For a very long time (right up until the late 20th century) Christianity was mostly associated with milder form of socialism. Trotskyism and the Quakers took it to a whole new level but the basic concept was prevalent through much of it. It's quite interesting to see capitalism being defended as the Christian way today by people whose grandfathers almost certainly made exactly the same arguments about socialism.
I'm not so sure Fawkes should not be categorized under "freedom fighter" - since the two do the same things and the difference is generally "was it justifiable" ? In the same way that Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist but later years practically canonized as a successful and beloved freedom fighter who chose peace over vengeance. Fawkes wasn't exactly aiming at wiping out protestants, he merely wanted the right to be a catholic. He was fighting for his own right to religious liberty, not to wipe out the religious liberty of others. At least, we have zero evidence that he had any problem with people being protestants, everything we know about him suggests it was only the persecution of his own religion he reacted to - and his choice of target supports that view, he didn't attack an anglican church, he tried to attack parliament.
The victor writes the history and and Fawkes' lost. But it is always wise to be skeptical of the victor's account.
>I have, however, run into atheists who are every bit as zealous and annoying as the people they love to publicly hate.
If the wish to convince others you are right (whether your reason for thinking you are right is rational evidence-based inquiry or irrational belief doesn't matter) was the definition of religion then every political party, every university faculty and ever culture that ever existed were all religions.
Hey, she finally got something right. The 2nd Ammendment was the most atrocious disaster the US ever passed into law and has caused more death, violence and damage to liberty than slavery and Jim Crow combined. Both those took constitutional changes to get rid off, it's time to get rid of this one too. It's time for a national referendum on the second amendment - specifically to abolish it. Sane gun laws don't require the licensing authority to prove you CAN'T have a gun, it requires YOU to prove you need one for a legitimate purpose AND prove you will be responsible AND prove you are of good character to get one.
And yes, the alternative isn't an option - it's sheer fucking insanity. Just look at the facts. The only country with the US style system has more mass shootings than any other country on earth - in fact, it single-handedly has more than twice as many in the last 30 years as the next 25 countries COMBINED, the rate of mass shootings are going up and the death-rate during them is steadily rising. Every other form of homocide is declining. Nearly all mass shootings worldwide are committed with legal fire-arms and the evidence is strongly suggestive that - since mass shootings are almost never done by career criminals - had they not been able to legally buy a gun from a gunshop (as this one did -just last week) they would never have committed the shootings because they simply did not have the resources and contacts to get one illegally.
We have an after-the-fact claim that he was an "agent" - which experts are saying does not appear to have been written by ISIS as it does not use their usual vocabulary and even that doesn't claim to have directed his actions. In fact, it reads more like an endorsement of an independent actor whose actions they nevertheless approved off.
Hey, a guy spent months making youtube videos about how much he hated women and how he was going to kill them. When he went on a killing spree - I heard a million MRAs declare that he couldn't possibly have been a misogynist. Another guy made several youtube videos, wrote a long "manifesto" about the evil of black people, walked into a South Carolina church and actually told people he was killing them for being black when he started shooting... and we had to listen to just about every elected republican telling us they have absolutely no idea what could possibly have been his motive.
Now we have a guy who, according to everybody who knew him, was not very religious (but has expressed outraged homophobia before) he shot up a gay nightclub. He declared he was an ISIS agent but there is no record of him every having been in contact with the organisation (and he was investigated by the FBI in the past), no evidence of him being religious (and evidence against that). Just his word, once - and you are upset that responsible people are not jumping to the conclusion that a mass murderer might lie ? The most likely scenario right now is that he really, really wanted to kill gay people and the existence of ISIS was his excuse. Had there been no ISIS he would have found a different one. Most gay people ever killed were, after all, killed by Christians. Christian fundamentalists have a long history of gay nightclub slaughters in the USA. Now, one time, we have one by an apparently not-very-religious Muslim.
So why are you jumping on the Muslim angle ? Considering the actual facts, it seems rather prejudiced...
My todler was playing child focussed video games on my old asus transformer before she was one year old. Its hardly an apple exclusive achievement that touchscreens are operable in the manner that toddlers naturally behave: see and grab.
