Which morality allows the corporate surveillance state of the United States? Unending war, no health care for its citizens, mass shootings, war on whistleblowers. Seems almost...godless.
That is the "other" region of morality. There is family, tribe, and other. Demagogues have through time exploited the other zone by exploiting the tribal morality to dehumanize and attack the others.
"Animals" as we think of most non-human creatures on this planet are simply not capable of that kind of thought.
I disagree pretty strongly. The more we learn about animals, the more we find that many are quite capable of reasoning, as well as knowing when to be gentle and when not to.
They often have a different outlook on sexual activity - I had to chuckle at your trouser bowser dog rapist example. But there is an obvious difference - most people I know would laugh at a dog trying to hump their leg, but have quite a different reaction to another person doing non-consensual sexual activity to them.
Even so, the morality of sexual activities is one of the more malleable ones in humans. In societies where there has been a gender imbalance one way or the other, multiple wives/husbands have been considered acceptable. Today, when creating more humans is not always the wisest choice, same sex relationships do not have a negative effect, and are not viewed as a evil by many.
Animals do not, generally, behave as amoral rapists, murderers and child molesters. Ergo animals either have religion or they can figure out how to behave in a way that keeps their groups functional.
Over large time scales, the amoral element tends to weed itself out. It can get a little complicated, as we seem to have three different versions of morality - the family, the tribe, and the other. Of which if a family had the "other" outlook within itself it would self destruct pretty quickly.
What is interesting is that technological progress has given us the ability to destroy the "other" totally, and vice versa. We are having fits and starts adapting to this new reality. Our other concept has people wanting to light the world on fire, out intellect is so far coping while our inherent nature catches up. Its mighty ugly at times, but we're still here.
One thing is for certain - another World War - total no holds barred war, ala WW2, will be our last.
Right there - you just said it. "Inherently wrong". Inherent morality cannot exist in mankind unless we were created with it. By a creator. If you want to talk about your own atheistic morality, fine, but that's something you came up with, or was perhaps taught to you. It is not inherent.
That is perhaps the silliest argument ever. It supposes that some gawd created us with a moral sense, but we don't have that moral sense unless we worship that gawd or he'll send us to hell unless we worship him but if we don't follow the inherent moral sense he created us with and on and on and on.
Atheism is the *belief* that there's no God (or gods). So, it's a belief nevertheless.
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
To illustrate that, imagine growing up on an isolated island. You have no particular deity that you worship. In fact, a deity never ever crossed your mind. If it never crossed your mind, you ar esaying that the person believed in not believing something they never even thought of.
The closest atheists ever come to disbelief in a deity is when they were once among the religious, but decided for one reason or another that there was no deity. But the trouble the faithful have is that it's a belief in a negative. But that is the same rationale as believing that abstinence is a sexual position.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Penn Jillette
I dunno... I can't say I've heard people pontificate about their non-stamp-collecting, nor drone on about the evils of stamp collecting or how not collecting stamps is the only intelligent option.
I have, however, run into atheists who are every bit as zealous and annoying as the people they love to publicly hate.
And? What does that mean? You saying tha tbecause a person is obnoxious, they are wrong? Can't be, because you said both athiests and religious can be annoying. There is a whole spectrum of people from sweetie pies to obnoxious assholes, and both religion and atheism have them.
I suspect what has happened is that some of the religious are upset because once upon a time, an atheist was taking their careers, and sometimes well being by the mere admission of being an atheist, and there is still a taboo against atheists in politics.
Could be that some of them are just letting off some steam.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong.
Being sure of something isn't a religion. Being obnoxious isn't a religion.
I'm completely certain that Ohm's law is a fact, I'll argue with great prejudice against anyone who declares it isn't.
But I don't pray to it, and don't think I'm going to get a reward for believing in in it after I die. Ohm's law is not my religion. My views on the supernatural are not a religion.
Most people who declare atheism a religion are merely expressing their inability to understand that it is possible to not have a religion.
Perhaps you have never lived in a Communist country, which were by law atheistic. The Gulags were filled with religious and priests.
Any country can have an official religion, or no religion. Neither have a monopoly on morality, or immorality.
