Trying to live a 100% fact-based life is itself wishful thinking. Can't happen. If you relied 100% on known fact alone, you wouldn't be able to imagine a future, plan your own career, or fall in love or interact with others. What's love, friendship and trust but a bunch of "reasonable assumptions" based on nothing but your own emotional responses - which are not facts, being purely subjective and open to interpretation.
"Fact" itself is not universal or objective. What we humans call "fact" are simply assumptions based either on direct experience or trust in certain information. What is "fact" in our minds has to be changeable - we have to be able to update our "facts" based on new information (eg. smoking was deemed ok before, now it's not), otherwise we couldn't function.
So, in the end, what exactly is "fact" but a concept, much like "cause and effect", which we use as a tool to function in the world. It's not even necessary. Other species thrive based on instinct. We only need "facts" because we use tools to survive. So we need to know how tools work - how everything works. The more we know, the more the thrive. That, in itself, is our own "instinct" - to learn, create, know, share..
Fact isn't such a big deal outside the human experience.
Come on, this is an ethical issue? Like there aren't worse things in the world. They're not asking you to create fake accounts, just to hit the Like button.
I'm sure you've Liked stupider things than that app many times a day. Who cares?
One of my coworkers will regularly have one night stands but throw a fit if a guy she does not like hits on her in a public place.
This has been the problem with the idea of sexual freedom all through the ages. It pisses off unattractive people. Unfortunately, most people in positions of political authority are unattractive.
It's not an Apple problem, it's an industry problem, and Apple does better than most at identifying and correcting these conditions.
First part yes, second part no.
Apple is "appearing" to do more than most, and succeeding very well by your comment. There's nothing to show they are actually influencing Foxconn policy. If they were doing anything significant, we would have seen some change by now.
If there's one thing Apple is good at, it's image.
This is what advocates of this method seem not to understand. Sure, I don't mind putting my name to a comment, the same way I don't mind being seen walking around in public buying stuff.
I'm sure people see me sometimes, as I see them, and rarely there is some recollection of having seen that person somewhere else before. Big deal.
But I sure as shit don't want shop a. knowing I went to shop b. or my employer or ad company or whomever being able to track me.
That's the difference between parading your real face around town, or using your credit card (which, afaik, only your bank knows the history of) and having a single network monitoring all your online activity whose sole purpose is to monetise that information by providing it to third parties.
We all take for granted that our daily activities are not monitored and analysed. Yet somehow we're supposed to accept that online, ostensibly because it "makes us more responsible". No, it makes us more "cautious", which is a completely different thing.
Wouldn't that be Apple in this case? (at least it makes less of its money on ads)
That remains to be seen. Apple was becoming irrelevant before Jobs and iPod/iPhone/iPad. They were the right products at the right time, quite like the original Microsoft Windows, original Google, Facebook and Twitter.
Whether Apple can continue to be relevant in the face of others doing what they do now, is anyone's guess. Other companies "get it" now. Jobs got it first, and pulled it off well, but that golden moment of being miles ahead of everyone else has passed.
on the premise that we have accurately predicted a large asteroid impact on Earth in a decade from now. Film follows the effect this has on people all over the world, from the time of the announcement to the impact itself. From those who don't believe, to those who look forward to it or see it as the holy Armageddon they've been waiting for. The scary thing is many Christians do look forward to that!
That's a really interesting point. But I think it doesn't just come down to "ethics", ie. a rational approach; it comes down to the human condition. We, all of us, naturally avoid thinking about the worst consequences of our actions. Generally speaking, human beings have an irrationally optimistic view of life.
Otherwise we wouldn't drive cars at all, or skydive, or hunt dangerous animals for food with spears. It's origin is survival in an unforgiving world. I think we bring this natural aversion to pessimism into our modern lives in many, many ways.
If we punished based on worst case scenario, nobody would do anything risky. Risk-taking is the basis for the success* of our entire species.
* Relative to the past, not necessarily the future.
And this is why lobbying and campaign contributions need to be outlawed.
Exactly. I feel the "Occupy" movement missed an opportunity to focus its energy on that one issue which is at the root of a great deal of the rot of democracy and fair play, and not just in the US.
