The US is home to huge numbers of institutes, universities, and foundations that are directly responsible for TONS of science coming out. Matter of fact, I have a subscription to Science Magazine and many of the articles are in part or wholly by the US.
We are a bit behind in stem cell research training and skills, relative to other countries, but CIRM is working to catch that up.
I think the article is a bit shallow and assumptive, and does not wholly encompass (or ignores for sake of proving a point) the massive science we are responsible for producing.
I will first tell you that Ayn Rand is an effective and influential philosopher, but most of what she claims is flawed in that it is based off assumptions that are not universally rational.
Lets begin. The beginning of the article makes clear where the whole basis of the argument fails, which will likely be reiterated as I analyze the rest of her arguments based on these assumptions.
"Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce."
I will tell you it fails because it: 1) Assumes that a human culture (not our current one, but ALL POSSIBLE cultures) *must* regard fellow peoples as moochers. 2) Assumes that man will absolutely and always loot, or take by force.
These assumptions she makes are unfounded. I cannot prove that there absolutely *can* be a theoretical culture (though it has been observed in some small isolated communities). But she has done nothing to prove that man absolutely IS the way she assumes. Her assumption is a product of post-facto observation of our current culture, but does not give reason to know for sure that it is absolute. ---
next flaw.
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. "
In this, Rand assumes that there is no charity, or that I would not receive an equity of my effort and simply pass that benefit/equity to my peers. Charity is observed all over the place, so even in our current culture she is flawed in this. And beyond that, the sheer statement she makes precludes that a person would absolutely and always receive money for their effort.
Since this is long, I will simply tear apart the paragraphs.
3rd paragraph: She assumes that all goods and wealth (which is being used in place of money, but we know is NOT money) are products of man's intelligence. An apple is not produced by man. water is not produced by man. They are present and exist in our natural world, they are goods, and they have a value (which is much more akin to wealth than 'money' is).
4th paragraph: In this paragraph Rand assumes that she can define honesty, or that her definition of honesty is absolute. This is not true nor proven. She has not shown us anything to prove that our cultures *require* an understanding of honesty in the definition she makes. Simply because I exist and I can disagree, I prove her wrong. I would say an honest man is one who does not lie, but being my fellow man I would love to give more than he may give back for a greater good of my species and planet. Ayn Rand cannot be right because I exist with my own belief to prove her assumptions of all people to be wrong.
5th paragraph: This paragraph assumes, again, that charity does not exist or that all possible human cultures MUST be in competition or at least some state of quid pro quo. Her assumptions are based on her observation of our current culture, but speak in ways that would serve to describe all universally possible cultures. No facts prove this.
6th paragraph: Again, assumes that money must always exist, that cultures cannot do work without feeling need for compensation.
7th paragraph: The first sentence is observably true. Money does no necessarily buy happiness; though it is evident that money can buy happiness for some. ---
I could go on picking the rest of this to pieces but it's pretty well destroyed by now in that I've made it very clear that she makes several assumptions that are by no means absolute and are not rationally founded.
I hope you take me seriously when I say that is is possible to change our cultures, our ways as people, our beliefs, our methods and interactions, our values. I hope you take me seriously when I urge you to brainstorm and imagine yourself in a culture that operates in these differences; to not even try is merely a personal wall of resistance to maintain
I am unique in that so many anonymous cowards like yourself (trolling and hiding behind anonymity) are so wrapped up in a simple line of thought that you'd rather watch Ouch My Balls than make an effort to actually apply your brain and knowledge to something as useful as brainstorming.
That's funny. Our predecessors lived without money. Birds live without it. Mice. Rats. Bacteria.
Sometimes we find intraspecies competition in nature, but often we find intraspecies cooperation.
Given models of similar organisms to us, we have observed competition for mates, but not competition for survival among the same species. And so not only can I imagine a world without money, a world of cooperation and completely varied culture (not nature.. don't blame nature unless you've got facts on this one); but I can also postulate that the competition for survival within our species may likely be caused by the existence of money.