Myself, I tend to think that morality is based on some pretty simple concepts, like the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
What I find disturbing is that many religious people believe that all morality comes from religion, ant we would be rapists, murders, and child molesters except for belief in their particular Gawd.
I do tend to bring that conversation to an embarrasing halt when I say " You just said that the only thing keeping you from being a rapist, murderer and child molester is fear of your gawd punishing you!"
Me? I don't do that kind of stuff because I know it is inherently wrong, not because if I do it, I'll get a toasty reception when I shift this coil.
"Doo...facebook users are so stupid, like AOL users were...gu-hoo gu-hoo gu-hoo! Wake up, sheeple!". You're quite the rebel prophet, aren't you?
That's an amazing quote you made up for me. I now understand why you don't understand when people make direct replies to your fallacious statements - you are one of those people who have imaginary arguments with people in your head. And when you can make up shit for them to say, you can win them all.
And to eliminate all the other stuff you've posted, and to your earlier comments, There is no such thing as a free lunch. Never has been, never will be. If a person wants to store their images on Facebook, they do pay for it in one way or another. You say otherwise.
I say I do my backups on machines that I control, and like it that way. And there are some very good reasons for that. Not free, but worth the price.
You can have the last post, dear chachalaca, and declare yourself the winner. You can even make up some new quotes - or as some of us say - lies - for me to say. Declare yourself the winner, and collect one internet. I don't have discussions with people who make up things I was supposed to say, then draw a conclusion about me from what they made up.
I was going to disagree with you about capitalism, but the wiki on free-market capitalism says that it includes some intervention where necessary to keep the market set by supply/demand (e.g. no monopolies). So it kind of depends on which definition of capitalism you go with.
I actually like Capitalism. But it seriously has to be protected from itself, as do most idealistic concepts. Because it kills itself very quickly. A system based on greed - or better put, the concept of doing well for yourself will almost always shake out to the greediest, after they get ahead of others, wanting to alter the game so they make more, or in pathological cases, all of the money.
As for the definition of capitalism, it has been corrupted, and altogether too many politicians have bought into it. The old "class warfare" pejoratives that used to be trotted out any time someone complained about excesses were the highlight of the one sided supply side argument.
Somewhere along the line, we forgot that the best way to have producers become wealthy was to have people have the money to purchase their goods.
Maybe this is why there's been a push lately to not teach algebra in schools. THe idea that an equation has two sides is dangerous thought.
They're wrong. It's a free service because it costs no money. It's a simple as that. Even things which cost you money can result in you losing privacy; nearly always you'll lose more, in fact, because you end up paying via methods which reveal information about you, so that cost - if you want to look at it as a cost - is decreased too when it's free.
So, those hard drives I bought, are telling the world more about me than if I posted every pic on Facebook? Explain, because I gave them my credit card and get email from the place I bought them from. If I was stupid enough to use FB I'm giving out less info?
People can say stuff's not free because, for example, Facebook have your photos, or they can sell or use your browsing habits (in a very limited sense), it doesn't impinge on your freedom in any observable way.
I mean, people are free to claim that wifi gives you cancer or whatever but they're just that; baseless, stupid claims.
Go get a script blocker. Enable it 100 percent. Now start enabling scripts. A whole lot of them are facebook and they are tracking you even if you don't "belong". You'll have to look them up, because unlike Google, Facebook obfuscates where they are sending your info.
Despite your lofty claims of superiority, you kind sir, are doing a fine imitation of baseless stupidity. Or does Facebook have paid shills here now, because you ar either purposely dissembling, challenged, or paid to distribute the inaccurate info.
And other people repeat it just because they don't like facebook because they don't have friends or because it's not cool or whatever. Good for them, I saw. Go grow a stupid hipster beard or something.
You mad bro? Hey, some of us spout it becuse we did the research. And have determined that people like you are spreading BS. I've got friends outside of FB. I see them in person every day. As for "cool", The FaceBook crowd would be on AOL in another era. But they are tracking the bejabbers out of most of us. And in Corporate America, nothing is done without pecuniary purpose.
