And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand...
Why would that be a good thing? If demand for meats is decreased, production will decrease, and prices will rise. It's not like there's going to suddenly be a surplus amount of food to be given to the less fortunate. There might be temporarily, until the production decreases, at which point prices will temporarily plummet and the extra food is just going to be thrown away. Nobody is going to pay to transport it and give it to people who can't pay for it.
Cold realities of economics might suck, but you can't escape it by ignoring it.
Why should I give a shit about adademic dishonesty when fraud is what makes the world go around?
Because what the rest of the world does is of absolutely no consequence in determining whether you're an honest and moral individual.
Maybe the world is ruled by fraudsters and overall dishonest people, but if you're willing to do the same in order to join the ranks of successful people, the you have no right to complain about their practices.
Get a 10-foot 4X4 piece of lumber. Drop it flat on the ground. Walk from one end to the other like a balance beam. I'll bet you can do it. I'll bet you can do it blindfolded, walking backward. I'll bet you can do it reciting the alphabet backward. I'll bet you could do it drunk...Take that same 4X4, suspend it 20 stories in the air between a couple of cranes...
Dude, I've recently had a remarkably similar experience. You don't need anything anywhere near your amount of complexity and added pressure.
I was hiking with a group of friends. River level was a bit higher than normal, and you couldn't cross it through the normal stones used as part of the trail. However, there was a tree trunk across the river, and we decided we'd walk through that. That trunk was most certainly not an alternate people-approved path. It was pretty high over the river (I'd say about 10 ft), and there were some nasty rocks below. On the other hand, it was pretty thick. We tested our ability to walk it by walking the part of the trunk that was over land on our side. Piece of cake, plenty of surface area, it wasn't hard to maintain balance at all. I could walk it at my normal walking pace. So we decided it was safe to cross.
I climbed on top of the land section, walk forward easily...as soon as I was above the river, I was having trouble balancing myself. Started walking really slowly, and actually almost fell about 2/3rds of the way through. As soon as I was past the river and the trunk was on top of solid land again, no more problems balancing myself. It's incredible what the psychological effect is on such things, and I don't even have a fear of heights, I'm a freaking skydiver. I didn't really feel much fear, but simply had a much harder time doing a simple task once actual danger was involved.
I doubt that it can be shown anymore than you can show that increased taxes will result in increased revenue (the system is too chaotic). At least I have some anecdotal evidence to support my position.
Thanks for taking the time to post the link in the other post.
I agree with you that it's not an easy system to study, but your anecdotal evidence is a single correlation. The evidence that increased taxes will increase revenue is in the first link I gave you, where all economists tend to agree, based on models constructed, that we're on the left side of the Laffer curve. The only real disagreement is how much to the left.
I'm not using the Laffer Curve as the basis for my argument, I'm using the historical record. Between 2003 and 2007 (after the tax cut), Federal tax revenues rose from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion, a 44% increase
You missed the link to the article when you copy-pasted. Either way, that particular statistic is orthogonal to the discussion in question, unless you can provide evidence that indicates not only causality between the tax cut and increased taxable income (some of which is likely), but also that the increased taxable income due to the tax cut was of a sufficient amount to cover the entirety of that revenue increase plus the difference between the increased taxable income not due to the tax cut times the difference of the tax rate (highly unlikely).
Unless you can show that, there's nothing to indicate that tax revenues wouldn't have seen a higher than 44% increase if the tax cuts had not happened.
I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.
You're talking about the Laffer curve. Nobody disagrees with the idea that increasing taxes can actually lower revenue. There's contention as to where exactly that point is. Empirical data seems to point it at 70% rate, but at the very least, it's not less than 30%. In other words, we're nowhere near hitting that point.
Plenty of good arguments for not increasing the tax rate. That it won't increase revenue isn't one of them. I suggest you concentrate the discussion on what government services need to be cut. And if no agreement can be found, then yes, the tax rates needs to be increased until people do agree on what can be cut. Essentially, we need to a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. In fact, we need to ensure that we tax more than we spend in times of economic prosperity, to make sure the money is there for spending a bit more in investments during times of economic downturns. Kind of like you do in real life. Save money for a rainy day.