This interview with Jimmy Carter is worth hearing. Towards the end he says the same. When he was campaigning long ago, it could be done on a shoestring. Now you have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to get anywhere. Which of course means enormous corporate influence in policy decisions.
It's insane, and it is the one main thing everyone should be fighting to fix, for all these terrible policies stem from it.
If you do the math it is. eg: Earnings = $1m Tax on that: $300k (30% for arguments sake) Deducible Donations = $50,000 (given to charity) Earnings minus Donations = $950k Tax on that: $285k (ie. down from $300k)
So, after giving $50k to charity, your total tax difference after the deduction is $300k - $285k = $15k. You gave $50k and got back $15k. That's how tax deductions work - you don't get the entire donation back. So you can't say it's not still charity. It just helps reduce the tax bill. It's an incentive. Take it away, and businesses won't give as much.
The grants were almost all nonprofit organizations
A wonderfully ironic example! Non-profits often have tax-exempt status, so they're saving wads of money right there! And they're *required* by law to give away profits (or reinvest them back in the company). If you think getting a tax break "isn't charity", then how is charity doing what you have no choice but to do? The only choice they have is which charity to give it to.
If I took the deducton I would miss out on the greater rewards.
What rewards would you miss out on exactly if you claimed the deduction? If it makes you feel bad, or detracts somewhat from the experience for you (which is perfectly fine and understandable), that is nevertheless hardly the basis on which to recommend the policy for everyone.
there's a four inch thick book with small print at the Illinois State Library listing private donors and funding organizations, just in Illinois, with each listing offering millions.
The doesn't prove anything. Do you really think those private donors, if they were not able to deduct their donations, would give more than a fraction of what they do now? Seriously?
And if you think they would, what exactly makes you think that? Common sense says otherwise.
That's easy to say, you probably give $50 here and there, not $thousands. I imagine if you gave $1000 to charity you would like a deduction.
If you remove the tax incentive for charities, large donations from companies would simply dry up. Explain to me why a company would give to charity if it is an expense without any benefit to the company? If you think they would, you're not being realistic.
Sure, individuals would still give their $50 or $100 a year to charities they like, that's a drop in the ocean compared to what companies give currently. If you hamper that, many charities would simply fold.
Hardly. You're talking about 1 provision out of hundreds, if not thousands.
allowing the government to rise more taxes
Many ways to do that without crippling charity donations, which would be the result. Companies would not give to charity *at all* if it was not a tax deduction, and they have many other ways of reducing tax. Charity donations is not the only thing that reduces company tax. They'll just do it another way.
thus better funding social security and foreign aid, thus lessening the need for charity.
Charities do a lot more than is covered by social security. Social security does not run the Make a Wish foundation, or give money to cancer research. Anyway, spending on social security is a matter of government ideology, not money. They could move money from defense to SS if they wanted to. They don't want to. Money is not the issue, the government is not broke.
Everyone wins
No, charities will lose and many will disappear. Companies simply will not give if there is no deduction. Sorry but you're living in a dream world.
Tax deductions are incentives. If it didn't exist, companies would give much less to charity, yes. So I don't see how removing the deduction is a good thing.
It's simply not a principle that is believed in any longer, and therefore is not remotely observed.
Good points all, but the real reason for this is not that those ideals are not believed in. It's unfortunately a matter of political survival that government has to listen to big corporations.
Listen to this talk by Jimmy Carter, at one point he says the same thing. Back then, he was able to run a campaign on a shoestring, hardly having to raise money at all.
Now, he says, candidates have to raise *hundreds of millions of dollars* to campaign. This has driven politics insane as corporate interests compete against the public interest - all because it's now become *necessary* to make deals to raise a heap of cash from corporations. This must stop. It will only get worse over time.
The one thing we should be concentrating on - and "Occupy" completely missed the boat on this - is political reform for the "separation of corporation and state". We can moan about corporate influence till the cows come home, but only concerted demand by people for reform will stop the inevitable slide into some kind of extreme socio-political dysfunction, if we're not there already.
