Health care can't be a right. I have a right to free speech. All you have to do is leave me alone. I have a right to free association. Just let me be and leave me alone. I have a right to believe whatever faith I want. Let me go to church and leave me alone.
I have a right to health care. Now someone must provide for me? Rights don't place burdens on others, forcing them to do something other than to not interfere with me exercising my right.
To broaden the definition of a right to include health care is to bastardize the meaning of the word.
Facebook is going to make money by exploiting and mining the data they have (and ads). Losing some customers is to be expected. The interesting thing is that they reached a saturation point already.
But it doesn't seem like these folks are going to go to another social networking site.
I'm not sure if their case is correct, but all the groups listed in the summary aren't just using "geek". They are using it in conjunction with tech support.
"Geek Housecalls, Rent a Geek, Geek Rescue, Speak with A Geek"
Thank you. That's pretty much my point and you got it.
I wanted to point out that there was another data point. Around the time of those really cold winters (Valley Forge with Washington's army for example) seems to been a relatively quiet sun spot period as well.
Probably the biggest thing sparking skepticism about man-made global warming are articles like these. "Please ignore that fiery nuclear furnace behind the curtain."
Just admit you don't have everything figured out. I know that may give rise to healthy skepticism. People may not want to spend trillions in dollars to fix a problem you aren't certain about.
As an aside, it is interesting that the other time of cold temperatures (late 18th century) corresponds to lower sun spot activity.
Do you believe this because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way or because it is true?
Evolution most certainly doesn't care about truth. It cares about passing on genes. But even if I take your argument as something that can be assumed, it would only apply to staying alive and reproducing. We would also have discount all the species that survive based on sheer numbers.
The point overall is that a reductionist philosophy like materialism undermines the preconditions for assuming rationality.
It would be a little better if evolution predicted something about survival. It doesn't. It ends up being a tautology. Survivors survive.
If you assume that there is no teleology, no higher design, in evolutionary processes, you are left with a blind process building up the human mind. Furthermore, you have to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. Why do you believe anything is true? The atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way. Why does evolution proceed the way it does? It is neutral about truth so the only answer that can be given is to pass on genes.
If believing a lie and being convinced of it will give you an advantage, evolution will favor that outcome.
That is no basis for trusting your own rationality.
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - J.B.S. Haldane
Ideally, you want the money supply to track the absolute value of goods and services of the economy. I think it is much more complicated.
Milton Friedman, for instance, was in favor of a computer just increasing the money supply a few percentage points each year. Not sure how serious he was, but he had a point.
That German organic farm which was the source of the recent e coli outbreak will kill more people than the Japanese nuclear meltdown and the Gulf oil spill combined.
"no case" was overstating things. The Supreme Court can refuse to hear the case. They may have decided to take the case because they wanted to make something explicit or because of conflicting lower court rulings.
To be fair, there are numerous failures of central planners and "smart people" who try to control our lives and make decisions for us. 5-year plans, Vietnam, etc.
You can take this distrust to the extreme. Or you can follow the American Constitutional model. Keep decisions like this as local as problem and limit the scope of the failure if something really stupid is done.
It is a very poor example to use college. For many people, it is a waste of time. For many others, even if you do receive a good education, you get a ton of debt.
What the parent post seems to be saying is that if you disagree with a position that you hold or that a majority of educated folk hold, that is anti-intellectual. That isn't anti-intellectual. That is a minority viewpoint. There is a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
"flash in the pan"
I see what you did there.
"How can Microsoft expect independent developers to base their future on Silverlight when Microsoft itself is abandoning it like a sinking ship?"
They don't expect people to base their future on Silverlight. Why would anyone think that at this point?
Health care can't be a right. I have a right to free speech. All you have to do is leave me alone. I have a right to free association. Just let me be and leave me alone. I have a right to believe whatever faith I want. Let me go to church and leave me alone.
I have a right to health care. Now someone must provide for me? Rights don't place burdens on others, forcing them to do something other than to not interfere with me exercising my right.
To broaden the definition of a right to include health care is to bastardize the meaning of the word.
