You raise some interesting points... unfortunately, they're all simply rhetoric. You imply that someone who has a religious belief automatically abandons their faculty of reason--a ridiculous claim, especially considering the huge range of religions and beliefs; they're don't all say 'we must do what this holy book says without question', nor do they all say that people shouldn't think for themselves and question things. If religious people don't automatically lose reason, I think it's safe to say they don't lose their ability to negotiate, either; but putting that aside for the moment, let's look at your claim that they would need to use force if they can't rely on negotiation (and reason). You're assuming that every single religion in the world has nonnegotiable goals that requires them to kill and coerce when negotiation fails, and that just isn't the case. Some don't even seek new followers.
Now, you may not like religion--and that's fine--but failing to use reason when criticizing people for being unreasonable doesn't seem exactly productive.
No, "perception of security" is bad when the perception is more optimistic than the reality (for obvious reasons), but people feeling afraid and insecure when they actually aren't at much risk is bad, too. For example, consider the somewhat recent childhood immunization scare--a lot of parents thought that they weren't safe and didn't get their children vaccinated, putting their children's (and the community's) health at risk.
Even if something is secure (or safe), it won't be as effective as it can if people don't believe it can be trusted.
I think the key factor in this experiment is that you hold the tool as you would when you normally use it. For example, pick up a pencil by one end and poke the table with it--you just feel the pencil pressing against your hand. Hold it like you're actually going to do some writing, though, and it acts more like an extension of you. That's what my experience has been, at any rate.
"We are throwing a party in honor of your tremendous success. Place your keyboards on the ground, then lie on your stomach with your arms at your sides. A party associate will arrive shortly to collect you for your party. Make no further attempt to innovate. Assume the 'Party Escort Submission Position' or you will miss the party."
Build a partial dyson sphere around a somewhat nearby star, even just a vast network of satellites, and use them to turn the light of the star on and off to send an unmistakable binary message.
Sure, and then we'll piss off all our alien neighbors for having our holiday decorations up year-round.
The fact that some people who call themselves feminists have said something does not make it a feminist myth; describing it as such implies that it's a belief held by the majority of feminists. If you'd said that some feminists felt that way about rape, rather than wording it how you did, I would not have taken issue with your statement.
The feminist myth that rape is worst than death and can never be overcome
That's right! That's exactly why every feminist says you should carry a knife around, so if someone's about to rape you, you can slit your own throat instead! What? They don't say that? Oh... well, no point in letting facts get in the way of some entertaining feminist bashing, right?
The crime is putting people at unacceptable risk. By your argument, it should be perfectly legal to run around firing a gun in random directions until you happen to hit someone. Yes, "endangering other people" is a subjective term--that's why we have lawmakers who (in theory) create rules that exlpicitly state what the community considers acceptable.
There's no aspect of "thought crime" whatsoever involved. Putting people at risk is doing something wrong. That's one of the reasons there's a difference between robbery and armed robbery, or why you can be arrested for DUI even though you haven't crashed into anything or anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, reading Slashdot will kill you. I guarantee that if you read Slashdot, even once, sooner or later, you will die!
That's because your datability factor is the product of the ratings for all the careers you ever had, and, unfortunately, 0 * many = 0.
Yes. All martyrs must die.
You raise some interesting points... unfortunately, they're all simply rhetoric. You imply that someone who has a religious belief automatically abandons their faculty of reason--a ridiculous claim, especially considering the huge range of religions and beliefs; they're don't all say 'we must do what this holy book says without question', nor do they all say that people shouldn't think for themselves and question things. If religious people don't automatically lose reason, I think it's safe to say they don't lose their ability to negotiate, either; but putting that aside for the moment, let's look at your claim that they would need to use force if they can't rely on negotiation (and reason). You're assuming that every single religion in the world has nonnegotiable goals that requires them to kill and coerce when negotiation fails, and that just isn't the case. Some don't even seek new followers.
Now, you may not like religion--and that's fine--but failing to use reason when criticizing people for being unreasonable doesn't seem exactly productive.
It doesn't matter. We all know it'd be a kangaroo court.
No, "perception of security" is bad when the perception is more optimistic than the reality (for obvious reasons), but people feeling afraid and insecure when they actually aren't at much risk is bad, too. For example, consider the somewhat recent childhood immunization scare--a lot of parents thought that they weren't safe and didn't get their children vaccinated, putting their children's (and the community's) health at risk.
Even if something is secure (or safe), it won't be as effective as it can if people don't believe it can be trusted.
I think the key factor in this experiment is that you hold the tool as you would when you normally use it. For example, pick up a pencil by one end and poke the table with it--you just feel the pencil pressing against your hand. Hold it like you're actually going to do some writing, though, and it acts more like an extension of you. That's what my experience has been, at any rate.
No. And they don't miss them.
'16. This is the famous recursive recommendation. (See recommendation 16)'
"We are throwing a party in honor of your tremendous success. Place your keyboards on the ground, then lie on your stomach with your arms at your sides. A party associate will arrive shortly to collect you for your party. Make no further attempt to innovate. Assume the 'Party Escort Submission Position' or you will miss the party."
Maybe it's just me, but when I read the subject, my first thought was "Perpetual Suit? What an odd name."
I don't know... maybe it could work for a marketing exec. turned supervillain.
Build a partial dyson sphere around a somewhat nearby star, even just a vast network of satellites, and use them to turn the light of the star on and off to send an unmistakable binary message.
Sure, and then we'll piss off all our alien neighbors for having our holiday decorations up year-round.
start buying up property in the Uncanny Valley before the rush.
The fact that some people who call themselves feminists have said something does not make it a feminist myth; describing it as such implies that it's a belief held by the majority of feminists. If you'd said that some feminists felt that way about rape, rather than wording it how you did, I would not have taken issue with your statement.
The feminist myth that rape is worst than death and can never be overcome
That's right! That's exactly why every feminist says you should carry a knife around, so if someone's about to rape you, you can slit your own throat instead! What? They don't say that? Oh... well, no point in letting facts get in the way of some entertaining feminist bashing, right?
Or maybe they'll just attach a list of all the sites you visit to your traveller security profile.
The crime is putting people at unacceptable risk. By your argument, it should be perfectly legal to run around firing a gun in random directions until you happen to hit someone. Yes, "endangering other people" is a subjective term--that's why we have lawmakers who (in theory) create rules that exlpicitly state what the community considers acceptable.
Not allowed to kill the spammer? That's cruel and unusual punishment for the IT people.
There's no aspect of "thought crime" whatsoever involved. Putting people at risk is doing something wrong. That's one of the reasons there's a difference between robbery and armed robbery, or why you can be arrested for DUI even though you haven't crashed into anything or anyone.
Or by the burning warehouses.
Actually, your body is being manipulated by a unique strain of dung beetles...
So once he's dead, his recorded opinions will be like ashes in your ears?
I think it's the reverse of this that's needed...
Is there anything better than taking from the your fellow man?
Yes. Giving to him. Fear Cosmic Encounter's mighty Philanthropist!
Actually, they're 28 & 29 three years after changing the grades.
"The grades were changed several times between January and June of 2004, the indictment states."