I don't know what they're using, but when my iToys back up to iTunes (which everyone seems to hate but works OK for me) the pics are backed up as well, in full rez). This is default behavior. And this is backup to local disc, not iCloud (or any other cloud)
Are they not backing up their phones at all? If so... then this may be a learning experience.
I plug me iphone income Mac, and yup- it gets loaded tight on onto the mac. Then I have two backups from there. I also just plug in the SD card from my Nikon, and it gets backed up automatically. FUll rez, and easily retrievable. I can't for the life of me understand how anything could be easier.
Now I want to be kind, but the tools that use Facebook are teh same sort of tools that used to use America On Line. Backups? That's sumpin you do in a car.
Geez, I wish I could use one of those magical systems like Linux or Mac OS that don't allow the user to deliberately run software they've deliberately downloaded from the internet, and have it modify user files on the system that they've deliberately given it permission to access.
What on earth are you blathering about? You been drinking the Friends of Microsoft Koolaid again? Can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or baked - in any event, you are wrong.
Watch me get marked as a troll for pointing out the truth.
If you do get marked as a troll it will be for this obvious trollish and idiotic end to your post.
DIdn't get marked as troll, but someone that calls me an idiot when calling me a troll, is.....well Bless you, thegarbz, have a fine weekend.
My point is that you should see my moderation email. I can send cited and well documented arguments to validate my assertions, and if they are not positive about Windows, I'm descended upon like a wildebeest by crocodiles with troll mods.
That is because when they write "M$" they come off as this guy and nobody is gonna take this guy seriously.
The neat part is, you can determine that they are lying without reading their post. Just skim it for the lying word, and you have the truth, from God's lips to your ears.
When you write it as 'M$' it tends to give the impression one of the big issues you have with them is they've made a lot of money, and that you make a point of expressing that whether or not it is necessary or relevant. It may be that you actually want to give that impression, in which case power to you.
Keeping in mind that it wasn't me that typed M$, I wonder, do you give more veracity to pretty people because you think a pretty person is smarter than an ugly person? Because if you automatically reject a person because of a typed dollar sign you are going to be easily manipulable.
I'll read the person's words, and decide the veracity of their statement, not this sort of find one word, and declare what was written was untrue.
You'll probably come across as juvenile, this may be right or wrong and again, this may be your intention.
When I use words like that, it's usually for shock value. It's all just noise on the internet.
Fact is, some people are going to switch off when they see you write "M$", or refer to their company by the stock symbol, as if that's a reasonable thing to do outside the context of actually investing in that stock.
I believe you - I believe that is a fact. I also believe that a person who does that is impressively shallow, and frankly, I'm not going to convince them of anything. Nor do I care. They have decided the truth based on one simple word. Sounds like your people could determine if something is truth or a lie just by performing a find on it, for M$, and not even read it. That sounds to me like exceptional intelligence, you agree? The way to get to the absolute truth.
When you ignore the symptoms until you are too sick to do anything, you don't do a bucket list. Because the health care system in the US is so bad, many people in the US wait until they are too sick to have any options. I know more than one person who was having deadly symptoms before the first time they sought care.
Most times, Pancreatic cancer does not have symptoms until it is too late. That is why I already wrote that if you have symptoms, and it is pancreatic cancer, your outlook is nil.
How many family members you have die from it? My Stepmom - in law first showed some diabetes like symptoms and went to the doctor in a couple days. She was a RN.
Pancreatic Cancer does not do it's work because of the US health care system or the expense of treatment. Unless caught pretty much by luck, you are out of luck. I suppose if you were really paranoid, you could go in for weekly blood tests, maybe monthly biopsies.
From Wikipedia:
"There are usually no symptoms in the disease's early stages, and symptoms that are specific enough to suggest pancreatic cancer typically do not develop until the disease has reached an advanced stage. By the time of diagnosis, pancreatic cancer has often spread to other parts of the body."
President Obama, like President Clinton, is a hard-core right wing conservative
Many of us who call ourselves "conservative" do not consider the term to imply mercantilism, corporatism, or a belief in the effectiveness of top-down economics.
It would be helpful in political discussions if the ideas weren't conflated.