Have you actually used it, or just spouting off what you read on the internets?
Have you actually used it? Because when you click that button to get to desktop, you get to see your wallpaper. Woop-de-doo. You don't actually get to use said desktop in any way. There's no start menu. To launch apps, the metro UI will pop up again. If it's a metro app, it'll worked like metro apps do. If it's a desktop app, it'll pop up in the desktop, which really is just an additional problem: not only do I have to deal with the retarded metro apps, but the experience isn't consistent. These apps don't play nice with each other and don't share the same space.
Why is any app that I launch in my desktop computer trying to be the only app I work with. That rarely applies to me. Hell, even when I'm playing a movie, I usually have it to the side while working on something else.
I value people who care only about their family and friends more than the compassionate types loving everybody. The former are honest, the latter usually are easy to pin down as stinking hypocrites. People are not wired to care about the whole world.
Correction. People are not wired to care about the whole world equally. I care more about my family and friends than I care about others, that doesn't mean I don't mind when others suffer.
If you claim you can't sleep because children in Africa are dying, you are lying.
Either that or you can't lead a normal life. Although "can't sleep" is a pretty high level of caring, usually limited to problems that affect you directly. That doesn't mean you don't care that there are children dying at all. If you don't, you're a sociopath, because you lack basic empathy.
If you say are worried about the living conditions of the guy who assembled your iphone, you are lying.
Once again, levels. I don't care enough to go without a phone (and pretty much all other electronics). I care enough to pay more to buy one from a manufacturer that treats their workers better. If you advertise that your phone is more expensive because you don't treat your workers like slaves, you get my money (assuming your phone is also a good phone).
we have a decent proxy to determine self-sufficiency score - money. If you are paid a good coin that means you are a valuable member of society.
Being a valuable member of society is a direct opposite to the concept of self-sufficiency. The entire concept of separation of labor implies a lack of self-sufficiency. You don't grow your own food, build your own shelter, or sow your own clothes. You're depending on others contributing to society, and they depend on you doing your part. The fact you are useful means someone is willing to pay you and you provide value. This is efficient, but it is not self-sufficiency.
The whole point is that the healthy society you speak of doesn't necessarily mean inducing guilt trips in individuals to look after everybody and their dog. On the contrary, they should be free to excel without being bogged down by mediocrity all around them.
The problem with people like you is that you lack the understanding that you might be free to excel without being bogged down by the mediocrity all around you, but you're incapable of doing so. You depend on society providing an infrastructure which you can use to be successful. That doesn't mean your individual talents don't matter, and shouldn't be rewarded. They do, and they should. And if you're more talented and are providing more value than the next guy, you should be rewarded more than the next guy. If you don't believe me, shun all of society's benefits and see how far you get. No more police to protect your property, no roads to deliver your products, no courts to enforce your contracts...
Sometimes, helping the people you consider to be "mediocre" can actually help you. If your city is helping the homeless, and people who fit your definition of "productive" don't have to worry about being annoyed by beggers everywhere they go, they are more likely to want to live and work there, bringing more value to the city. Don't get annoyed when society is costing you money if the return you get is worth it. Get annoyed when society is wasting your money and you're not getting a return. Then provide a less costly alternative that is not just, "abandon all the people who are clearly less brilliant than I am", because, in the long run, that will hurt you far more than you think.
Excuses to protect your silly pride from admitting fault are the number one enemy of personal progress.
That was my point. I believe there's a good chance your pride is preventing you from seeing that you are just as affected by marketing as the person you were responding to. Except that because you refuse to admit you have this fault, you can't fix it. I don't know you personally, so I don't want to judge you here. It's entirely possible you are indeed resistant to these influences. Statistically speaking however, people who think they are beyond being influenced are the easiest to manipulate.
It's like an obese person who blames McDonalds instead of getting more exercise and learning how to have a healthy diet that is sustainable long-term.
Right, but that's not what the person you are replying to has done. He has decided TV ads overly influence him, so he stopped watching the ads. That's like said obese person deciding they over-indulge on McDonalds, so they stop going there and start eating healthy instead. He discovered his problem and took action to fix it, he's not lobbying for the government to prevent people from running ads.