I have 3 kids 3 and a half and younger. I'm not sure you want to tell an actual homemaker that they sit around all day in front of Facebook.
Facebook is going to make money by exploiting and mining the data they have (and ads). Losing some customers is to be expected. The interesting thing is that they reached a saturation point already.
But it doesn't seem like these folks are going to go to another social networking site.
Kudos to you sir. You followed up on a fanboy debate over computer languages with a Grammar Nazi post.
That sounds reasonable. I think they are just trying to protect their trademark. If you don't try to defend your trademark, you lose rights to it.
I'm not sure if their case is correct, but all the groups listed in the summary aren't just using "geek". They are using it in conjunction with tech support.
"Geek Housecalls, Rent a Geek, Geek Rescue, Speak with A Geek"
Thank you. That's pretty much my point and you got it.
I wanted to point out that there was another data point. Around the time of those really cold winters (Valley Forge with Washington's army for example) seems to been a relatively quiet sun spot period as well.
Probably the biggest thing sparking skepticism about man-made global warming are articles like these. "Please ignore that fiery nuclear furnace behind the curtain."
Just admit you don't have everything figured out. I know that may give rise to healthy skepticism. People may not want to spend trillions in dollars to fix a problem you aren't certain about.
As an aside, it is interesting that the other time of cold temperatures (late 18th century) corresponds to lower sun spot activity.
It's not a tripe. You can't really predict what will count as an advantage.
In terms of verifying rationality, you can't do that either without assuming that your faculties and rationality are generally accurate.
Do you believe this because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way or because it is true?
Evolution most certainly doesn't care about truth. It cares about passing on genes. But even if I take your argument as something that can be assumed, it would only apply to staying alive and reproducing. We would also have discount all the species that survive based on sheer numbers.
The point overall is that a reductionist philosophy like materialism undermines the preconditions for assuming rationality.
It would be a little better if evolution predicted something about survival. It doesn't. It ends up being a tautology. Survivors survive.
If you assume that there is no teleology, no higher design, in evolutionary processes, you are left with a blind process building up the human mind. Furthermore, you have to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. Why do you believe anything is true? The atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way. Why does evolution proceed the way it does? It is neutral about truth so the only answer that can be given is to pass on genes.
If believing a lie and being convinced of it will give you an advantage, evolution will favor that outcome.
That is no basis for trusting your own rationality.
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - J.B.S. Haldane
Ideally, you want the money supply to track the absolute value of goods and services of the economy. I think it is much more complicated.
Milton Friedman, for instance, was in favor of a computer just increasing the money supply a few percentage points each year. Not sure how serious he was, but he had a point.
zap the food. Also comes with irrational radiation concerns.
That German organic farm which was the source of the recent e coli outbreak will kill more people than the Japanese nuclear meltdown and the Gulf oil spill combined.
.NET isn't quite the same thing as Silverlight. Dropping .NET would be a much bigger deal, and I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
I believe it has only been in test markets up til now. This looks like they are beginning to roll this out.
"no case" was overstating things. The Supreme Court can refuse to hear the case. They may have decided to take the case because they wanted to make something explicit or because of conflicting lower court rulings.
Other comments regarding money is just cynicism.
If you lose 9-0 at the Supreme Court that means you pretty much had no case.
Worse PR than being branded a friend to drunk drivers? I think not.
I doubt Apple or most other companies want to help drunk drivers avoid detection.
Plus, Chinese demographics will start getting worse (i.e. older) due to the one-child policy that comes from (drum roll please) central planning.
To be fair, there are numerous failures of central planners and "smart people" who try to control our lives and make decisions for us. 5-year plans, Vietnam, etc.
You can take this distrust to the extreme. Or you can follow the American Constitutional model. Keep decisions like this as local as problem and limit the scope of the failure if something really stupid is done.
It is a very poor example to use college. For many people, it is a waste of time. For many others, even if you do receive a good education, you get a ton of debt.
What the parent post seems to be saying is that if you disagree with a position that you hold or that a majority of educated folk hold, that is anti-intellectual. That isn't anti-intellectual. That is a minority viewpoint. There is a difference.