It would help if people hadn't kidnapped the word conservative. I'm a Goldwater type conservative, which is much closer to the actual meaning, whereas today, it just means as long as you claim to be conservative, you can support a theocracy that demands rights over others rights, and socialism for your pet projects - and you hate chocolate people.
I dunno, Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show recently makes him look like a fun enough sort of guy, outside of politics. Probably would be more fun to be aroudn than your funless, hyper-serious ass.
And Dubya Bush is by all accounts a nice guy with a good sense of humor. I believe that.
The black and white world of castigation politics would have us believe both these guys torture puppies and eat newborn babies for breakfast.
One thing I ponder, though, is if libertarianism is a lot like communism in some ways -- the idealized version of it is great, but due to the stupid nature of people you can't ever really have the idealized version of it, all you actually get is the crap version of it.
Sokath, his eyes uncovered! It is good to see that I'm not one of the few that like the ideas of Libertarianism, but know it will fail almost instantly upon implementation.It relies upon 100 percent high intelligence and 100 percent ethhical and honest people.
But it isn't alone, capitalism assumes that as soon as someone achieves success, they won't try to turn every advantage to themselves. Any pure ism fails very quickly.
Except perhaps pragmatism, because it picks and chooses what actually works. Then again, pragmatism is actually anti-idealism in action.
Idealism drives us off the cliff, because that is the only way to go. Pragmatism takes the route that goes by the strip club, but arrives alive.
I've had zealots declare me a liar while cleaning "There is no BSOD any more!" with great conviction. It stil happens, even as documented on Microsoft pages.
Watch me get marked as a troll for pointing out the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Which morality allows the corporate surveillance state of the United States? Unending war, no health care for its citizens, mass shootings, war on whistleblowers. Seems almost...godless.
That is the "other" region of morality. There is family, tribe, and other. Demagogues have through time exploited the other zone by exploiting the tribal morality to dehumanize and attack the others.
"Animals" as we think of most non-human creatures on this planet are simply not capable of that kind of thought.
I disagree pretty strongly. The more we learn about animals, the more we find that many are quite capable of reasoning, as well as knowing when to be gentle and when not to.
They often have a different outlook on sexual activity - I had to chuckle at your trouser bowser dog rapist example. But there is an obvious difference - most people I know would laugh at a dog trying to hump their leg, but have quite a different reaction to another person doing non-consensual sexual activity to them.
Even so, the morality of sexual activities is one of the more malleable ones in humans. In societies where there has been a gender imbalance one way or the other, multiple wives/husbands have been considered acceptable. Today, when creating more humans is not always the wisest choice, same sex relationships do not have a negative effect, and are not viewed as a evil by many.
Animals do not, generally, behave as amoral rapists, murderers and child molesters. Ergo animals either have religion or they can figure out how to behave in a way that keeps their groups functional.
Over large time scales, the amoral element tends to weed itself out. It can get a little complicated, as we seem to have three different versions of morality - the family, the tribe, and the other. Of which if a family had the "other" outlook within itself it would self destruct pretty quickly.
What is interesting is that technological progress has given us the ability to destroy the "other" totally, and vice versa. We are having fits and starts adapting to this new reality. Our other concept has people wanting to light the world on fire, out intellect is so far coping while our inherent nature catches up. Its mighty ugly at times, but we're still here.
One thing is for certain - another World War - total no holds barred war, ala WW2, will be our last.
Right there - you just said it. "Inherently wrong". Inherent morality cannot exist in mankind unless we were created with it. By a creator. If you want to talk about your own atheistic morality, fine, but that's something you came up with, or was perhaps taught to you. It is not inherent.
That is perhaps the silliest argument ever. It supposes that some gawd created us with a moral sense, but we don't have that moral sense unless we worship that gawd or he'll send us to hell unless we worship him but if we don't follow the inherent moral sense he created us with and on and on and on.
Atheism is the *belief* that there's no God (or gods). So, it's a belief nevertheless.
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
To illustrate that, imagine growing up on an isolated island. You have no particular deity that you worship. In fact, a deity never ever crossed your mind. If it never crossed your mind, you ar esaying that the person believed in not believing something they never even thought of.