Nice, but not worth paying for... I would look at it if I had it, but wouldn't buy it. But that's why I got it for free. Initially, I started getting "your subscriiption is going to expire!" notices. Then I got "last issue!" notices. Then I got more magazines after that. But why? Well, the magazines are full of ads. And those ads are worthless if they can't show the advertisers they have subscribers.
I'd double-check the credit / debit card you used to buy that bike. Years ago I bought something at Best Buy and the cashier said they were offering a free subscription of some magazine, and to just fill out the card with the address to send it to. I was just a stupid college student back then and filled out the card. After those "your subscription is about to expire" notices, I also kept getting the magazines. But they charged the same credit card I used to make the best buy purchase for the renewal, without any action on my part.
I called and got them to refund my money, but it's easy to overlook a $20 purchase that happens once a year, so I'd check just to be sure.
Depends how low you want to set the bar for passing as human.
I'm not the AC you replied to, but I agree with him.
The bar is pretty low. Humans are just like any other animal, mostly ruled by instincts, and our emotions are easily manipulated. We do have capacity for great intellect, and have accomplished great things as a result, but don't fool yourself into thinking your really that much ahead of other animals. It's just that small differences count for a lot.
The people who recognize this are typically far better at resisting their base impulses. People who think they aren't influenced by mass marketing are typically the puppets of their psychological tricks. It's only when you manage to put aside your feeling of superiority that you can see it in yourself. And it's only when you see it in yourself that you can do something to stop it. If you don't know it's happening, you can't fix it.
About half the states have stop and identify laws, so I don't know what delusion (or state) you are living under, when you say that you have some sort of right to not be approached by a law officer.
South Carolina, where we still believe in constitutional rights. And I've never said I have a right to not be approached by a law officer, I said I have the right to not talk to him or show him any identification. And I do.
Their goal is to try to con stupid people, like yourself, into believing that you have some sort of immunity to having to interact with law enforcement people. You don't. If an officer wants to question you, if he finds something vague about you suspicious, he can stop you and ask you questions, PERIOD.
An officer can stop and ask you questions at any time. You may also decline to answer at any time. You may also ask him questions such as, "am I free to go?". If he chooses to detain you, he has the right to do that. You still have the right to not answer any questions, even if you are arrested (and the officer is required by law to inform you of this right if he chooses to arrest you). If you are detained, you will be required to identify yourself (or you may be required to identify yourself by stating your name if you are not detained in certain states with stop and identify statues, but you're not required to provide them written identification). You can also sue the crap out of the department if you believe he had insufficient reason to arrest you.
Finally, even if we did live in the police state you describe, I don't see why you would accept it, instead of working to change it.
Come back in 15 years, sonny, when you have some real life experiences under your belt, you're an idiot.
Being called an idiot by someone like you is an honor, good sir. Some role models you choose to emulate, but there are also those that simply provide you with a reference for the kind of man you don't wish to become.
Actually federal law already requires ALL immigrants to register and carry some form of documentation at all times, legal or otherwise. A green card will suffice.
So the "papers please" argument already applies nationwide.
You miss the point. Are US citizens required to carry documentation at all times? What happens when you ask for proof of citizenship from someone who actually is a citizen and is therefore not required to carry such proof?
I am against illegal immigration. I'm also against being asked to provide proof for such a thing while walking down the street. If I'm applying for a job, yes, you should be verifying I'm allowed to work. If I'm applying for a government position that requires citizenship, you should be verifying I'm a citizen. If a cop thinks that I might not be American because of a hunch, he can go fuck himself. He doesn't have the right to stop me because he thinks my tan is genetic.
You and your "kind" are the reason this game went belly up.
Hell yeah! That's awesome!
Hopefully the phase of MMOs will finally end as people get bored with WoW and no other MMO finds success. Next step: the return of the adventure game genre.
Given how Peter Jackson treated LOTR, taking only the outlines and filling them in with his own imagination, the Silmarillion seems like the perfect source for him. It would save him the trouble of having to throw out all the good stuff.
It's funny that I see so much of that online. Everyone I know personally who has both read lotr and seen the movies are of the opinion that Jackson fixed the many things that were wrong with lotr and created a much better story.
Get zero sympathy at all if anything bad ever happens.
