And the magical solution is to cut taxes. Because then people spend more. People hire more. And a bunch of other mythical consequences that didn't pan out from the trickle-down theory.
Seriously, your sig is PRO-WAR. It's funny, but you're not the sort of person I want to take economical advice from.
Mass tax would kill business vehicles (trucks, which already pay a toll by weight by state),
MY GOD! We've had to resort to the alternative of.... hmmmm.... gimme a second. Oh hey, there's not much alternative there. I wonder if they'd simply pass on the cost to the consumer, you know, the people that pay for all the roads right now.
No, it's not a great idea. But your argument is weak.
the more you come to understand and envelope yourself with the real world..the world of dirt,
I'm sorry, is the digital not "real" to you? Am I not real to you? Are the thoughts and ideas from someone in India less real because it comes over a wire?
How exactly is dirt any more real then a hard-drive platter?
You went out and became farmers. That's great for you. Whatever floats your boat. But people have been removed from that environment a hell of a lot longer then you think. City-slickers have had to have the concept of a shovel explained to them since there were cities. When was the last time you got some culture? Saw a play? Went to a concert? Saw through an ad as false promises? Chatted with the immigrant cook in a dive bar? Spotted a con man in the streets? Rural hicks just don't get that "real-world" experience that you get in a city. Your argument works both ways. So don't go confusing a different environment as the one true "real" one.
Now don't get me wrong, it's good to get away from the screen now and then. The same way that it's good to get out of, or into, the city now and then. Diversity, I guess, is the message I'm going for here. I imagine that for most of your "neighbors" (if you had any), browsing wikipedia for a little while or chatting with someone from Iraq would do them a world of good. The sort of real-world eye opening experience you can only get with the batteries full and the screen on.
Naw, it's not that bad. You're comparing the top 10 percentile of yesteryear with the median of today.
How old were you when you got you Amiga?
How nerdy were you? Good grades, honor program, pocket protector and horn-rims?
How many other people got an Amiga?
Now consider how smart, geeky, nerdy, inquisitive your fellow peers were at that time. I'm not talking about your friends, I'm talking about the typical joe blow.
You are dealing with the median. Everyone handles technology now-a-days. If you interacted with the nerds at computer camp, you'd have a different view. The top 10% remains just as rare today as it was then.
So the generation that came after you is god-like in their tech and opportunity, but the intelligence remains as a bell-curve.
If everyone is in the tribe, why would you have to overthrow your own tribesman?
Yeah, I get your point. Hilarious. But it's a perception thing. If you see yourself as a member of humanity rather then a member of your little group or nation, then the tribalism that whispers you to help your brothers kids pass on your genes gets applied to everyone. Then we stop being chest-thumping competitive dicks to each other and make the world a better place.
There's a fallacy called the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
"He's not a true scotsman, a TRUE scotsman eats haggis"
"No, a true scotsman has a beard"
"a true scotsman does that thing with the big wooden poles"
and so on, to the point that the requirements to be a true scotsman excludes everyone.
If you don’t think that helping others with no benefit to yourself is Altruism, then Altruism doesn’t exist. For example, you could say that little timmy is helping granny across the street is so that he can feel good about himself. Or tell his priest about it. Or whatever. And so it's not true altruism. If you take that view then nobody is altruistic, ever.
I'd say that ants or bees sacrificing their own lives for the hive is altruistic. You'd disagree apparently, because it's "instinct". I'd counter that it doesn't matter what the source is, and that even instinct can be altruistic. Hence the altruistic instinct that was developed.
About 5 years ago the phrase was "the sleeping dragon has awoken". That was in reference to China's economy. They took in rural villiagers who were just getting by and put them to work in a factory. They gave them so little, but it's better then nothing. Now if China develops a middle-class then things would change drastically. They'd start to buy up oil, raising the price sharply and leading to that global peak oil scenario. ...oh wait.
But no, the peasants in China are not going to put up with THIS sort of treatment for long, but it's going to be a generation or two before they forget the poverty of pre-boom China. You can't extrapolate 100% pay raises out to eight years, but there's some truth to your words.
Ehhhh, I dunno man. There's a question about what it means to believe in some of the material, but not wish to be associated with the movement overall.