The term was coined during the French revolution specifically as a name for people who opposed the revolution and wanted to reinstate the monarchy. There is a contemporary movement known as the neo-reactionaries who outspokenly want to dismantle all democracies and instate monarchisms instead. Guess what it is a part of ? If you hadn't guessed the American libertarian movement you would be wrong. A growing number of libertarians are concluding that their bizarre ideas about politics can never be achieved in a democracy and thus wanting a monarchy out of some strange believe that this would make people more free. But I suppose if you define freedom the way libertarians do (the right for some people to turn themselves into aristocrats and excercise all the abuses associated with that state) then it's a perfectly logical next step. The current CEO of paypal is a notable member of the movement.
So no, the phrase in common English would mean what you think it means - but in political philosophy it refers to a very specific movement reacting to a very specific thing. The people whose reaction to democracy was wanting monarchy back. Like I said - term of art.
And your evidence for this is... what exactly ? I mean, I think you were trying to use a slippery-slope fallacy but if so you didn't even do that very well since you failed to show any slope.
Sometimes. And I find that debates are much more enjoyable when everybody is naked. Some people you can admire while they talk, others you can laugh at. Just imagine how much more informative the republican primary debates would have been had the participants been naked ? Instead of arguing about who has the biggest hands as a proxy for penis size, we could have just seen who has the biggest dick. Instead people got it backwards and voted for the guy who WAS the biggest dick.
>How you can possibly conclude that working fewer hours at lower productivity will somehow produce more of something eludes more
Easy. People who are well-rested produce more while working than people who are not. Actually guaranteeing a reasonable annual leave is thus good for the economy, it also stimulates other parts of the economy - tourism industries for example benefit from people having time to use them. Not to mention that, of course, the economy is hardly the most important thing about a society - giving people holidays benefits other aspects of society significantly as well. It's one reason why actual typical quality of life is significantly higher in both Norway and the UK than in the US. Quality of life is far more important than the economy - indeed the only reason to have an economy at all is for the potential benefits to quality of life so anytime the economy starts reducing people's quality of life you are ipso facto engaging in bad policy.
Nobody needs to build a new internet. The internet is already not under government control.
Building an alternative set of root DNS servers - literally the last little vestige of any government control - that would be ridiculously simple. Quite a few countries ran their TLD rootson old 486 machines for years and the burden on the technology has not increased at all. It's simply not a hard thing to do. If the US doesn't give up control over it, an international consortium will start an alternate, the rest of the world will use it, and the US will be the one left behind - and very soon, most US people will use the other one and the one the government controls will be an aging relic of no more relevance.
And - I got news for you - today the government has announced they've already selected the private entities that will be taking over this function. They understand the futility of attempting to maintain control over it even if you and Ted Cruz do not.
Logind is just one in a long list. What is systemd up to now ? 40 programs ?
I am concerned about this direction. And what you showed in that message has only increased my concern. Putting configs in/lib ? A program that you run to configure itself ? Commands should be configurable without even existing and configs should survive their removal. Cleartext is a fudamental part of that critical independence I described. Please read the first few chapters of the art of unix programming. Just the introductions will do. Then evaluate systemd again...
We didnt take that step for 90-thousand years. And we didnt take it at all in China where bamboo was available. Why do you assume any other species would have done something we skipped when it was possible to skip it ?
There are roughly a billion things you can pen an animal with starting from heaps of sand. And of course we farmed crops before we ever penned animals and we would have had no archeological evidence of this fact if we didnt draw pictures and eventually build grainstores ?
I measure an init system by more than the scripts it uses. The unit files are not actually bad (if frequently a pain in the arse to locate or edit). The existence of logind was where things began to horribly wrong. If systemd had been an init system a whole init system and absolutely nothing but an init system nobody would have cared. Those who disliked it could readily just swap it out as we could dozens of init systems before it. From the moment any component stops being readily replaceable with any other implementation it breaks the single most valuable feature of linux and indeed unix as a whole. The feature that has allowed unix to persist for almost 5 decades running on everything from mainframes to the phone I am writing this on. Undermining the flexibility which is exclusively achievable by having all tools being entirely independent of all other tools is signing the deathknell for Linux. Not today. Not tomorrow. But soon. The first time some market shift changes our fundamental requirements as they have done a thousand times in 50 years Linux will become the first unix in all these decades that does not instantly fill the next niche. The unixes that stayed unix will take whaylt would have been Linux's next crown because systemd destroys the sole feature that ever actually mattered.