Zero. Ever.
I don't get whuffos. You're ok with staying in the plane while it flies around, right? The parachute is just another flying machine. A pretty reliable one at that.
I still don't think it's a strong argument for convincing people who disagree.
Right, agreed. I wasn't trying to convince the app developer in question, I was more explaining what my views on the subject are. Specifically, I was explaining that according to the morals I hold, "I can't make money unless I develop to a closed platform" isn't an argument that carries any weight. My answer is, "so what? You're not entitled to making money. Go find something else to do in which you can make money." If a closed platform is working for him, and it doesn't violate his moral code, then I won't participate in it, but I'll leave him alone. It's not harming me directly.
I basically objected to his whining, not his development choice. I see we weren't clear.
Mostly I agree (100% with the gay thing [though I reserve the right to think that those claiming gay sex immoral are disrespectful and nasty people who place judgments on people for something that would cause them no harm if they didn't insist on making it harmful by making it a problem for them inside their own brain - how I loathe such idiots].
You and me both, but that's part of our moral code. Lots of people have religious objections, and they will argue that they take their moral code from a higher power, it's not something they are allowed to change. I don't agree with it, it doesn't make any sense to me (delegating your morals to an all-powerful being is basically a version of might makes right, which goes against my moral code), and I haven't observed them to be particularly consistent in following rules from their reference text (often the reference text isn't consistent with itself). That said, I'm not going to interfere with their beliefs unless these beliefs are being used to directly harm others. So, if your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting gays, and you want to stay away from them, by all means, do so. I bet they don't want you around either. However, you don't get to make laws that prevent consenting adults from living their lives however they choose.
Personally, I hope this doesn't change. It is a relic of the golden age of aviation, of a simpler time with less regulation. One hopes that pilots who fly without radios are paying attention to their nav charts (which list drop zones). But there are plenty of stupid pilots, just like there are plenty of stupid skydivers.
I'm 100% with you. That's why we're supposed to be watching out for these planes ourselves, we have a bigger chance of spotting them than they do of spotting us. It also does make me feel better knowing that radio-less planes are fairly rare, and as you point out, I imagine people flying them would be extra careful. I was curious and wanted to hear a pilot's side. Thanks for that.
So you are unconcerned with the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft thousands of feet above the ground and relying on a piece of fabric to arrest your fall, but you *are* worried about the additional minuscule chance you will get clobbered by a dentist spacing out at the controls of his Cessna?:)
Hah. It's a good question. The answer is two-fold. First, as I said, I realize the chances are rather small, and I'm not that worried about it. Second, the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft are much smaller than people assume. It's a rather safe sport.
Well, I suppose a more accurate answer is that it's "as dangerous as you make it." There aren't many skydiving deaths (roughly 20-25 a year or so, millions of jumps). Of those deaths, the vast majority of them are people who are very experience, with thousands of jumps, with very highly loaded canopies, doing high performance landings, or something else that ups their risk considerably (like not paying attention to canopy traffic around them. Last year we had a disproportionate amount of deaths due to canopy collisions, as compared to other years). If you've never done it, I highly recommend you do a tandem sometime. I imagine that, statistically, your biggest risk is getting addicted to it and spending money to get your A license. That's what happened to me:)/p>
Also, uncontrolled airport -- those without towers -- don't require radio communication to use. If you have a radio it is best to make an announcement on the CTAF/Unicom frequency for safety, but it isn't required.
You're right, and knowing this scares the hell out of me.
I skydive, and before people start jumping off the plane, the pilot announces over radio, "jumpers in the air." They generally tend to broadcast announcements of the entire operation status, and the general jump run location. The regulars of the airport obviously know this is going on, but I have seen people land there to refuel while traveling someplace else get all amazed watching the skydivers land.
It's somewhat unnerving to me to know that anyone can just show up without a radio, and without knowing the airport is a dropzone. I assume it can be somewhat hard to visually spot people falling at 120 mph. Obviously there's a lot of empty space up there, so it's not like a collision is likely to happen, but still, it bothers me. Any pilots want to weigh in? Does knowing there are skydivers in an airport bother you? Do you think radio communication should be required in this day and age, or are there good reasons not to have a radio on your plane? Depending of course, on the class of plane. I realize skydivers operate under VFR rules, so if a radio was required, we'd have to strap one on, I guess:)
Both of you are idiots. All you are really complaining about is having to sit through the entire video just so you can get the green check mark next to the video and earn your badges.