In nature vs nurture, nurture goes a long frikkin way with humans. I observed a flock of birds in a huge V today. I noticed how every bird knew to immediately repeat the bird ahead of itself, and so they moved in a very short-time delayed unison. You could see the wave of reaction move from front to rear. I couldn't help but think about how we've developed a culture of individualism and self interest; that we could never get 100+ humans together and have them all cascade each others actions for a greater good... not with our current beliefs and trainings from our culture. It doesn't help that some people are so firmly washed with it that they cannot imagine a world outside of the box they were assembled in.
Wow, you managed to keep from sounding like a complete nutter right up until your last paragraph.
Oh, gotcha. You can't see a world without money. I guess you'll ignore what I said about you and keep standing in the way. Thanks for doing exactly what you're taught to do.
I disagree. Everything can be accessed once they have a shred of evidence to warrant access. This has been standard since long before anything as silly as the patriot act. It's the whole point of a warrant, really.
Without evidence, I can hardly agree that anyone should ever have unblocked access to my privacy, or yours. I'm amazed that my military, which I served in, is not fighting people who break my constitutional rights.
I agree with you about companies. The problem is that our country permits companies to do almost anything they want in agreements with customers and they give the customers the consumer power. Sadly, we're all a bit too ignorant or careless to ignore the companies that abuse us. I wonder if that has anything to do with the oligo-glomerate associations that direct media/information and politics?
We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.
Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em. ----
Don't you wish we could get the best things from the top governments and establish that? I sure do. Hell, I bet most of our politician's on a personal level would appreciate it as well. The problem is that those changes are not in line with corrupt political processes that directly influence our every word in politics.
Wtf is a revolution? The facade of a fresh start, only to be subverted by the exploits of man in a system bidding *money* as a prize, pitting us against each other in competition for survival... We've done that once, and over 200 years later we're finding out its the same turd with the same peanuts.... it just looked liked it flushed down for a little while.
If we don't see the problem as a result of true causes, our cultures, our ethics, our ideas (such as money), then we won't ever really fix it. If you've read this and you can't imagine a functional world without money, you're not trying, or able, and your simple brainwash will always be a roadblock to progress.
The B.S. in this whole thing, that which stinks, is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party' is STILL a 'third party'.
You can't get around it just by renaming it. Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.
WTF, really. Lets get a prosecution on this crap. The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US. Remember that, despite how you (and I) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership.
It sounds to me like you're just grabbing at anything in the air to make sense of it. The truth is obvious if you're not trying to ignore it. He was snooping, just like you and I do on our ex's on facebook and myspace. Except he had his own secret resources that he's not supposed to use for that.
Are you saying that being the head of the TSA, being responsible for the safety of millions of flyers, will be less stressful?
Exactly. Very good point.
Hypothetical Alert: 3 planes explode over Los Angeles and one man enters a terminal with an automatic weapon and kills 34, injures 12, and kills self.
Is that enough stress for him to stop caring about privacy or the constitutional parts of his job or those of all of his subordinates (the whole TSA). I would think the political, personal, and social pressures on him to protect people from that moment forward may seriously influence his ability to make good decisions. And with of not having a limiter on that type of action, we can know it is very possible.
It was 20 frickin' years ago, and he was going (or about to go) through a divorce.
Him being a Democrat, I'm sure he's Evil in a dozen other ways, but unless he still snoops on a regular (or even occasional) basis, this is one item to give him a pass on.
I would disagree on that in the sense that his moral character permits this kind of abuse, and so it may likely be permitted again. The way in which so many people bid/sniff-butt for these kinds of positions, I'm sure there is someone else out there with more trust in his/her past.
The thing that makes it less true is that it is from an anonymous coward and the science was not published. Nothing that was said can be 'proven' or sought out based on what is there.
How dare you rename things with your dead language stuff like Latin this is just linguistic colonialism like when the FBI/KKK took away Malcolm King's name and changed it to "X" to be like "we can make you disappear because we have white supremacy" and shit. I will call it whaterver I like.