Loser pays have serious downsides though - it can readily make it impossible to ever dare sue anybody richer than yourself even if you have a very strong case since they can afford beter lawyers, bury you in paperwork and even if you were genuinely the injured party you could end up just paying a fortune in fees if you fail to convince a jury.
Right now, even when you have a seriously legitimate case of massive injuries caused by faulty technology which the company KNEW was faulty and ignored (and this is proven) and you ONLY sue for medical expenses and the jury decides to punish the company by giving you millions (which you had not asked for) you can expect their marketing department to smear you so thoroughly that you will forever be known as the idiot who didn't know coffee was hot.
We really cannot dare to aggravate that.
Having said that. With some refinement it's a good idea. Like say private citizen versus government - if government loses, government pays. Private citizen versus publicly traded corporation - if the corp loses, they pay. Citizen versus citizen - each pay their own. Corp versus corp - each pay their own. Corp versus government - each pay their own. With all clauses having the possibility of being overriden by a judge if this is genuinely justified (for example he could mandate fees without a winner/loser even existing when throwing out a case for being silly and frivolous).
Thanks for this, it actually explains why the figures I knew are so different from those other commenters here have cited. Clearly the refer to two different budgets.
That said, I still think I would rather see the military budget cut to about 1/10th of it's size (which would still be twice as big as the next biggest military in the world) and the entire difference devoted to establishing things like free college, UBI and other social-upliftment programs that pay for themselves in savings eventually but need a big cash-dump to get off the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
For a very long time (right up until the late 20th century) Christianity was mostly associated with milder form of socialism. Trotskyism and the Quakers took it to a whole new level but the basic concept was prevalent through much of it. It's quite interesting to see capitalism being defended as the Christian way today by people whose grandfathers almost certainly made exactly the same arguments about socialism.
>Guy Fawkes is a notable
I'm not so sure Fawkes should not be categorized under "freedom fighter" - since the two do the same things and the difference is generally "was it justifiable" ? In the same way that Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist but later years practically canonized as a successful and beloved freedom fighter who chose peace over vengeance.
Fawkes wasn't exactly aiming at wiping out protestants, he merely wanted the right to be a catholic. He was fighting for his own right to religious liberty, not to wipe out the religious liberty of others. At least, we have zero evidence that he had any problem with people being protestants, everything we know about him suggests it was only the persecution of his own religion he reacted to - and his choice of target supports that view, he didn't attack an anglican church, he tried to attack parliament.
The victor writes the history and and Fawkes' lost. But it is always wise to be skeptical of the victor's account.
>I have, however, run into atheists who are every bit as zealous and annoying as the people they love to publicly hate.
If the wish to convince others you are right (whether your reason for thinking you are right is rational evidence-based inquiry or irrational belief doesn't matter) was the definition of religion then every political party, every university faculty and ever culture that ever existed were all religions.
Atheism is a religion in the same way abstinence in a sex position.
You don't need the "extremist" part either. Religion itself is a mental illness.
>Gosh, you're right. Cowering on the floor and hoping that the attacker will leave you alone is a much better plan. What was I thinking?
Well as it happens, that's exactly what all the survivors did. The people who survived all report duck-cover-and-hide as the winning strategy.
Found the sociopath.
Hey, she finally got something right. The 2nd Ammendment was the most atrocious disaster the US ever passed into law and has caused more death, violence and damage to liberty than slavery and Jim Crow combined. Both those took constitutional changes to get rid off, it's time to get rid of this one too. It's time for a national referendum on the second amendment - specifically to abolish it. Sane gun laws don't require the licensing authority to prove you CAN'T have a gun, it requires YOU to prove you need one for a legitimate purpose AND prove you will be responsible AND prove you are of good character to get one.
And yes, the alternative isn't an option - it's sheer fucking insanity. Just look at the facts. The only country with the US style system has more mass shootings than any other country on earth - in fact, it single-handedly has more than twice as many in the last 30 years as the next 25 countries COMBINED, the rate of mass shootings are going up and the death-rate during them is steadily rising.