The closest atheists ever come to disbelief in a deity is when they were once among the religious, but decided for one reason or another that there was no deity. But the trouble the faithful have is that it's a belief in a negative. But that is the same rationale as believing that abstinence is a sexual position.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Penn Jillette
I dunno... I can't say I've heard people pontificate about their non-stamp-collecting, nor drone on about the evils of stamp collecting or how not collecting stamps is the only intelligent option.
I have, however, run into atheists who are every bit as zealous and annoying as the people they love to publicly hate.
And? What does that mean? You saying tha tbecause a person is obnoxious, they are wrong? Can't be, because you said both athiests and religious can be annoying. There is a whole spectrum of people from sweetie pies to obnoxious assholes, and both religion and atheism have them.
I suspect what has happened is that some of the religious are upset because once upon a time, an atheist was taking their careers, and sometimes well being by the mere admission of being an atheist, and there is still a taboo against atheists in politics.
Could be that some of them are just letting off some steam.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong.
Being sure of something isn't a religion. Being obnoxious isn't a religion.
I'm completely certain that Ohm's law is a fact, I'll argue with great prejudice against anyone who declares it isn't.
But I don't pray to it, and don't think I'm going to get a reward for believing in in it after I die. Ohm's law is not my religion. My views on the supernatural are not a religion.
Most people who declare atheism a religion are merely expressing their inability to understand that it is possible to not have a religion.
Perhaps you have never lived in a Communist country, which were by law atheistic. The Gulags were filled with religious and priests.
Any country can have an official religion, or no religion. Neither have a monopoly on morality, or immorality.
Myself, I tend to think that morality is based on some pretty simple concepts, like the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
What I find disturbing is that many religious people believe that all morality comes from religion, ant we would be rapists, murders, and child molesters except for belief in their particular Gawd.
I do tend to bring that conversation to an embarrasing halt when I say " You just said that the only thing keeping you from being a rapist, murderer and child molester is fear of your gawd punishing you!"
Me? I don't do that kind of stuff because I know it is inherently wrong, not because if I do it, I'll get a toasty reception when I shift this coil.
"Doo...facebook users are so stupid, like AOL users were...gu-hoo gu-hoo gu-hoo! Wake up, sheeple!". You're quite the rebel prophet, aren't you?
That's an amazing quote you made up for me. I now understand why you don't understand when people make direct replies to your fallacious statements - you are one of those people who have imaginary arguments with people in your head. And when you can make up shit for them to say, you can win them all.
And to eliminate all the other stuff you've posted, and to your earlier comments, There is no such thing as a free lunch. Never has been, never will be. If a person wants to store their images on Facebook, they do pay for it in one way or another. You say otherwise.
I say I do my backups on machines that I control, and like it that way. And there are some very good reasons for that. Not free, but worth the price.
You can have the last post, dear chachalaca, and declare yourself the winner. You can even make up some new quotes - or as some of us say - lies - for me to say. Declare yourself the winner, and collect one internet. I don't have discussions with people who make up things I was supposed to say, then draw a conclusion about me from what they made up.
You... plug shit in still?
Such legacy thinking.
I can do it wirelessly - I choose to do it the better way.
and don't even have to think.
I believe that.
Decently put. I'm in the same boat.
I was going to disagree with you about capitalism, but the wiki on free-market capitalism says that it includes some intervention where necessary to keep the market set by supply/demand (e.g. no monopolies). So it kind of depends on which definition of capitalism you go with.
I actually like Capitalism. But it seriously has to be protected from itself, as do most idealistic concepts. Because it kills itself very quickly. A system based on greed - or better put, the concept of doing well for yourself will almost always shake out to the greediest, after they get ahead of others, wanting to alter the game so they make more, or in pathological cases, all of the money.
As for the definition of capitalism, it has been corrupted, and altogether too many politicians have bought into it. The old "class warfare" pejoratives that used to be trotted out any time someone complained about excesses were the highlight of the one sided supply side argument.
Somewhere along the line, we forgot that the best way to have producers become wealthy was to have people have the money to purchase their goods.