Money must be taken out of our political system so it can return to concentrating on serving the interests of the people and the country as a whole. As it is now, politicians have no choice but to play the money game, ideals or no ideals.
It is up to us to demand not just our freedom, but the freedom of our politicians to think and make choices without being bound by corporate deals in order to survive. If things continue down this road, I don't see any result other than extreme social unrest.
I admire their chops, but this is ultimately a waste of effort. The *only* thing which will stop this happening is *getting money out of politics*.
Listen to this talk by Jimmy Carter, at one point he says the same thing. Back then, he was able to run a campaign on a shoestring, hardly having to raise money at all.
Now, he says, candidates have to raise *hundreds of millions of dollars*. This has driven politics insane as corporate interests compete against the public interest.
The one thing we should be concentrating on - and "Occupy" completely missed the boat on this - is political reform for the "separation of corporation and state". We can battle with Big Media, Big Pharma, big whatever, but it will never end unless money is taken out of our political system so it can concentrate on serving the interests of the people.
Sure as hell corporations aren't interested in the public good over their profit margins, so why should they have so much influence on policy? It makes no sense.
The fear of radiation poisoning seems to me to be an infantile reaction similar to fear of the dark(nyctophobia).
Sorry but that's a meaningless comparison to make.
We spend hours in the dark every day all our lives without ill effect, no matter how psychologically unpleasant it is under some circumstances. We do know the dark itself can't hurt us.
However everyone knows that spending time exposed to radiation sources increases your likelihood of cancer. Standing in the sun all day does that. I doubt you could convincingly equate fear of sunburn with fear of the dark.
People are justifiably scared of reports of radiation for many reasons, not least because authorities as well as companies tend to downplay readings. We've already seen that happening in Japan, with many people now relying mostly on the external European measurements.
So, dismissing people's reactions like that is rather unwarranted and just taking the opposite extreme to the one you are decrying.
It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.
Equivalent in what way? I hope you're aware there are different types of radiation. Some can give you a healthy tan or heat your dinner, another kind will turn you into the Hulk.
The chart makes no distinction between types of radiation, and makes a terrible mistake of scale. Putting a block showing a 1-week dose beside a slightly larger block showing a 1-year dose.
That is not the way to represent comparative data. It's a ridiculously useless chart.
posts that mention candidate's name and if the associated words are positive or negative
All the other candidates have the wisdom of youth and the energy of age. Ron Paul, however, is the shit. Obama, too, has a certain pulchritude. I offer him my contrafribbilarities.
The main problem I see is that Kodak - a company that has, since film disappeared, been trying to make money from cameras - is up against companies that are hugely diversified, making money from all sorts of things other than cameras and so can compete more effectively.
There is a specialist camera market, but Kodak has failed to become a prime player there. Kodak used to be huge in movie production, but also failed to become a major player in digital film-making.
They've failed to be a significant maker of printers, faxes, or any other sorts of peripherals or gadgets. Companies like Canon, Panasonic, etc., who have fingers in a multitude of pies, can innovate and compete far more efficiently.
So Kodak ended up a one-trick pony struggling for relevance in a market that mostly doesn't give a frying pan about film quality anymore, just the number of pixels and gimmicks.
Even if it was about film quality, the other companies are still better placed to deliver specialised products. Kodak did not grow, so it got left behind.
Perhaps Kodak should have left the others to dine on the feature-hungry masses, and concentrated on high-end equipment for digital film production? I don't know, and it's very sad. But surely the writing was on the wall when cameras became low-cost, mass-market commodities that didn't need physical film anymore.
But we should never forget these companies on whose glorious ambitions and histories we have built... well, all this cheap, throw-away crap we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes me sad how often these beliefs are persecuted
Blame Dawkins for being such an objectionable and easily ridiculed representative. He makes me feel embarrassed to be an atheist.
The rest of us live a fact-based life.
Trying to live a 100% fact-based life is itself wishful thinking. Can't happen. If you relied 100% on known fact alone, you wouldn't be able to imagine a future, plan your own career, or fall in love or interact with others. What's love, friendship and trust but a bunch of "reasonable assumptions" based on nothing but your own emotional responses - which are not facts, being purely subjective and open to interpretation.
