We all do stupid things, but there's a reason we do those things. Another way to say it would be that something caused us to perform the stupid action. The real question is, given a unique and massively complex set of inputs, will we always get the same output? You may think you have free will because you were faced with a decision and you made a choice, but something on some fundamental level caused you to make that choice, and if whatever that fundamental thing is was just responding to inputs, then it's not really free will in the philosophical sense.
For a moment I read the article text as 'Cosmo Magazine', and assumed a 'shadow biosphere' was some sort of new eco-friendly eyeliner. God I need a vacation.
If someone gets 0% of the vote in Iowa they could still get 100% of the electoral votes. But that doesn't really matter, because under this system, whoever gets the majority of the popular vote wins.
I've followed this bill for some time (it's already in place in some states). The bill says that this method will only be "activated" once enough states sign on to have 270 electoral votes between them.
Once enough states sign up to make 270 EC votes, then the bill activates, and those states give all their votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.
Under this system, everyone's individual vote counts, and everyone's vote has equal weight. In my opinion that is the only way to have a fair voting system.
I agree. Labels only serve as tools of judgment for idiots. "Left" and "Right" don't even have definite meaning. They are just terms that different people apply different meanings to. People who self-identify with one of those labels probably have vastly different ideas of what they stand for than those who don't. Even within those groups there are varying beliefs.
I wish the media would stop using those terms and focus on people and people's ideas. Of course then the ignorant masses wouldn't know who to vote for, because they'd actually have to pay attention to what someone stands for rather than what political party they fall into.
Not being religious, I wouldn't give a damn;) However, I can see how religious people would think that was the worst thing that could ever happen, so your point is well made.
I don't think it makes much sense to say that Muslims hate the western world. I'm sure some do, I'm sure some don't, and I'm sure many feel somewhere in between. Maybe them complaining about how we haven't embraced Islam is the same as people here complaining about how they haven't embraced democracy. There may be cultural norms fueled by the kinds of colonialism and exploitation you talk about, but I don't think the majority of people have some overarching hate. The only Islam-majority country I've ever been to is Morocco, so maybe I'm naive/wrong/whatever, but it just doesn't seem realistic to say an entire group of people hates another, for any reason.
Yes I have read that also. It seems like an interesting scenario, because on the one hand those populations are causing the earth's to grow like crazy, but on the other each one of them probably uses a tenth of the energy that someone from an industrialized country does. So should we work towards their development to stem population growth, or focus more on reducing our energy needs? Perhaps support sustainable development in developing countries and work to switch over to sustainable development in ours?
true. no matter what we do, no matter how far our technology goes (unless it allows us to expand into space), if our population keeps growing we are all doomed. eventually we'll need to stabilize our population, and preferably shrink it.
what i'd personally like to see is a culture that cuts out most of the excess crap we waste our time and resources producing, and have a much smaller population with everyone working to produce what we need plus a few luxuries, with a massive focus on advancing technology. Imagine cheap real estate everywhere in the world? plenty of space for everyone?
That's true, the state really shouldn't have to worry about those whiny minorities. Maybe blacks *prefer* to go to the same schools as whites, but as long as they get to go to school they shouldn't have to be catered to by the state.
I hate the whole situation. Our government should definitely not be allowed to give different rights to gay people. If two gay guys want to be together, the government should not be able to do a damn thing to stop it, and they should have the same rights. At the same time, the government should not be able to tell a church what to do. The problem is the word marriage. It means different things to different people, but religious people see it as, well, religious, and gay people see it as a term that means they are only equal when they can get it.
I say keep the government out of the business of deciding who can get married, and instead say any two people can have a union. If a church wants to marry any two given people, good for them, let them perform their magic voodoo and make it cool with god. If it wants to deny two people, so be it. What should really matter legally is the union.
This way there would be no argument over the government redefining anything, and everyone's rights could be guaranteed. It would also make it easier to spot who is truly prejudiced against gay people and who just wants "married" to always mean a religious joining between a man and a woman. If you were against granting a union to two gay people, then there is no other explanation other than prejudice.
I wouldn't necessarily say you're a hypocrite for caring about the environment and not going to extremes for conservation. However, I definitely think that people who claim to care but don't take the time to learn and at least implement common sense ideas are hypocritical.