Badge? Green check mark? What the hell are you talking about?
When I went to check his videos out, he didn't have any of that. I was merely stating that his videos suck at teaching. You're much better off going to your local library and grabbing a book. It'll be a lot easier to learn the concept.
"Sex between a man and a woman, and only after marriage, is the only moral way to have sex"
In other words, go fuck yourself and your idea of "morals".
There's a pretty big difference between me and the anti-gay crowd.
I'm a strong believer in moral relativism. That means that I don't require my morals to be your morals. You don't think it's immoral to lock down a device from its own user, fine. You go write software for walled garden platforms. I'm not forcing you to stop. I am, however, going to object to your practices and vote with your wallet, instead of participating in the activity that goes against my morals.
Basically, thinking gay sex is immoral is fine. Just don't have gay sex. The problem is when those people try stopping other consenting adults from participating in it.
Slashdot Mirror
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand...
Why would that be a good thing? If demand for meats is decreased, production will decrease, and prices will rise. It's not like there's going to suddenly be a surplus amount of food to be given to the less fortunate. There might be temporarily, until the production decreases, at which point prices will temporarily plummet and the extra food is just going to be thrown away. Nobody is going to pay to transport it and give it to people who can't pay for it.
Cold realities of economics might suck, but you can't escape it by ignoring it.
Why should I give a shit about adademic dishonesty when fraud is what makes the world go around?
Because what the rest of the world does is of absolutely no consequence in determining whether you're an honest and moral individual.
Maybe the world is ruled by fraudsters and overall dishonest people, but if you're willing to do the same in order to join the ranks of successful people, the you have no right to complain about their practices.
Get a 10-foot 4X4 piece of lumber. Drop it flat on the ground. Walk from one end to the other like a balance beam. I'll bet you can do it. I'll bet you can do it blindfolded, walking backward. I'll bet you can do it reciting the alphabet backward. I'll bet you could do it drunk...Take that same 4X4, suspend it 20 stories in the air between a couple of cranes...
Dude, I've recently had a remarkably similar experience. You don't need anything anywhere near your amount of complexity and added pressure.
I was hiking with a group of friends. River level was a bit higher than normal, and you couldn't cross it through the normal stones used as part of the trail. However, there was a tree trunk across the river, and we decided we'd walk through that. That trunk was most certainly not an alternate people-approved path. It was pretty high over the river (I'd say about 10 ft), and there were some nasty rocks below. On the other hand, it was pretty thick. We tested our ability to walk it by walking the part of the trunk that was over land on our side. Piece of cake, plenty of surface area, it wasn't hard to maintain balance at all. I could walk it at my normal walking pace. So we decided it was safe to cross.
I climbed on top of the land section, walk forward easily...as soon as I was above the river, I was having trouble balancing myself. Started walking really slowly, and actually almost fell about 2/3rds of the way through. As soon as I was past the river and the trunk was on top of solid land again, no more problems balancing myself. It's incredible what the psychological effect is on such things, and I don't even have a fear of heights, I'm a freaking skydiver. I didn't really feel much fear, but simply had a much harder time doing a simple task once actual danger was involved.
I doubt that it can be shown anymore than you can show that increased taxes will result in increased revenue (the system is too chaotic). At least I have some anecdotal evidence to support my position.
Thanks for taking the time to post the link in the other post.
I agree with you that it's not an easy system to study, but your anecdotal evidence is a single correlation. The evidence that increased taxes will increase revenue is in the first link I gave you, where all economists tend to agree, based on models constructed, that we're on the left side of the Laffer curve. The only real disagreement is how much to the left.
I'm not using the Laffer Curve as the basis for my argument, I'm using the historical record. Between 2003 and 2007 (after the tax cut), Federal tax revenues rose from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion, a 44% increase
You missed the link to the article when you copy-pasted. Either way, that particular statistic is orthogonal to the discussion in question, unless you can provide evidence that indicates not only causality between the tax cut and increased taxable income (some of which is likely), but also that the increased taxable income due to the tax cut was of a sufficient amount to cover the entirety of that revenue increase plus the difference between the increased taxable income not due to the tax cut times the difference of the tax rate (highly unlikely).
