What's the problem with being good at what you do? So there are 1% of researchers who are really fucking good at what they do. They aren't just good, they are REALLY FUCKING GOOD. They are top 1% good. They are THE BEST IN THE WORLD. So why should we be surprised that they have such an impact?
If Slashdot had posted a story about "the Lone Gunmen" pilot episode, then they would have a scoop that anticipated the 9/11 attacks with a civilian airliner, by several months...
Oil a'int fossil in origin. The Russians know that, and have capitalized magnificently on technologies that exploit this. This is actually the REAL story behind the Donetsk basin.
False scarcity is a wealth creator and a method of social control. UAE will be destroyed not by petrochemical scarcity, but by its comparative plenitude.
No one will EVER live in a permanent space colony. Sorry.
This fantasy was promoted in an age where achieving terrestrial dominance through orbital trajectory of warheads was under intense and competitive development. It did its job.
Rockwell rode on the tail-end of this era, for the final boondoggle of the US Shuttle Program, in the 1970's. You won't see anything like that again.
There is still an instrument for guiding one's evaluation of claims and conundrums: Cui Bono?
In matters of human affairs, it is generally less erring than application of Occam's razor.
"Someone" is interested in getting you to think that the biggest potential for catastrophe, in your daily life and for your way of living, is impending Muslim ideological violence. They wish you to believe an absurdity.
What group or party benefits from this? Why have they chosen this from other possible alternatives? What other possible real threats and risks are diverted from attention by this condition?
Those are the basic questions for the truly inquisitive, not those merely questioning from a habit of personality.
OK. To de-escalate, and in the interest of trying an educational dialogue, I will attempt to clarify what appears to be an assumption in the posting to which I responded.
You mention "taqiyya" as a point of doctrine, or an approved mode for action, by those who profess a "witnessing" of Islam ("tashud").
This is in most was incorrect. Certainly, it is misleading, as a generalization. Al-Taqiyya is usually translated as "dissimulation". There are numerous arguments about the permissibility of this specific shading of deceit or "lying" in the history of Islamic discourse. The most common, and widely known usage was for Shi'ite partisans of 'Ali and his descendants, immediately in the time of their political schism. This was during the lifetimes of the original 3 Imams. The purpose thereof was defensive - used to deflect persecution or compulsion by "Sunni" adherents.
It is important to note this: In the first few centuries, Shi'a were a political distinction for legitimate leadership of the 'Ummah or community. Doctrinally there was not a separate school of theology or jurisprudence. Thusly, the term "Sunni" as a contrasting group is often a more modern anachronism when applied to the period - up to about the time of Jaffar Al-Siddiq, or so... "Shi'a" of that time - and indeed probably today - consider themselves to be following in the "Sunnah" of the prophet.
All of this aside, dissimulation is a means to defensively avoid harm and persecution, without giving up or rejecting articles of belief. This is true of Shi'a or of Sunni jurisprudence. There is no corresponding school of thinking that has authorized Al-Taqiyya for means of "deception" versus "dissimulation" in pursuing acts of war or other hostility.
There is in fact another term "Al-Makr" for "deception" that relates to concealment of intention. There are a number of debates about the use of this term in the Q'ran, as applied to God. Most of that discussion is quasi-theological for political ends and beyond the scope of discussion here. Let us only say that the message of the book is roughly "Those who try to trick God, have in the end only tricked themselves - for God is master over all things, including their trickery." Parse as you will.
Let us conclude that Al-Makr, as a doctrine to promote the faith, is haram.
To suggest that the existence of Al-Taqiyya provides a doctrinal basis under which one may make generalized assumptions about the threatening character of any Muslim believer is ignorant or provocative, at the least.
Slashdot Mirror
Set theory, and Kurt Godel's Incompleteness. No Xeno needed. ;-)
"Real" - as in "have mathematical models, proven valid by consistency or extrapolation with other mathematical models."
After all, maps ARE territory, when you will NEVER have the opportunity for actual direct experience. ;-)
Yeah, well... your MOM is infinitely dense.
Yours is not infinitely dense. After all, everyone penetrates her.
IN SECTOR FIVE!
MOD PARENT UP ^
Unify Windows?
With a HAMMER!
When you have an Empire, you must distinguish the "Homeland" from the "Colonies".
What's the problem with being good at what you do? So there are 1% of researchers who are really fucking good at what they do. They aren't just good, they are REALLY FUCKING GOOD. They are top 1% good. They are THE BEST IN THE WORLD. So why should we be surprised that they have such an impact?
They are getting 99% of the academic tail, too.
1% Elitism is EVERYWHERE.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/27/civil_war_who_would_come_out_on_top_if_the_united_states_all_declared_war.html
Who said anything about "revolution"? That just brings you trouble, and causes more harm to innocents.
