I think the past has proven quite conclusively that morals can succeed or fail with or without religion.
The sentence before that was a question which you failed to answer. Anyway, history shows that secular societies can have good moral frameworks e.g. Scandinavia, large parts of Western Europe and North America. History shows that atheist societies often have bad moral frameworks e.g. Stalin's USSR. Note that atheist and secular are not the same thing. Stalin went out of his way to stamp out religion. History shows that theistic societies, as a general rule have bad moral frameworks e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia, England in the 16th and 17th centuries. I'm unable to think of any theistic society with a good moral framework, but that does not mean there aren't any.
So I think it is clear that the first claim is true.
The last bit of the post was a request to you to point out a religious society that became a utopia. You failed to answer the request but instead called it castrated male oxen. But you are telling the truth when you state " I never stated that Religion created Utopias". Unfortunately, your criteria for a successful secular morality include that it creates utopias. You should not be surprised when people call you out for not applying the same criterion to religious morality.
I stated that societies with a strong religion containing high moral codes are better.
Can you name such a society? Saudi Arabia has a strong religion with a high moral code and yet I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to live there.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to commit rape and murder than women, but you don't see anyone coming to the conclusion that all men should be forced to wear chastity belts and banned from own guns.,/blockquote> But you do see people advocating measures in the same vein but not as extreme.
Yeah we hear that thing about Amazon and people seem to think that just because Amazon was a start up that started out by losing money and is now hugely successful it means that all companies that start out losing money can become hugely successful at the flick of a switch.
Amazon had a truly disruptive business model and by the time anybody else realised they could do the same thing, Amazon already had such strong brand recognition, it didn't matter.
By contrast, Tesla is a car manufacturer. There is nothing about a Tesla that cannot be easily emulated by another manufacturer. The only radical thing Tesla has done is made electric cars that are desirable. All previous efforts tended to be aimed at the budget econobox end of the market. As soon as a major manufacturer makes a good electric car that people might want to own because it is good rather than just worthy, Tesla will be toast.
If I were Elon Musk, I'd be looking at trying to getting a head start in areas where traditional manufacturers don't have the advantage. I'd be looking at autonomous driving for the long term future and battery technology for the immediate future. If he has the best batteries, he can stop messing about making cars and just sell them to everybody else and not just car manufacturers. Why does he not see that.... oh, wait.
No mortgage backed securities are supposed to have real estate as collateral. In the lead up to the 2008 crash, the whole market was more or less fraudulent.
Sorry, when I hear the phrase "major cause" I do not expect to hear things like one here and another there.
I don't know how many flights there are every day but there must be tens of thousands at least. Some percentage of those must have technical hitches that are corrected by the human crew. For example, I imagine the autopilot must occasionally disengage for some minor glitch and is either re-engaged by the humans or the humans then fly the plane.
With no human pilot on board, minor incidents like that would result in all the passengers being toast.
You claim auto-throttle is a problem but there are thousands of safe landings every day where auto-throttle is used and you can cite two failures in total. The statistics tell mer your claim is false.
This is a classic fallacy. The high probability that an accident was caused by a human means nothing by itself. You'd also have to know how many accidents were averted by humans and I bet they don't collect those statistics.
The same would apply to changes of direction too. You could have a 10km radius just about as long as the vehicle was able to bank but I think it would still be pretty uncomfortable. Of course, you could slow down for the curves.
I don't think anybody is claiming that the technical challenges could not be overcome, the point is more about at what cost.There's no point in having a hyper loop if it is so expensive it can't compete with aircraft.
So what you are saying is that you couldn't build the Hoover dam today because it would be too environmentally damaging and you'd have to pay the labourers a reasonable wage.
The original story is not looking quite so good now.
I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you seem to think. They distribute the software to you under the GPL and ask you to sign a second contract if you also want support. The second contact has the restrictive clause.
Furthermore, the contract doesn't say "you can't redistribute this software", it says "we won't give you future versions of this software". I think they have a point, although I am not a lawyer.