I can somewhat understand where the Canadian government is coming from on this one. The.gc.ca domain is Canadian Government sites. This site is obviously designed to look like an official government site - using a domain that could confuse people.
I have a problem with censorship, but I also have a problem with intentionally misleading people, then screaming censorship when the folks you're trying to quietly impersonate come after you.
On another note, I'll say that maybe people shouldn't use Serverloft if they can't rely on them to at least make an effort to stand up for their customers.
Don't do business with businesses that don't respect you.
If there's any research, it's probably buried. Cellphones are a multi-billion dollar industry - quarterly - for many, many companies.
Use your head. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I told you to make your own decision.
Scientific research is not buried. Like I said, I have university access to LOTS of resources.
What you are saying is that you weren't trying to be RATIONAL/REASONABLE, and you want me to make my own decision on your completely FACTLESS skepticism.
The thing I"m curious about is this.... how much do you actually know that would qualify you to even know what you are talking about, and what specifically it is that you saw or learned regarding cell phones that compels you to say the things that you do, but not prove it to me. Are you getting your own opinion out of thin air? Show me what you saw that made you believe it. I hope you've got something to show for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The US is home to huge numbers of institutes, universities, and foundations that are directly responsible for TONS of science coming out. Matter of fact, I have a subscription to Science Magazine and many of the articles are in part or wholly by the US.
We are a bit behind in stem cell research training and skills, relative to other countries, but CIRM is working to catch that up.
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/node/278
---
I think the article is a bit shallow and assumptive, and does not wholly encompass (or ignores for sake of proving a point) the massive science we are responsible for producing.
I will first tell you that Ayn Rand is an effective and influential philosopher, but most of what she claims is flawed in that it is based off assumptions that are not universally rational.
Lets begin. The beginning of the article makes clear where the whole basis of the argument fails, which will likely be reiterated as I analyze the rest of her arguments based on these assumptions.
"Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce."
I will tell you it fails because it:
1) Assumes that a human culture (not our current one, but ALL POSSIBLE cultures) *must* regard fellow peoples as moochers.
2) Assumes that man will absolutely and always loot, or take by force.
These assumptions she makes are unfounded. I cannot prove that there absolutely *can* be a theoretical culture (though it has been observed in some small isolated communities). But she has done nothing to prove that man absolutely IS the way she assumes. Her assumption is a product of post-facto observation of our current culture, but does not give reason to know for sure that it is absolute.
---
next flaw.
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. "
In this, Rand assumes that there is no charity, or that I would not receive an equity of my effort and simply pass that benefit/equity to my peers. Charity is observed all over the place, so even in our current culture she is flawed in this. And beyond that, the sheer statement she makes precludes that a person would absolutely and always receive money for their effort.
Since this is long, I will simply tear apart the paragraphs.
3rd paragraph: She assumes that all goods and wealth (which is being used in place of money, but we know is NOT money) are products of man's intelligence. An apple is not produced by man. water is not produced by man. They are present and exist in our natural world, they are goods, and they have a value (which is much more akin to wealth than 'money' is).
4th paragraph: In this paragraph Rand assumes that she can define honesty, or that her definition of honesty is absolute. This is not true nor proven. She has not shown us anything to prove that our cultures *require* an understanding of honesty in the definition she makes. Simply because I exist and I can disagree, I prove her wrong. I would say an honest man is one who does not lie, but being my fellow man I would love to give more than he may give back for a greater good of my species and planet. Ayn Rand cannot be right because I exist with my own belief to prove her assumptions of all people to be wrong.
5th paragraph: This paragraph assumes, again, that charity does not exist or that all possible human cultures MUST be in competition or at least some state of quid pro quo. Her assumptions are based on her observation of our current culture, but speak in ways that would serve to describe all universally possible cultures. No facts prove this.
6th paragraph: Again, assumes that money must always exist, that cultures cannot do work without feeling need for compensation.
7th paragraph: The first sentence is observably true. Money does no necessarily buy happiness; though it is evident that money can buy happiness for some.