I mean, I could say that I'm a Newtonist, a capitalist, a socialist, and a world-is-round-ist, but I understand that all of those ideas fall apart on some levels. The cultural movement behind those ideas is what makes those ideas an -ism. And it's those like-minded people that are -ists.
So sure, you believe that it's a good idea to look at things objectively. Not to be tied down to irrational tradition or feelings. To analyze what the true purpose of your actions are. Good things. But these fuckers who made a cult to Ayn Rand are nutcases. I really don't think you can call yourself a "small o objectivist" any more then I can call myself a "small w world-is-roundist".
I guess this is what makes someone a moderate. A half-dose of rationality and a tempering of passion. Is a moderate version of a Extreamo-Fasist still in the same category?
I was going to call you an idiot, but perhaps you're just ignorant. If you repeat this mistake, that'll make you an idiot, or willfully ignorant, which is worse. Oh hey, check out your sig. Scratch that, you're an idiot. Evolution is the process, it says nothing about the origin of the units in question.
For example, since this is the obvious place this argument goes, a Christian can believe that God magically genesised life which then evolved into the diversity we see on Earth. The process of a genetic pool changing itself and keeping the fit ones is the definition of evolution. If someone sets up a system to evolve, like in an artificial life simulator, the process in which it designs itself is evolution.
Your quip about "aren't clever enough " what all will happen is foolishness at best. Unless you consider a pair of dice to be the equivalent to a Shakespeare play. Because you can replicate the entire works of Shakespeare using some dice. It takes a while, but it'll happen. See Chaos Theory.
Dude, the first iPod had all those problems too. The only place it shined was capacity. It slapped a harddrive in there rather then flash, which traded portability for. The first iPod SUCKED. Who had firewire? But it was fashionable. A lot of the early mp3 players also sucked in various ways. And you couldn't fit much music on 32Mb.
Apple didn't get it anywhere near right until the 3rd generation came out.
Yes. Given the exponential rate of computational progress, the NSA WILL be able decrypt (most) encryption of today, eventually. As will everyone else given a few more years.
But that's largely beside the point. An archeologist uncovering a forgotten NSA computer that finally decrypted Osama's porn stash from 500 years ago is going to be quaint.
When something will take decades to centuries for even the beefiest and most determined of opponents, then it is, for all practical purposes, immune to cracking.
You have qualms about taking the money of the boss of the person who wronged you? They're the boss, they're responsible. Who is the boss of public servants? WE ARE. All of us. We're citizens and this is a democratic country. When the underlings screw up and cross the line, ultimately we are responsible. Now, at the end of the day, this is just rationalizing a settlement check. But it's a pretty good rationalization.
Yeah, some of the punishment really does need to go to the individual. Least we lose all personal accountability. I dunno if it should be more then getting fired though. It depends on the situation. If a swat guy just snaps and starts firing into the crowd as the rest of the team subdues him then he's personally at fault since he's breaking policy. If breaking bones is standard policy, then it's more of a systematic problem and there are some hard questions:
-Why did the guy follow a bullshit policy?
-Why did the boss write that policy?
-Why did his boss allow that policy to continue?
-Why did the public vote for the guy who allowed the boss to write the policy that let the swat guy break an innocent guys bones?
So "extrovert" is a new codeword for asshole? Because that's how I read all those lines. Honestly, I can see his point, a close-knit group works better. But the assumptions he makes against people who don't lunch with him make him look like a dick. A close group is more likely to lunch together, but lunching together does not make a group close.
The importance of eating together with your co-workers is not negotiable, to me.
It's that forced commradiere that really grinds down on me. I went through a lot of that sort of bullshit in highschool. If you love them, let them go. If they don't come back maybe there's something fucked up with you.
Yeah, it's not their money, it's their boss's budget. They really don't care too much, but some of it does come back to them. And their boss is probably fired.
You still get rich for their missteps though.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia constitutes "real-world" experience?
When you're out in an area where they listen to both types of music: Country and Western, and atheism is another word for satanism, Yeah. Yeah, it is.
Except the nation really really wants to encourage electric vehicles. You know, those whole oil-despot, terrorism, deficit, and environmental things.
And the magical solution is to cut taxes. Because then people spend more. People hire more. And a bunch of other mythical consequences that didn't pan out from the trickle-down theory.