Maybe this is why there's been a push lately to not teach algebra in schools. THe idea that an equation has two sides is dangerous thought.
They're wrong. It's a free service because it costs no money. It's a simple as that. Even things which cost you money can result in you losing privacy; nearly always you'll lose more, in fact, because you end up paying via methods which reveal information about you, so that cost - if you want to look at it as a cost - is decreased too when it's free.
So, those hard drives I bought, are telling the world more about me than if I posted every pic on Facebook? Explain, because I gave them my credit card and get email from the place I bought them from. If I was stupid enough to use FB I'm giving out less info?
People can say stuff's not free because, for example, Facebook have your photos, or they can sell or use your browsing habits (in a very limited sense), it doesn't impinge on your freedom in any observable way.
These idiots seem to have a little less freedom after sharing on Facebook: http://mashable.com/2012/12/12...
I mean, people are free to claim that wifi gives you cancer or whatever but they're just that; baseless, stupid claims.
Go get a script blocker. Enable it 100 percent. Now start enabling scripts. A whole lot of them are facebook and they are tracking you even if you don't "belong". You'll have to look them up, because unlike Google, Facebook obfuscates where they are sending your info.
Despite your lofty claims of superiority, you kind sir, are doing a fine imitation of baseless stupidity. Or does Facebook have paid shills here now, because you ar either purposely dissembling, challenged, or paid to distribute the inaccurate info.
And other people repeat it just because they don't like facebook because they don't have friends or because it's not cool or whatever. Good for them, I saw. Go grow a stupid hipster beard or something.
You mad bro? Hey, some of us spout it becuse we did the research. And have determined that people like you are spreading BS. I've got friends outside of FB. I see them in person every day. As for "cool", The FaceBook crowd would be on AOL in another era. But they are tracking the bejabbers out of most of us. And in Corporate America, nothing is done without pecuniary purpose.
How quaint! So 20th Century. Imagine, they used to always do photos on paper, or all things....
And those photos might be around long after the cloud backup - if any - goes belly up.
I don't know what they're using, but when my iToys back up to iTunes (which everyone seems to hate but works OK for me) the pics are backed up as well, in full rez). This is default behavior. And this is backup to local disc, not iCloud (or any other cloud)
Are they not backing up their phones at all? If so... then this may be a learning experience.
I plug me iphone income Mac, and yup- it gets loaded tight on onto the mac. Then I have two backups from there. I also just plug in the SD card from my Nikon, and it gets backed up automatically. FUll rez, and easily retrievable. I can't for the life of me understand how anything could be easier.
Now I want to be kind, but the tools that use Facebook are teh same sort of tools that used to use America On Line. Backups? That's sumpin you do in a car.
Geez, I wish I could use one of those magical systems like Linux or Mac OS that don't allow the user to deliberately run software they've deliberately downloaded from the internet, and have it modify user files on the system that they've deliberately given it permission to access.
What on earth are you blathering about? You been drinking the Friends of Microsoft Koolaid again? Can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or baked - in any event, you are wrong.
Watch me get marked as a troll for pointing out the truth.
If you do get marked as a troll it will be for this obvious trollish and idiotic end to your post.
DIdn't get marked as troll, but someone that calls me an idiot when calling me a troll, is.....well Bless you, thegarbz, have a fine weekend.
My point is that you should see my moderation email. I can send cited and well documented arguments to validate my assertions, and if they are not positive about Windows, I'm descended upon like a wildebeest by crocodiles with troll mods.
Of course it's still there.
I have had many people telling me that I was lying, that the BSOD did not happen any more - from Vista on. Even in here, IIRC
That is because when they write "M$" they come off as this guy and nobody is gonna take this guy seriously.
The neat part is, you can determine that they are lying without reading their post. Just skim it for the lying word, and you have the truth, from God's lips to your ears.
When you write it as 'M$' it tends to give the impression one of the big issues you have with them is they've made a lot of money, and that you make a point of expressing that whether or not it is necessary or relevant. It may be that you actually want to give that impression, in which case power to you.
Keeping in mind that it wasn't me that typed M$, I wonder, do you give more veracity to pretty people because you think a pretty person is smarter than an ugly person? Because if you automatically reject a person because of a typed dollar sign you are going to be easily manipulable.