---
I could go on picking the rest of this to pieces but it's pretty well destroyed by now in that I've made it very clear that she makes several assumptions that are by no means absolute and are not rationally founded.
I hope you take me seriously when I say that is is possible to change our cultures, our ways as people, our beliefs, our methods and interactions, our values. I hope you take me seriously when I urge you to brainstorm and imagine yourself in a culture that operates in these differences; to not even try is merely a personal wall of resistance to maintain
Before barter there was cooperative existence.
I am unique in that so many anonymous cowards like yourself (trolling and hiding behind anonymity) are so wrapped up in a simple line of thought that you'd rather watch Ouch My Balls than make an effort to actually apply your brain and knowledge to something as useful as brainstorming.
Later coward. Reply with a handle or get ignored.
You understood me backwards. I am speaking from the US.
That's funny. Our predecessors lived without money. Birds live without it. Mice. Rats. Bacteria.
Sometimes we find intraspecies competition in nature, but often we find intraspecies cooperation.
Given models of similar organisms to us, we have observed competition for mates, but not competition for survival among the same species. And so not only can I imagine a world without money, a world of cooperation and completely varied culture (not nature.. don't blame nature unless you've got facts on this one); but I can also postulate that the competition for survival within our species may likely be caused by the existence of money.
In nature vs nurture, nurture goes a long frikkin way with humans. I observed a flock of birds in a huge V today. I noticed how every bird knew to immediately repeat the bird ahead of itself, and so they moved in a very short-time delayed unison. You could see the wave of reaction move from front to rear. I couldn't help but think about how we've developed a culture of individualism and self interest; that we could never get 100+ humans together and have them all cascade each others actions for a greater good... not with our current beliefs and trainings from our culture. It doesn't help that some people are so firmly washed with it that they cannot imagine a world outside of the box they were assembled in.
Wow, you managed to keep from sounding like a complete nutter right up until your last paragraph.
Oh, gotcha. You can't see a world without money. I guess you'll ignore what I said about you and keep standing in the way. Thanks for doing exactly what you're taught to do.
I disagree. Everything can be accessed once they have a shred of evidence to warrant access. This has been standard since long before anything as silly as the patriot act. It's the whole point of a warrant, really.
Without evidence, I can hardly agree that anyone should ever have unblocked access to my privacy, or yours. I'm amazed that my military, which I served in, is not fighting people who break my constitutional rights.
I agree with you about companies. The problem is that our country permits companies to do almost anything they want in agreements with customers and they give the customers the consumer power. Sadly, we're all a bit too ignorant or careless to ignore the companies that abuse us. I wonder if that has anything to do with the oligo-glomerate associations that direct media/information and politics?
And so a majority can oppress a minority...
Those in favor should fear the day they are not mainstream in some aspect for they may suffer the smite of their own ignorant forces.
A little FYI.... Atheists can have morality, ethics, etc. But the concept of Atheism is not *tied* to a specific moral code as many religions are.
Beliefs in deities and ethical codes are not mutually inclusive ideas.
(I can't tell if you know this already or not)
We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.
Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.
----
Don't you wish we could get the best things from the top governments and establish that? I sure do. Hell, I bet most of our politician's on a personal level would appreciate it as well. The problem is that those changes are not in line with corrupt political processes that directly influence our every word in politics.
Wtf is a revolution? The facade of a fresh start, only to be subverted by the exploits of man in a system bidding *money* as a prize, pitting us against each other in competition for survival... We've done that once, and over 200 years later we're finding out its the same turd with the same peanuts.... it just looked liked it flushed down for a little while.
If we don't see the problem as a result of true causes, our cultures, our ethics, our ideas (such as money), then we won't ever really fix it. If you've read this and you can't imagine a functional world without money, you're not trying, or able, and your simple brainwash will always be a roadblock to progress.
It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.
Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?
If there was, you probably didn't hear about it.
Funny? Scary.
Loopholes. Always loopholes.