In America I think a large part of the problem is that we think we need more than we actually do... for example driving massive cars just to shop and commute to work, chugging bottle after bottled of water, buying things without considering the packaging involed (for groceries I find this one is especially true). Some people are arrogant about it and simply don't care, but I think the majority of people would be able to change their habits. Apathy, laziness and ignorance are the biggest obstacles, but I think they can slowly be overcome.
I've always thought even 8 hours is too much, for coding work anyway. I'd love to set up an experimental office that runs like so:
Show up at 10:00. 30 minute meeting for everyone to quickly discuss what they're doing/what needs doing.
Work like crazy for 2.5 hours. Take a group lunch break/meeting for 30 minutes, to quickly discuss progress/concerns.
Work like crazy for 1.5 hours. Have a 30 minute meeting to go over what was done/what needs to be done tomorrow. Work is done for the day (4:00pm).
I really feel like that could be super productive. Meetings would motivate and keep people on track, and knowing that your day will soon be over would further motivate you to keep working. I also feel like workspaces without walls would help discourage web-surfing, maybe also have people work side-by-side to be able to answer each other's questions.
These are just ideas of course, and may fail miserably in the real world, but even so I'd love to try it and tweak it until some variation at least could work. What does everyone else think?
It seems to me there are two types of people... those who value money more than time, and those who value time more than money. I personally value time a lot more than money. I'd much, much rather work less and make less. I have absolutely no desire to own a luxury car or a huge house. The only problem is real estate is pretty expensive where I live (new england), so even a small house requires a lot of money:(
I remember my English professors talking about using creative quoting to make a source sound more favorable to your argument. It seems that you've had similar advice.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of assumed that was the exact point they were trying to make. Or maybe I see satire in everything.
Yes sir, President Lincoln. You know what you did.
We all do stupid things, but there's a reason we do those things. Another way to say it would be that something caused us to perform the stupid action. The real question is, given a unique and massively complex set of inputs, will we always get the same output? You may think you have free will because you were faced with a decision and you made a choice, but something on some fundamental level caused you to make that choice, and if whatever that fundamental thing is was just responding to inputs, then it's not really free will in the philosophical sense.
For a moment I read the article text as 'Cosmo Magazine', and assumed a 'shadow biosphere' was some sort of new eco-friendly eyeliner. God I need a vacation.
If someone gets 0% of the vote in Iowa they could still get 100% of the electoral votes. But that doesn't really matter, because under this system, whoever gets the majority of the popular vote wins.
I've followed this bill for some time (it's already in place in some states). The bill says that this method will only be "activated" once enough states sign on to have 270 electoral votes between them.
Once enough states sign up to make 270 EC votes, then the bill activates, and those states give all their votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.
Under this system, everyone's individual vote counts, and everyone's vote has equal weight. In my opinion that is the only way to have a fair voting system.
Hold greedy assholes responsible for their actions??? Ha, this is America!
I agree. Labels only serve as tools of judgment for idiots. "Left" and "Right" don't even have definite meaning. They are just terms that different people apply different meanings to. People who self-identify with one of those labels probably have vastly different ideas of what they stand for than those who don't. Even within those groups there are varying beliefs.
I wish the media would stop using those terms and focus on people and people's ideas. Of course then the ignorant masses wouldn't know who to vote for, because they'd actually have to pay attention to what someone stands for rather than what political party they fall into.
I'm sure that in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!
Go into her closet and throw out her most impractical pair of shoes. Payback's a bitch, bitch.
Not being religious, I wouldn't give a damn ;) However, I can see how religious people would think that was the worst thing that could ever happen, so your point is well made.
I don't think it makes much sense to say that Muslims hate the western world. I'm sure some do, I'm sure some don't, and I'm sure many feel somewhere in between. Maybe them complaining about how we haven't embraced Islam is the same as people here complaining about how they haven't embraced democracy. There may be cultural norms fueled by the kinds of colonialism and exploitation you talk about, but I don't think the majority of people have some overarching hate. The only Islam-majority country I've ever been to is Morocco, so maybe I'm naive/wrong/whatever, but it just doesn't seem realistic to say an entire group of people hates another, for any reason.