Seriously, your sig is PRO-WAR. It's funny, but you're not the sort of person I want to take economical advice from.
Mass tax would kill business vehicles (trucks, which already pay a toll by weight by state),
MY GOD! We've had to resort to the alternative of.... hmmmm.... gimme a second. Oh hey, there's not much alternative there. I wonder if they'd simply pass on the cost to the consumer, you know, the people that pay for all the roads right now.
No, it's not a great idea. But your argument is weak.
I also say stick with the gas tax.
500+ years? Dude, welcome to the future. That time is now.
the more you come to understand and envelope yourself with the real world..the world of dirt,
I'm sorry, is the digital not "real" to you? Am I not real to you? Are the thoughts and ideas from someone in India less real because it comes over a wire?
How exactly is dirt any more real then a hard-drive platter?
You went out and became farmers. That's great for you. Whatever floats your boat. But people have been removed from that environment a hell of a lot longer then you think. City-slickers have had to have the concept of a shovel explained to them since there were cities. When was the last time you got some culture? Saw a play? Went to a concert? Saw through an ad as false promises? Chatted with the immigrant cook in a dive bar? Spotted a con man in the streets? Rural hicks just don't get that "real-world" experience that you get in a city. Your argument works both ways. So don't go confusing a different environment as the one true "real" one.
Now don't get me wrong, it's good to get away from the screen now and then. The same way that it's good to get out of, or into, the city now and then. Diversity, I guess, is the message I'm going for here. I imagine that for most of your "neighbors" (if you had any), browsing wikipedia for a little while or chatting with someone from Iraq would do them a world of good. The sort of real-world eye opening experience you can only get with the batteries full and the screen on.
Naw, it's not that bad. You're comparing the top 10 percentile of yesteryear with the median of today.
How old were you when you got you Amiga?
How nerdy were you? Good grades, honor program, pocket protector and horn-rims?
How many other people got an Amiga?
Now consider how smart, geeky, nerdy, inquisitive your fellow peers were at that time. I'm not talking about your friends, I'm talking about the typical joe blow.
You are dealing with the median. Everyone handles technology now-a-days. If you interacted with the nerds at computer camp, you'd have a different view. The top 10% remains just as rare today as it was then.
So the generation that came after you is god-like in their tech and opportunity, but the intelligence remains as a bell-curve.
If everyone is in the tribe, why would you have to overthrow your own tribesman?
Yeah, I get your point. Hilarious. But it's a perception thing. If you see yourself as a member of humanity rather then a member of your little group or nation, then the tribalism that whispers you to help your brothers kids pass on your genes gets applied to everyone. Then we stop being chest-thumping competitive dicks to each other and make the world a better place.
There's a fallacy called the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
"He's not a true scotsman, a TRUE scotsman eats haggis"
"No, a true scotsman has a beard"
"a true scotsman does that thing with the big wooden poles"
and so on, to the point that the requirements to be a true scotsman excludes everyone.
If you don’t think that helping others with no benefit to yourself is Altruism, then Altruism doesn’t exist. For example, you could say that little timmy is helping granny across the street is so that he can feel good about himself. Or tell his priest about it. Or whatever. And so it's not true altruism. If you take that view then nobody is altruistic, ever.
I'd say that ants or bees sacrificing their own lives for the hive is altruistic. You'd disagree apparently, because it's "instinct". I'd counter that it doesn't matter what the source is, and that even instinct can be altruistic. Hence the altruistic instinct that was developed.
About 5 years ago the phrase was "the sleeping dragon has awoken". That was in reference to China's economy. They took in rural villiagers who were just getting by and put them to work in a factory. They gave them so little, but it's better then nothing. Now if China develops a middle-class then things would change drastically. They'd start to buy up oil, raising the price sharply and leading to that global peak oil scenario.
...oh wait.
But no, the peasants in China are not going to put up with THIS sort of treatment for long, but it's going to be a generation or two before they forget the poverty of pre-boom China. You can't extrapolate 100% pay raises out to eight years, but there's some truth to your words.
And the robots aren't TRUE Scotsmen either. But they did develop an altruistic instinct.