The B.S. in this whole thing, that which stinks, is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party' is STILL a 'third party'.
You can't get around it just by renaming it. Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.
WTF, really. Lets get a prosecution on this crap. The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US. Remember that, despite how you (and I) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership.
his moral character permits this kind of abuse, and so it may likely be permitted again.
Do you also think that video games and books should be banned, because they cause children to have bad thoughts?
No. And what you've said, with the level of information you've provided, is basically unfounded.
-1 Troll.
Why are you trolling me? What I said is of value and significance.
It sounds to me like you're just grabbing at anything in the air to make sense of it. The truth is obvious if you're not trying to ignore it. He was snooping, just like you and I do on our ex's on facebook and myspace. Except he had his own secret resources that he's not supposed to use for that.
And he was under a lot of stress.
Are you saying that being the head of the TSA, being responsible for the safety of millions of flyers, will be less stressful?
Exactly. Very good point.
Hypothetical Alert: 3 planes explode over Los Angeles and one man enters a terminal with an automatic weapon and kills 34, injures 12, and kills self.
Is that enough stress for him to stop caring about privacy or the constitutional parts of his job or those of all of his subordinates (the whole TSA). I would think the political, personal, and social pressures on him to protect people from that moment forward may seriously influence his ability to make good decisions. And with of not having a limiter on that type of action, we can know it is very possible.
Next!
It was 20 frickin' years ago, and he was going (or about to go) through a divorce.
Him being a Democrat, I'm sure he's Evil in a dozen other ways, but unless he still snoops on a regular (or even occasional) basis, this is one item to give him a pass on.
I would disagree on that in the sense that his moral character permits this kind of abuse, and so it may likely be permitted again. The way in which so many people bid/sniff-butt for these kinds of positions, I'm sure there is someone else out there with more trust in his/her past.
There is no need to wait. I installed Windows 7 bootcamp on the day it was released on Technet, and it worked fine with the Vista drivers.
This is what I would assume since they are not using unique hardware anymore.
The thing that makes it less true is that it is from an anonymous coward and the science was not published. Nothing that was said can be 'proven' or sought out based on what is there.
The dirty little secret is that the Y is not always unexpected, just too politically incorrect and dangerous to be released to the public.
So, when reality is racist, you change it?
Don't attempt to reason or argue with Anonymous Cowards. There is no way to corroborate anything he/she said.
Just a little advice.
How dare you rename things with your dead language stuff like Latin this is just linguistic colonialism like when the FBI/KKK took away Malcolm King's name and changed it to "X" to be like "we can make you disappear because we have white supremacy" and shit. I will call it whaterver I like.
ummmm... what? I seriously hope you're joking.
If not, you should seek some help.
Biloba (2 lobes)
Dey got wrong on a gecko, dey lie like momma say. Dey wrong bout dat dang clamutt changin'.
I can somewhat understand where the Canadian government is coming from on this one. The .gc.ca domain is Canadian Government sites. This site is obviously designed to look like an official government site - using a domain that could confuse people.
I have a problem with censorship, but I also have a problem with intentionally misleading people, then screaming censorship when the folks you're trying to quietly impersonate come after you.
On another note, I'll say that maybe people shouldn't use Serverloft if they can't rely on them to at least make an effort to stand up for their customers.
Don't do business with businesses that don't respect you.
Good luck with the headshots.
If there's any research, it's probably buried. Cellphones are a multi-billion dollar industry - quarterly - for many, many companies.
Use your head. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I told you to make your own decision.
Scientific research is not buried. Like I said, I have university access to LOTS of resources.
What you are saying is that you weren't trying to be RATIONAL/REASONABLE, and you want me to make my own decision on your completely FACTLESS skepticism.
The thing I"m curious about is this.... how much do you actually know that would qualify you to even know what you are talking about, and what specifically it is that you saw or learned regarding cell phones that compels you to say the things that you do, but not prove it to me. Are you getting your own opinion out of thin air? Show me what you saw that made you believe it. I hope you've got something to show for it.