As for whether Bruce Perens is committing libel by publishing an opinion that they are in breach of GPL, we'd better hope they find for the defendant, otherwise it would be impossible for anybody to argue a company is breaching a software licence (or any licence or contract or law) without being potentially a target for a libel suit.
Given that only 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and assuming only people from that 5% would call their children Muhammed, either the stated fact of Muhammed being number 2 most popular boys name is wrong, or the parent poster is right, in principle, even if he got the exact percentage wrong.
Businesses are leaving the UK because of the economists.
No they aren't.
Businesses are leaving the UK because they perceive it will be harder to do trade with the rest of the EU after Brexit. It doesn't take an economist to figure that out. Even the Brexiteers acknowledge it - they just think we'll be able to make up the slack by doing deals with other countries. However, if you run a business doing nicely selling stuff in the EU and you have a choice between moving your operation - a fixed predictable expense - or gambling on Britain being able to do trade deals elsewhere and then gambling on being able to break into those markets, what would you do?
A cricket ball weighs between 5 1/2 and 5 3/4 ounces. This law will be for drones that weigh more than 8 ounces. Also drones tend to have more sharp edged rotating blades than a cricket ball.
Well if you want a text editor that is basic, ed, is probably the one. The only practical choice for a text editor - vi(m) - is pretty sophisticated.
There's one other text editor whose name escapes me, but the only way they could make it usable was to write a Lisp extension that makes it behave like vi.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bang thy neighbors wife have no benefit to human lives? Are you high, or delusional?
Thou shalt have no other god before me.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Kill the homosexuals
Kill adulterers, especially the women.
Kill people who work on Saturdays.
You can only beat your slaves if they survive at least a week.
Russia has actually been improving since allowing some level of Christianity.
I think you need to talk to some gay people from Russia before you start claiming it is getting better.
The first claim is:
I think the past has proven quite conclusively that morals can succeed or fail with or without religion.
The sentence before that was a question which you failed to answer. Anyway, history shows that secular societies can have good moral frameworks e.g. Scandinavia, large parts of Western Europe and North America. History shows that atheist societies often have bad moral frameworks e.g. Stalin's USSR. Note that atheist and secular are not the same thing. Stalin went out of his way to stamp out religion. History shows that theistic societies, as a general rule have bad moral frameworks e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia, England in the 16th and 17th centuries. I'm unable to think of any theistic society with a good moral framework, but that does not mean there aren't any.
So I think it is clear that the first claim is true.
The last bit of the post was a request to you to point out a religious society that became a utopia. You failed to answer the request but instead called it castrated male oxen. But you are telling the truth when you state " I never stated that Religion created Utopias". Unfortunately, your criteria for a successful secular morality include that it creates utopias. You should not be surprised when people call you out for not applying the same criterion to religious morality.
I stated that societies with a strong religion containing high moral codes are better.
Can you name such a society? Saudi Arabia has a strong religion with a high moral code and yet I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to live there.
There is no scientific reason why the two should be compared on the same plane, since they deal with totally different realms.
True. Science deals with the realm of reality and religion deals with the realm of fiction.
Same thing in maths.
"P implies Q"
means "if P is true then Q is true".
It probably only cares about the drive with the operating system on it.
I have a USB SSD with a FAT32 partition on it. That usually does the trick.
Evidence please.
What do you think massive expanding production is?
A path to destruction without massively expanding sales to go with it.
Yeah we hear that thing about Amazon and people seem to think that just because Amazon was a start up that started out by losing money and is now hugely successful it means that all companies that start out losing money can become hugely successful at the flick of a switch.
Amazon had a truly disruptive business model and by the time anybody else realised they could do the same thing, Amazon already had such strong brand recognition, it didn't matter.
By contrast, Tesla is a car manufacturer. There is nothing about a Tesla that cannot be easily emulated by another manufacturer. The only radical thing Tesla has done is made electric cars that are desirable. All previous efforts tended to be aimed at the budget econobox end of the market. As soon as a major manufacturer makes a good electric car that people might want to own because it is good rather than just worthy, Tesla will be toast.