Ehhhh, I dunno man. There's a question about what it means to believe in some of the material, but not wish to be associated with the movement overall. I mean, I could say that I'm a Newtonist, a capitalist, a socialist, and a world-is-round-ist, but I understand that all of those ideas fall apart on some levels. The cultural movement behind those ideas is what makes those ideas an -ism. And it's those like-minded people that are -ists.
So sure, you believe that it's a good idea to look at things objectively. Not to be tied down to irrational tradition or feelings. To analyze what the true purpose of your actions are. Good things. But these fuckers who made a cult to Ayn Rand are nutcases. I really don't think you can call yourself a "small o objectivist" any more then I can call myself a "small w world-is-roundist".
I guess this is what makes someone a moderate. A half-dose of rationality and a tempering of passion. Is a moderate version of a Extreamo-Fasist still in the same category?
I was going to call you an idiot, but perhaps you're just ignorant. If you repeat this mistake, that'll make you an idiot, or willfully ignorant, which is worse. Oh hey, check out your sig. Scratch that, you're an idiot.
Evolution is the process, it says nothing about the origin of the units in question.
For example, since this is the obvious place this argument goes, a Christian can believe that God magically genesised life which then evolved into the diversity we see on Earth. The process of a genetic pool changing itself and keeping the fit ones is the definition of evolution. If someone sets up a system to evolve, like in an artificial life simulator, the process in which it designs itself is evolution.
Your quip about "aren't clever enough " what all will happen is foolishness at best. Unless you consider a pair of dice to be the equivalent to a Shakespeare play. Because you can replicate the entire works of Shakespeare using some dice. It takes a while, but it'll happen. See Chaos Theory.
If everyone is in the tribe, it becomes altruism
So why do we help people who are not related to us?
Because we're social creatures and helping socity helps propogate our society, our culture, and ultimately the genes of our cousins.
You, sir, are awesome for bringing this to my attention. Bravo. Half an Internet for you.
Dude, the first iPod had all those problems too. The only place it shined was capacity. It slapped a harddrive in there rather then flash, which traded portability for. The first iPod SUCKED. Who had firewire? But it was fashionable. A lot of the early mp3 players also sucked in various ways. And you couldn't fit much music on 32Mb.
Apple didn't get it anywhere near right until the 3rd generation came out.
Well considering yours is the first mention of it I've seen, I think you need a mirror.
Yes. Given the exponential rate of computational progress, the NSA WILL be able decrypt (most) encryption of today, eventually. As will everyone else given a few more years.
But that's largely beside the point. An archeologist uncovering a forgotten NSA computer that finally decrypted Osama's porn stash from 500 years ago is going to be quaint.
When something will take decades to centuries for even the beefiest and most determined of opponents, then it is, for all practical purposes, immune to cracking.
Maybe, but I still wouldn't hire either you or the pirate furry.
You have qualms about taking the money of the boss of the person who wronged you? They're the boss, they're responsible. Who is the boss of public servants? WE ARE. All of us. We're citizens and this is a democratic country. When the underlings screw up and cross the line, ultimately we are responsible.
Now, at the end of the day, this is just rationalizing a settlement check. But it's a pretty good rationalization.
Yeah, some of the punishment really does need to go to the individual. Least we lose all personal accountability. I dunno if it should be more then getting fired though. It depends on the situation. If a swat guy just snaps and starts firing into the crowd as the rest of the team subdues him then he's personally at fault since he's breaking policy. If breaking bones is standard policy, then it's more of a systematic problem and there are some hard questions:
-Why did the guy follow a bullshit policy?
-Why did the boss write that policy?
-Why did his boss allow that policy to continue?
-Why did the public vote for the guy who allowed the boss to write the policy that let the swat guy break an innocent guys bones?
Honestly, I can see his point, a close-knit group works better. But the assumptions he makes against people who don't lunch with him make him look like a dick. A close group is more likely to lunch together, but lunching together does not make a group close.
The importance of eating together with your co-workers is not negotiable, to me.
It's that forced commradiere that really grinds down on me. I went through a lot of that sort of bullshit in highschool. If you love them, let them go. If they don't come back maybe there's something fucked up with you.
Well thank goodness we have juries.
Yeah, it's not their money, it's their boss's budget. They really don't care too much, but some of it does come back to them. And their boss is probably fired.
You still get rich for their missteps though.
But think about how much money he's going to get when he sues them.