"Fact" itself is not universal or objective. What we humans call "fact" are simply assumptions based either on direct experience or trust in certain information. What is "fact" in our minds has to be changeable - we have to be able to update our "facts" based on new information (eg. smoking was deemed ok before, now it's not), otherwise we couldn't function.
So, in the end, what exactly is "fact" but a concept, much like "cause and effect", which we use as a tool to function in the world. It's not even necessary. Other species thrive based on instinct. We only need "facts" because we use tools to survive. So we need to know how tools work - how everything works. The more we know, the more the thrive. That, in itself, is our own "instinct" - to learn, create, know, share..
Fact isn't such a big deal outside the human experience.
Come on, this is an ethical issue? Like there aren't worse things in the world. They're not asking you to create fake accounts, just to hit the Like button.
I'm sure you've Liked stupider things than that app many times a day. Who cares?
One of my coworkers will regularly have one night stands but throw a fit if a guy she does not like hits on her in a public place.
This has been the problem with the idea of sexual freedom all through the ages. It pisses off unattractive people. Unfortunately, most people in positions of political authority are unattractive.
It's not an Apple problem, it's an industry problem, and Apple does better than most at identifying and correcting these conditions.
First part yes, second part no.
Apple is "appearing" to do more than most, and succeeding very well by your comment. There's nothing to show they are actually influencing Foxconn policy. If they were doing anything significant, we would have seen some change by now.
If there's one thing Apple is good at, it's image.
This is what advocates of this method seem not to understand. Sure, I don't mind putting my name to a comment, the same way I don't mind being seen walking around in public buying stuff.
I'm sure people see me sometimes, as I see them, and rarely there is some recollection of having seen that person somewhere else before. Big deal.
But I sure as shit don't want shop a. knowing I went to shop b. or my employer or ad company or whomever being able to track me.
That's the difference between parading your real face around town, or using your credit card (which, afaik, only your bank knows the history of) and having a single network monitoring all your online activity whose sole purpose is to monetise that information by providing it to third parties.
We all take for granted that our daily activities are not monitored and analysed. Yet somehow we're supposed to accept that online, ostensibly because it "makes us more responsible". No, it makes us more "cautious", which is a completely different thing.
Is that a cleverly group-devised Ironic Insightful to go with the comment? I never knew the scoring was so subtle.
The bill authorizes all local governments to display "historic documents" and specifically lists the commandments as being included.
Wow, Galaxy Quest was even deeper than I thought.
Wouldn't that be Apple in this case? (at least it makes less of its money on ads)
That remains to be seen. Apple was becoming irrelevant before Jobs and iPod/iPhone/iPad. They were the right products at the right time, quite like the original Microsoft Windows, original Google, Facebook and Twitter.
Whether Apple can continue to be relevant in the face of others doing what they do now, is anyone's guess. Other companies "get it" now. Jobs got it first, and pulled it off well, but that golden moment of being miles ahead of everyone else has passed.
especially the top regulations like the Constittuion and Bill of rights which block the government from harming us
Heh. I do love sarcasm. Keep it up.
on the premise that we have accurately predicted a large asteroid impact on Earth in a decade from now. Film follows the effect this has on people all over the world, from the time of the announcement to the impact itself. From those who don't believe, to those who look forward to it or see it as the holy Armageddon they've been waiting for. The scary thing is many Christians do look forward to that!
Would make an interesting film I think.
We don't punish actions, we punish consequences.
That's a really interesting point. But I think it doesn't just come down to "ethics", ie. a rational approach; it comes down to the human condition. We, all of us, naturally avoid thinking about the worst consequences of our actions. Generally speaking, human beings have an irrationally optimistic view of life.
Otherwise we wouldn't drive cars at all, or skydive, or hunt dangerous animals for food with spears. It's origin is survival in an unforgiving world. I think we bring this natural aversion to pessimism into our modern lives in many, many ways.
If we punished based on worst case scenario, nobody would do anything risky. Risk-taking is the basis for the success* of our entire species.