If I were Elon Musk, I'd be looking at trying to getting a head start in areas where traditional manufacturers don't have the advantage. I'd be looking at autonomous driving for the long term future and battery technology for the immediate future. If he has the best batteries, he can stop messing about making cars and just sell them to everybody else and not just car manufacturers. Why does he not see that.... oh, wait.
No mortgage backed securities are supposed to have real estate as collateral. In the lead up to the 2008 crash, the whole market was more or less fraudulent.
Sorry, when I hear the phrase "major cause" I do not expect to hear things like one here and another there.
I don't know how many flights there are every day but there must be tens of thousands at least. Some percentage of those must have technical hitches that are corrected by the human crew. For example, I imagine the autopilot must occasionally disengage for some minor glitch and is either re-engaged by the humans or the humans then fly the plane.
With no human pilot on board, minor incidents like that would result in all the passengers being toast.
You claim auto-throttle is a problem but there are thousands of safe landings every day where auto-throttle is used and you can cite two failures in total. The statistics tell mer your claim is false.
This is a classic fallacy. The high probability that an accident was caused by a human means nothing by itself. You'd also have to know how many accidents were averted by humans and I bet they don't collect those statistics.
Most technical failures do not result in loss of flight controls even on fly-by-wire aircraft.
The same would apply to changes of direction too. You could have a 10km radius just about as long as the vehicle was able to bank but I think it would still be pretty uncomfortable. Of course, you could slow down for the curves.
I don't think anybody is claiming that the technical challenges could not be overcome, the point is more about at what cost.There's no point in having a hyper loop if it is so expensive it can't compete with aircraft.
So what you are saying is that you couldn't build the Hoover dam today because it would be too environmentally damaging and you'd have to pay the labourers a reasonable wage.
The original story is not looking quite so good now.
I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you seem to think. They distribute the software to you under the GPL and ask you to sign a second contract if you also want support. The second contact has the restrictive clause.
Furthermore, the contract doesn't say "you can't redistribute this software", it says "we won't give you future versions of this software". I think they have a point, although I am not a lawyer.
As for whether Bruce Perens is committing libel by publishing an opinion that they are in breach of GPL, we'd better hope they find for the defendant, otherwise it would be impossible for anybody to argue a company is breaching a software licence (or any licence or contract or law) without being potentially a target for a libel suit.
This doesn't happen in the stock or currency world.
Yes it does. Companies can issue more stock. Governments can issue more currency. Doing so reduces the value of the stock/dollars that already exist.
You can use it to pay your taxes.
Given that only 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and assuming only people from that 5% would call their children Muhammed, either the stated fact of Muhammed being number 2 most popular boys name is wrong, or the parent poster is right, in principle, even if he got the exact percentage wrong.
No they aren't.
Businesses are leaving the UK because they perceive it will be harder to do trade with the rest of the EU after Brexit. It doesn't take an economist to figure that out. Even the Brexiteers acknowledge it - they just think we'll be able to make up the slack by doing deals with other countries. However, if you run a business doing nicely selling stuff in the EU and you have a choice between moving your operation - a fixed predictable expense - or gambling on Britain being able to do trade deals elsewhere and then gambling on being able to break into those markets, what would you do?
You didn't read the article then, in which he tells you to turn off all your notifications except for phone, text messages and calendar, like he did.
The summary is not a true reflection of what is in the article.
A cricket ball weighs between 5 1/2 and 5 3/4 ounces. This law will be for drones that weigh more than 8 ounces. Also drones tend to have more sharp edged rotating blades than a cricket ball.
So I call your post as bs.
Well if you want a text editor that is basic, ed, is probably the one. The only practical choice for a text editor - vi(m) - is pretty sophisticated.
There's one other text editor whose name escapes me, but the only way they could make it usable was to write a Lisp extension that makes it behave like vi.
Isn't udev now part of systemd?