically restraining people - which leads to more casualties than there would have been otherwise. Non lethal weapons such as these cause more harm to society then they prevent.
I wonder if you could build a whole computer from factory rejects.
Or use drugs to achieve that effect. (They are already using amphetamines to lower the number of people who chicken out).
While direct democracy is an interesting idea - if people are too drunk, stupid and lazy to keep their representatives honest, what is the likelihood they will take the issues any more seriously if they voted for it themselves? The parties involved would just run ad campaigns to help "educate" the voters on each issue, and you are back to the same problem with votes being won by the richest interests. Solid education of the people helps any form of government run better - and I suspect that is the real issue.
Maybe it wasn't shut down properly last time?
How much time we have spent on quantum physics without much experimental evidence? These are not the sort of things you can just test out in a bathtub.
Read the damn article - its detected them using a new radar system not with backyard telescopes.
Already patented - Along with fans that blow air into wind power plants.
I wish I was a jew.
Not to be rude, but how is this insightful? The throat and mouth follow the commands of the brain, therefore unless they have independent intelligence they would not add any additional information.
I think we ought to add ASCII art to the axis of evil
Correction - cooperation is not the best strategy for iterated prisoners dilemma but tit-for tat. i.e. start by cooperation - then do what your opponent did last turn; if he cooperated then cooperate, if he defected then defect. Which is what we do in society - we start by giving people the benefit of the doubt - then if they betray that they get punished. Another issue that humanity faces is what is called the hobbesian tragedy - if we have two decent groups of people that don't want to harm one another - but they cannot be sure of the others intention. If one strikes first then they get the advantage, therefore logically each has to attack in order to prevent the other for attacking. This can be prevented by having a mediating body which can enforce the peace, i.e. the police. This area of study is fascinating.
Apart from the name which has a swear word - the group description as can be seen from the article is rather measured. It specifically states that the groups is not for those who hate Muslims - and that Muslims are generally good people. It is against Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women - as do all religions. Despite this being clearly visible the article still claims that the group is racist. Now I don't know the conduct of the people in the group but if the description is what they they are about then I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Yes but I was more questioning the mentality that allows you to classify former friends and family (as the first Muslims would have had plenty of contact with non-Muslims especially in their close circle) as filthy beasts. Plus looking down on people is not as effective at conversion as it sounds :).
I always wondered how that verse got started given that at the time of its "recital" there would have been about 5 Muslims.
Chief what is revolution if not an extreme form of protest? How do revolutions start?
This guy is a genius!! Where can I send money to??
Really? I like badgers!
Fired... out of a cannon... into the sun.
How is this flamebait chief?
A little of topic but I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say. We don't all speak the same 'language' but all languages use similar constructs which are pre-wired into the human brain allowing us to acquire language (something that only humans can do). The theory is not unnecessary - it is vital to understanding the development of language, and it is demonstratively true. He is very well respected within linguistics - but his writings on politics are rather one sided.