* Relative to the past, not necessarily the future.
And this is why lobbying and campaign contributions need to be outlawed.
Exactly. I feel the "Occupy" movement missed an opportunity to focus its energy on that one issue which is at the root of a great deal of the rot of democracy and fair play, and not just in the US.
This interview with Jimmy Carter is worth hearing. Towards the end he says the same. When he was campaigning long ago, it could be done on a shoestring. Now you have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to get anywhere. Which of course means enormous corporate influence in policy decisions.
It's insane, and it is the one main thing everyone should be fighting to fix, for all these terrible policies stem from it.
like I said, a tax dodge isn't charity
If you do the math it is. eg:
Earnings = $1m
Tax on that: $300k (30% for arguments sake)
Deducible Donations = $50,000 (given to charity)
Earnings minus Donations = $950k
Tax on that: $285k (ie. down from $300k)
So, after giving $50k to charity, your total tax difference after the deduction is $300k - $285k = $15k. You gave $50k and got back $15k. That's how tax deductions work - you don't get the entire donation back. So you can't say it's not still charity. It just helps reduce the tax bill. It's an incentive. Take it away, and businesses won't give as much.
The grants were almost all nonprofit organizations
A wonderfully ironic example! Non-profits often have tax-exempt status, so they're saving wads of money right there! And they're *required* by law to give away profits (or reinvest them back in the company). If you think getting a tax break "isn't charity", then how is charity doing what you have no choice but to do? The only choice they have is which charity to give it to.
If I took the deducton I would miss out on the greater rewards.
What rewards would you miss out on exactly if you claimed the deduction? If it makes you feel bad, or detracts somewhat from the experience for you (which is perfectly fine and understandable), that is nevertheless hardly the basis on which to recommend the policy for everyone.
there's a four inch thick book with small print at the Illinois State Library listing private donors and funding organizations, just in Illinois, with each listing offering millions.
The doesn't prove anything. Do you really think those private donors, if they were not able to deduct their donations, would give more than a fraction of what they do now? Seriously?
And if you think they would, what exactly makes you think that? Common sense says otherwise.
I never take a charity deduction
That's easy to say, you probably give $50 here and there, not $thousands. I imagine if you gave $1000 to charity you would like a deduction.
If you remove the tax incentive for charities, large donations from companies would simply dry up. Explain to me why a company would give to charity if it is an expense without any benefit to the company? If you think they would, you're not being realistic.
Sure, individuals would still give their $50 or $100 a year to charities they like, that's a drop in the ocean compared to what companies give currently. If you hamper that, many charities would simply fold.
It simplifies tax code
Hardly. You're talking about 1 provision out of hundreds, if not thousands.
allowing the government to rise more taxes
Many ways to do that without crippling charity donations, which would be the result. Companies would not give to charity *at all* if it was not a tax deduction, and they have many other ways of reducing tax. Charity donations is not the only thing that reduces company tax. They'll just do it another way.
thus better funding social security and foreign aid, thus lessening the need for charity.
Charities do a lot more than is covered by social security. Social security does not run the Make a Wish foundation, or give money to cancer research. Anyway, spending on social security is a matter of government ideology, not money. They could move money from defense to SS if they wanted to. They don't want to. Money is not the issue, the government is not broke.
Everyone wins
No, charities will lose and many will disappear. Companies simply will not give if there is no deduction. Sorry but you're living in a dream world.
Tax deductions are incentives. If it didn't exist, companies would give much less to charity, yes. So I don't see how removing the deduction is a good thing.
... and he gets a tax deduction!
So? You'd prefer companies did not get a deduction for giving to charity?
It's simply not a principle that is believed in any longer, and therefore is not remotely observed.
Good points all, but the real reason for this is not that those ideals are not believed in. It's unfortunately a matter of political survival that government has to listen to big corporations.
Listen to this talk by Jimmy Carter, at one point he says the same thing. Back then, he was able to run a campaign on a shoestring, hardly having to raise money at all.
Now, he says, candidates have to raise *hundreds of millions of dollars* to campaign. This has driven politics insane as corporate interests compete against the public interest - all because it's now become *necessary* to make deals to raise a heap of cash from corporations. This must stop. It will only get worse over time.