Like when a computer is being retarded, because it's being slowed down?
Being moderate and open-minded is the only way to go! It's hard at first, but gets easier.
Yes I have read that also. It seems like an interesting scenario, because on the one hand those populations are causing the earth's to grow like crazy, but on the other each one of them probably uses a tenth of the energy that someone from an industrialized country does. So should we work towards their development to stem population growth, or focus more on reducing our energy needs? Perhaps support sustainable development in developing countries and work to switch over to sustainable development in ours?
true. no matter what we do, no matter how far our technology goes (unless it allows us to expand into space), if our population keeps growing we are all doomed. eventually we'll need to stabilize our population, and preferably shrink it.
what i'd personally like to see is a culture that cuts out most of the excess crap we waste our time and resources producing, and have a much smaller population with everyone working to produce what we need plus a few luxuries, with a massive focus on advancing technology. Imagine cheap real estate everywhere in the world? plenty of space for everyone?
stop having babies!
That's true, the state really shouldn't have to worry about those whiny minorities. Maybe blacks *prefer* to go to the same schools as whites, but as long as they get to go to school they shouldn't have to be catered to by the state.
I hate the whole situation. Our government should definitely not be allowed to give different rights to gay people. If two gay guys want to be together, the government should not be able to do a damn thing to stop it, and they should have the same rights. At the same time, the government should not be able to tell a church what to do. The problem is the word marriage. It means different things to different people, but religious people see it as, well, religious, and gay people see it as a term that means they are only equal when they can get it.
I say keep the government out of the business of deciding who can get married, and instead say any two people can have a union. If a church wants to marry any two given people, good for them, let them perform their magic voodoo and make it cool with god. If it wants to deny two people, so be it. What should really matter legally is the union.
This way there would be no argument over the government redefining anything, and everyone's rights could be guaranteed. It would also make it easier to spot who is truly prejudiced against gay people and who just wants "married" to always mean a religious joining between a man and a woman. If you were against granting a union to two gay people, then there is no other explanation other than prejudice.
I wouldn't necessarily say you're a hypocrite for caring about the environment and not going to extremes for conservation. However, I definitely think that people who claim to care but don't take the time to learn and at least implement common sense ideas are hypocritical.
In America I think a large part of the problem is that we think we need more than we actually do... for example driving massive cars just to shop and commute to work, chugging bottle after bottled of water, buying things without considering the packaging involed (for groceries I find this one is especially true). Some people are arrogant about it and simply don't care, but I think the majority of people would be able to change their habits. Apathy, laziness and ignorance are the biggest obstacles, but I think they can slowly be overcome.
I've always thought even 8 hours is too much, for coding work anyway. I'd love to set up an experimental office that runs like so:
Show up at 10:00. 30 minute meeting for everyone to quickly discuss what they're doing/what needs doing.
Work like crazy for 2.5 hours. Take a group lunch break/meeting for 30 minutes, to quickly discuss progress/concerns.
Work like crazy for 1.5 hours. Have a 30 minute meeting to go over what was done/what needs to be done tomorrow. Work is done for the day (4:00pm).
I really feel like that could be super productive. Meetings would motivate and keep people on track, and knowing that your day will soon be over would further motivate you to keep working. I also feel like workspaces without walls would help discourage web-surfing, maybe also have people work side-by-side to be able to answer each other's questions.
These are just ideas of course, and may fail miserably in the real world, but even so I'd love to try it and tweak it until some variation at least could work. What does everyone else think?
It seems to me there are two types of people... those who value money more than time, and those who value time more than money. I personally value time a lot more than money. I'd much, much rather work less and make less. I have absolutely no desire to own a luxury car or a huge house. The only problem is real estate is pretty expensive where I live (new england), so even a small house requires a lot of money :(
I remember my English professors talking about using creative quoting to make a source sound more favorable to your argument. It seems that you've had similar advice.
mod parent up!
Never eaten McDonalds or drank Coke?
Whopper Virgins!!!!!!1
BURN IT!! By the holiest of books and enchanted water send it back to the hell from whence it came!
On the plus side, insurance should be about 10^-9 cheaper!