Every other form of homocide is declining. Nearly all mass shootings worldwide are committed with legal fire-arms and the evidence is strongly suggestive that - since mass shootings are almost never done by career criminals - had they not been able to legally buy a gun from a gunshop (as this one did -just last week) they would never have committed the shootings because they simply did not have the resources and contacts to get one illegally.
We have an after-the-fact claim that he was an "agent" - which experts are saying does not appear to have been written by ISIS as it does not use their usual vocabulary and even that doesn't claim to have directed his actions. In fact, it reads more like an endorsement of an independent actor whose actions they nevertheless approved off.
Hey, a guy spent months making youtube videos about how much he hated women and how he was going to kill them. When he went on a killing spree - I heard a million MRAs declare that he couldn't possibly have been a misogynist.
Another guy made several youtube videos, wrote a long "manifesto" about the evil of black people, walked into a South Carolina church and actually told people he was killing them for being black when he started shooting... and we had to listen to just about every elected republican telling us they have absolutely no idea what could possibly have been his motive.
Now we have a guy who, according to everybody who knew him, was not very religious (but has expressed outraged homophobia before) he shot up a gay nightclub. He declared he was an ISIS agent but there is no record of him every having been in contact with the organisation (and he was investigated by the FBI in the past), no evidence of him being religious (and evidence against that). Just his word, once - and you are upset that responsible people are not jumping to the conclusion that a mass murderer might lie ?
The most likely scenario right now is that he really, really wanted to kill gay people and the existence of ISIS was his excuse. Had there been no ISIS he would have found a different one. Most gay people ever killed were, after all, killed by Christians. Christian fundamentalists have a long history of gay nightclub slaughters in the USA. Now, one time, we have one by an apparently not-very-religious Muslim.
So why are you jumping on the Muslim angle ? Considering the actual facts, it seems rather prejudiced...
My todler was playing child focussed video games on my old asus transformer before she was one year old. Its hardly an apple exclusive achievement that touchscreens are operable in the manner that toddlers naturally behave: see and grab.
Mostly because tin-foil hats are made of tin ? Tin prices are through the roof, you just can't see it because of the commodities recession.
Thousands of linux systems have the capacity to send coredumps to the developer automatically on a crash.
And every single one of them will ask the user's permission to do that every single time.
The term was coined during the French revolution specifically as a name for people who opposed the revolution and wanted to reinstate the monarchy. There is a contemporary movement known as the neo-reactionaries who outspokenly want to dismantle all democracies and instate monarchisms instead. Guess what it is a part of ? If you hadn't guessed the American libertarian movement you would be wrong. A growing number of libertarians are concluding that their bizarre ideas about politics can never be achieved in a democracy and thus wanting a monarchy out of some strange believe that this would make people more free. But I suppose if you define freedom the way libertarians do (the right for some people to turn themselves into aristocrats and excercise all the abuses associated with that state) then it's a perfectly logical next step. The current CEO of paypal is a notable member of the movement.
So no, the phrase in common English would mean what you think it means - but in political philosophy it refers to a very specific movement reacting to a very specific thing. The people whose reaction to democracy was wanting monarchy back. Like I said - term of art.
And your evidence for this is ... what exactly ?
I mean, I think you were trying to use a slippery-slope fallacy but if so you didn't even do that very well since you failed to show any slope.
>Are you a nudist?
Sometimes. And I find that debates are much more enjoyable when everybody is naked. Some people you can admire while they talk, others you can laugh at. Just imagine how much more informative the republican primary debates would have been had the participants been naked ? Instead of arguing about who has the biggest hands as a proxy for penis size, we could have just seen who has the biggest dick. Instead people got it backwards and voted for the guy who WAS the biggest dick.
> Libertarianism is fundamentally a reactionary ideology
This is very true, but not in the way you think. You see "reactionary ideology" is a term of art. It means: "monarchist".
>How you can possibly conclude that working fewer hours at lower productivity will somehow produce more of something eludes more
Easy. People who are well-rested produce more while working than people who are not. Actually guaranteeing a reasonable annual leave is thus good for the economy, it also stimulates other parts of the economy - tourism industries for example benefit from people having time to use them. Not to mention that, of course, the economy is hardly the most important thing about a society - giving people holidays benefits other aspects of society significantly as well. It's one reason why actual typical quality of life is significantly higher in both Norway and the UK than in the US. Quality of life is far more important than the economy - indeed the only reason to have an economy at all is for the potential benefits to quality of life so anytime the economy starts reducing people's quality of life you are ipso facto engaging in bad policy.