The one thing we should be concentrating on - and "Occupy" completely missed the boat on this - is political reform for the "separation of corporation and state". We can moan about corporate influence till the cows come home, but only concerted demand by people for reform will stop the inevitable slide into some kind of extreme socio-political dysfunction, if we're not there already.
Money must be taken out of our political system so it can return to concentrating on serving the interests of the people and the country as a whole. As it is now, politicians have no choice but to play the money game, ideals or no ideals.
It is up to us to demand not just our freedom, but the freedom of our politicians to think and make choices without being bound by corporate deals in order to survive. If things continue down this road, I don't see any result other than extreme social unrest.
So, how can we help fight them?
I admire their chops, but this is ultimately a waste of effort. The *only* thing which will stop this happening is *getting money out of politics*.
Listen to this talk by Jimmy Carter, at one point he says the same thing. Back then, he was able to run a campaign on a shoestring, hardly having to raise money at all.
Now, he says, candidates have to raise *hundreds of millions of dollars*. This has driven politics insane as corporate interests compete against the public interest.
The one thing we should be concentrating on - and "Occupy" completely missed the boat on this - is political reform for the "separation of corporation and state". We can battle with Big Media, Big Pharma, big whatever, but it will never end unless money is taken out of our political system so it can concentrate on serving the interests of the people.
Sure as hell corporations aren't interested in the public good over their profit margins, so why should they have so much influence on policy? It makes no sense.
The fear of radiation poisoning seems to me to be an infantile reaction similar to fear of the dark(nyctophobia).
Sorry but that's a meaningless comparison to make.
We spend hours in the dark every day all our lives without ill effect, no matter how psychologically unpleasant it is under some circumstances. We do know the dark itself can't hurt us.
However everyone knows that spending time exposed to radiation sources increases your likelihood of cancer. Standing in the sun all day does that. I doubt you could convincingly equate fear of sunburn with fear of the dark.
People are justifiably scared of reports of radiation for many reasons, not least because authorities as well as companies tend to downplay readings. We've already seen that happening in Japan, with many people now relying mostly on the external European measurements.
So, dismissing people's reactions like that is rather unwarranted and just taking the opposite extreme to the one you are decrying.
It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.
Equivalent in what way? I hope you're aware there are different types of radiation. Some can give you a healthy tan or heat your dinner, another kind will turn you into the Hulk.
The chart makes no distinction between types of radiation, and makes a terrible mistake of scale. Putting a block showing a 1-week dose beside a slightly larger block showing a 1-year dose.
That is not the way to represent comparative data. It's a ridiculously useless chart.
posts that mention candidate's name and if the associated words are positive or negative
All the other candidates have the wisdom of youth and the energy of age. Ron Paul, however, is the shit. Obama, too, has a certain pulchritude. I offer him my contrafribbilarities.
The main problem I see is that Kodak - a company that has, since film disappeared, been trying to make money from cameras - is up against companies that are hugely diversified, making money from all sorts of things other than cameras and so can compete more effectively.
There is a specialist camera market, but Kodak has failed to become a prime player there. Kodak used to be huge in movie production, but also failed to become a major player in digital film-making.
They've failed to be a significant maker of printers, faxes, or any other sorts of peripherals or gadgets. Companies like Canon, Panasonic, etc., who have fingers in a multitude of pies, can innovate and compete far more efficiently.
So Kodak ended up a one-trick pony struggling for relevance in a market that mostly doesn't give a frying pan about film quality anymore, just the number of pixels and gimmicks.
Even if it was about film quality, the other companies are still better placed to deliver specialised products. Kodak did not grow, so it got left behind.
Perhaps Kodak should have left the others to dine on the feature-hungry masses, and concentrated on high-end equipment for digital film production? I don't know, and it's very sad. But surely the writing was on the wall when cameras became low-cost, mass-market commodities that didn't need physical film anymore.
But we should never forget these companies on whose glorious ambitions and histories we have built... well, all this cheap, throw-away crap we have now.