Just don't lay any special claim by "citizenship" - that is a parlour trick to keep you in harness, to keep you a "house negro".
No longer inhabits the constitutional legal framework of its purpose or foundation.
It is an illegal institution, with no basis for either loyalty or obedience.
If Slashdot had posted a story about "the Lone Gunmen" pilot episode, then they would have a scoop that anticipated the 9/11 attacks with a civilian airliner, by several months...
Nah. Not HERE, in the land of the Free, with Rule of Law!
But?
We were right all the time. Unfettered by doctrine, dogma of allegiances, wary of our own cognitive bias, we saw what we saw.
Bitter vindication.
Yeah. But they are really good at spectacular failure, and undermining long-term success prospects through want for cooperation... :-)
Earth is already a permanent space colony.
Yeah.
And just LOOK at how THAT turned out!
Nope. Ongoing, current bacteriological process.
"Ever" - rhetorical device. Not a statement of actual infinite temporal determination. :-)
sounds like a republican capitalist paradise. we should import a couple of the Dubai leaders to put the US poor to work. finally.
Grim emphasis on the "final".
Oil a'int fossil in origin. The Russians know that, and have capitalized magnificently on technologies that exploit this. This is actually the REAL story behind the Donetsk basin.
False scarcity is a wealth creator and a method of social control. UAE will be destroyed not by petrochemical scarcity, but by its comparative plenitude.
No one will EVER live in a permanent space colony. Sorry.
This fantasy was promoted in an age where achieving terrestrial dominance through orbital trajectory of warheads was under intense and competitive development. It did its job.
Rockwell rode on the tail-end of this era, for the final boondoggle of the US Shuttle Program, in the 1970's. You won't see anything like that again.
There is still an instrument for guiding one's evaluation of claims and conundrums: Cui Bono?
In matters of human affairs, it is generally less erring than application of Occam's razor.
"Someone" is interested in getting you to think that the biggest potential for catastrophe, in your daily life and for your way of living, is impending Muslim ideological violence. They wish you to believe an absurdity.
What group or party benefits from this? Why have they chosen this from other possible alternatives? What other possible real threats and risks are diverted from attention by this condition?
Those are the basic questions for the truly inquisitive, not those merely questioning from a habit of personality.
Someone sounds jealous...
Someone is well-informed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh-vlQwrmU
OK. To de-escalate, and in the interest of trying an educational dialogue, I will attempt to clarify what appears to be an assumption in the posting to which I responded.
You mention "taqiyya" as a point of doctrine, or an approved mode for action, by those who profess a "witnessing" of Islam ("tashud").
This is in most was incorrect. Certainly, it is misleading, as a generalization. Al-Taqiyya is usually translated as "dissimulation". There are numerous arguments about the permissibility of this specific shading of deceit or "lying" in the history of Islamic discourse. The most common, and widely known usage was for Shi'ite partisans of 'Ali and his descendants, immediately in the time of their political schism. This was during the lifetimes of the original 3 Imams. The purpose thereof was defensive - used to deflect persecution or compulsion by "Sunni" adherents.
It is important to note this: In the first few centuries, Shi'a were a political distinction for legitimate leadership of the 'Ummah or community. Doctrinally there was not a separate school of theology or jurisprudence. Thusly, the term "Sunni" as a contrasting group is often a more modern anachronism when applied to the period - up to about the time of Jaffar Al-Siddiq, or so... "Shi'a" of that time - and indeed probably today - consider themselves to be following in the "Sunnah" of the prophet.
All of this aside, dissimulation is a means to defensively avoid harm and persecution, without giving up or rejecting articles of belief. This is true of Shi'a or of Sunni jurisprudence. There is no corresponding school of thinking that has authorized Al-Taqiyya for means of "deception" versus "dissimulation" in pursuing acts of war or other hostility.
There is in fact another term "Al-Makr" for "deception" that relates to concealment of intention. There are a number of debates about the use of this term in the Q'ran, as applied to God. Most of that discussion is quasi-theological for political ends and beyond the scope of discussion here. Let us only say that the message of the book is roughly "Those who try to trick God, have in the end only tricked themselves - for God is master over all things, including their trickery." Parse as you will.
Let us conclude that Al-Makr, as a doctrine to promote the faith, is haram.
To suggest that the existence of Al-Taqiyya provides a doctrinal basis under which one may make generalized assumptions about the threatening character of any Muslim believer is ignorant or provocative, at the least.
I'm SUING the manufacturers of BOX CUTTERS for the complicit CONSPIRACY they participated in on 9/11/2001!
-- Mayor 9u11iani.