That's actually a perfectly viable theory, it doesn't change much regarding practical outcomes though.
Nobody needs to build a new internet. The internet is already not under government control.
Building an alternative set of root DNS servers - literally the last little vestige of any government control - that would be ridiculously simple. Quite a few countries ran their TLD rootson old 486 machines for years and the burden on the technology has not increased at all. It's simply not a hard thing to do. If the US doesn't give up control over it, an international consortium will start an alternate, the rest of the world will use it, and the US will be the one left behind - and very soon, most US people will use the other one and the one the government controls will be an aging relic of no more relevance.
And - I got news for you - today the government has announced they've already selected the private entities that will be taking over this function. They understand the futility of attempting to maintain control over it even if you and Ted Cruz do not.
Logind is just one in a long list. What is systemd up to now ? 40 programs ?
I am concerned about this direction. And what you showed in that message has only increased my concern. Putting configs in /lib ? A program that you run to configure itself ? Commands should be configurable without even existing and configs should survive their removal.
Cleartext is a fudamental part of that critical independence I described.
Please read the first few chapters of the art of unix programming. Just the introductions will do.
Then evaluate systemd again...
We didnt take that step for 90-thousand years. And we didnt take it at all in China where bamboo was available.
Why do you assume any other species would have done something we skipped when it was possible to skip it ?
There are roughly a billion things you can pen an animal with starting from heaps of sand. And of course we farmed crops before we ever penned animals and we would have had no archeological evidence of this fact if we didnt draw pictures and eventually build grainstores ?
I measure an init system by more than the scripts it uses. The unit files are not actually bad (if frequently a pain in the arse to locate or edit). The existence of logind was where things began to horribly wrong. If systemd had been an init system a whole init system and absolutely nothing but an init system nobody would have cared. Those who disliked it could readily just swap it out as we could dozens of init systems before it. From the moment any component stops being readily replaceable with any other implementation it breaks the single most valuable feature of linux and indeed unix as a whole. The feature that has allowed unix to persist for almost 5 decades running on everything from mainframes to the phone I am writing this on.
Undermining the flexibility which is exclusively achievable by having all tools being entirely independent of all other tools is signing the deathknell for Linux. Not today. Not tomorrow. But soon. The first time some market shift changes our fundamental requirements as they have done a thousand times in 50 years Linux will become the first unix in all these decades that does not instantly fill the next niche. The unixes that stayed unix will take whaylt would have been Linux's next crown because systemd destroys the sole feature that ever actually mattered.
Loser pays have serious downsides though - it can readily make it impossible to ever dare sue anybody richer than yourself even if you have a very strong case since they can afford beter lawyers, bury you in paperwork and even if you were genuinely the injured party you could end up just paying a fortune in fees if you fail to convince a jury.
Right now, even when you have a seriously legitimate case of massive injuries caused by faulty technology which the company KNEW was faulty and ignored (and this is proven) and you ONLY sue for medical expenses and the jury decides to punish the company by giving you millions (which you had not asked for) you can expect their marketing department to smear you so thoroughly that you will forever be known as the idiot who didn't know coffee was hot.
We really cannot dare to aggravate that.
Having said that. With some refinement it's a good idea. Like say private citizen versus government - if government loses, government pays. Private citizen versus publicly traded corporation - if the corp loses, they pay. Citizen versus citizen - each pay their own. Corp versus corp - each pay their own. Corp versus government - each pay their own.
With all clauses having the possibility of being overriden by a judge if this is genuinely justified (for example he could mandate fees without a winner/loser even existing when throwing out a case for being silly and frivolous).
Thanks for this, it actually explains why the figures I knew are so different from those other commenters here have cited. Clearly the refer to two different budgets.
That said, I still think I would rather see the military budget cut to about 1/10th of it's size (which would still be twice as big as the next biggest military in the world) and the entire difference devoted to establishing things like free college, UBI and other social-upliftment programs that pay for themselves in savings eventually but need a big cash-dump to get off the ground.