I'll read the person's words, and decide the veracity of their statement, not this sort of find one word, and declare what was written was untrue.
You'll probably come across as juvenile, this may be right or wrong and again, this may be your intention.
When I use words like that, it's usually for shock value. It's all just noise on the internet.
Fact is, some people are going to switch off when they see you write "M$", or refer to their company by the stock symbol, as if that's a reasonable thing to do outside the context of actually investing in that stock.
I believe you - I believe that is a fact. I also believe that a person who does that is impressively shallow, and frankly, I'm not going to convince them of anything. Nor do I care. They have decided the truth based on one simple word. Sounds like your people could determine if something is truth or a lie just by performing a find on it, for M$, and not even read it. That sounds to me like exceptional intelligence, you agree? The way to get to the absolute truth.
When you ignore the symptoms until you are too sick to do anything, you don't do a bucket list. Because the health care system in the US is so bad, many people in the US wait until they are too sick to have any options. I know more than one person who was having deadly symptoms before the first time they sought care.
Most times, Pancreatic cancer does not have symptoms until it is too late. That is why I already wrote that if you have symptoms, and it is pancreatic cancer, your outlook is nil.
How many family members you have die from it? My Stepmom - in law first showed some diabetes like symptoms and went to the doctor in a couple days. She was a RN.
Pancreatic Cancer does not do it's work because of the US health care system or the expense of treatment. Unless caught pretty much by luck, you are out of luck. I suppose if you were really paranoid, you could go in for weekly blood tests, maybe monthly biopsies.
From Wikipedia:
"There are usually no symptoms in the disease's early stages, and symptoms that are specific enough to suggest pancreatic cancer typically do not develop until the disease has reached an advanced stage. By the time of diagnosis, pancreatic cancer has often spread to other parts of the body."
Here is the web page - better get over there and correct the misinformation they are spreading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Many of us who call ourselves "conservative" do not consider the term to imply mercantilism, corporatism, or a belief in the effectiveness of top-down economics.
It would be helpful in political discussions if the ideas weren't conflated.
It would help if people hadn't kidnapped the word conservative. I'm a Goldwater type conservative, which is much closer to the actual meaning, whereas today, it just means as long as you claim to be conservative, you can support a theocracy that demands rights over others rights, and socialism for your pet projects - and you hate chocolate people.
I dunno, Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show recently makes him look like a fun enough sort of guy, outside of politics. Probably would be more fun to be aroudn than your funless, hyper-serious ass.
And Dubya Bush is by all accounts a nice guy with a good sense of humor. I believe that.
The black and white world of castigation politics would have us believe both these guys torture puppies and eat newborn babies for breakfast.
One thing I ponder, though, is if libertarianism is a lot like communism in some ways -- the idealized version of it is great, but due to the stupid nature of people you can't ever really have the idealized version of it, all you actually get is the crap version of it.
Sokath, his eyes uncovered! It is good to see that I'm not one of the few that like the ideas of Libertarianism, but know it will fail almost instantly upon implementation.It relies upon 100 percent high intelligence and 100 percent ethhical and honest people.
But it isn't alone, capitalism assumes that as soon as someone achieves success, they won't try to turn every advantage to themselves. Any pure ism fails very quickly.
Except perhaps pragmatism, because it picks and chooses what actually works. Then again, pragmatism is actually anti-idealism in action.
Idealism drives us off the cliff, because that is the only way to go. Pragmatism takes the route that goes by the strip club, but arrives alive.
Expect them to resurrect the BSOD any day now...
It never went away - still an integral part of the Windows experience. http://answers.microsoft.com/e...
http://answers.microsoft.com/e...
http://www.computerworld.com/a...
W10, 8.1, and 7. BSOD - suposedly long gone.
I've had zealots declare me a liar while cleaning "There is no BSOD any more!" with great conviction. It stil happens, even as documented on Microsoft pages.
Watch me get marked as a troll for pointing out the truth.
And what are the good UI decisions Microsoft ever made? Remember the "Start" button debacle?
I'm nominating the ribbon.