Unless you can show that, there's nothing to indicate that tax revenues wouldn't have seen a higher than 44% increase if the tax cuts had not happened.
I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.
You're talking about the Laffer curve. Nobody disagrees with the idea that increasing taxes can actually lower revenue. There's contention as to where exactly that point is. Empirical data seems to point it at 70% rate, but at the very least, it's not less than 30%. In other words, we're nowhere near hitting that point.
Plenty of good arguments for not increasing the tax rate. That it won't increase revenue isn't one of them. I suggest you concentrate the discussion on what government services need to be cut. And if no agreement can be found, then yes, the tax rates needs to be increased until people do agree on what can be cut. Essentially, we need to a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. In fact, we need to ensure that we tax more than we spend in times of economic prosperity, to make sure the money is there for spending a bit more in investments during times of economic downturns. Kind of like you do in real life. Save money for a rainy day.
It takes one click to get to the desktop.
Have you actually used it, or just spouting off what you read on the internets?
Have you actually used it? Because when you click that button to get to desktop, you get to see your wallpaper. Woop-de-doo. You don't actually get to use said desktop in any way. There's no start menu. To launch apps, the metro UI will pop up again. If it's a metro app, it'll worked like metro apps do. If it's a desktop app, it'll pop up in the desktop, which really is just an additional problem: not only do I have to deal with the retarded metro apps, but the experience isn't consistent. These apps don't play nice with each other and don't share the same space.
Why is any app that I launch in my desktop computer trying to be the only app I work with. That rarely applies to me. Hell, even when I'm playing a movie, I usually have it to the side while working on something else.
Flower's shows an achievement of greatness that, while failed, could lead to future success
I assume you're talking about Flowers for Algernon. If so, way to miss the point of the story.
The point was that Gordon led a happier life with a lower IQ than he did with a higher one. And that is depressing indeed.
I value people who care only about their family and friends more than the compassionate types loving everybody. The former are honest, the latter usually are easy to pin down as stinking hypocrites. People are not wired to care about the whole world.
Correction. People are not wired to care about the whole world equally. I care more about my family and friends than I care about others, that doesn't mean I don't mind when others suffer.
If you claim you can't sleep because children in Africa are dying, you are lying.
Either that or you can't lead a normal life. Although "can't sleep" is a pretty high level of caring, usually limited to problems that affect you directly. That doesn't mean you don't care that there are children dying at all. If you don't, you're a sociopath, because you lack basic empathy.
If you say are worried about the living conditions of the guy who assembled your iphone, you are lying.
Once again, levels. I don't care enough to go without a phone (and pretty much all other electronics). I care enough to pay more to buy one from a manufacturer that treats their workers better. If you advertise that your phone is more expensive because you don't treat your workers like slaves, you get my money (assuming your phone is also a good phone).
we have a decent proxy to determine self-sufficiency score - money. If you are paid a good coin that means you are a valuable member of society.
Being a valuable member of society is a direct opposite to the concept of self-sufficiency. The entire concept of separation of labor implies a lack of self-sufficiency. You don't grow your own food, build your own shelter, or sow your own clothes. You're depending on others contributing to society, and they depend on you doing your part. The fact you are useful means someone is willing to pay you and you provide value. This is efficient, but it is not self-sufficiency.
The whole point is that the healthy society you speak of doesn't necessarily mean inducing guilt trips in individuals to look after everybody and their dog. On the contrary, they should be free to excel without being bogged down by mediocrity all around them.
The problem with people like you is that you lack the understanding that you might be free to excel without being bogged down by the mediocrity all around you, but you're incapable of doing so. You depend on society providing an infrastructure which you can use to be successful. That doesn't mean your individual talents don't matter, and shouldn't be rewarded. They do, and they should. And if you're more talented and are providing more value than the next guy, you should be rewarded more than the next guy. If you don't believe me, shun all of society's benefits and see how far you get. No more police to protect your property, no roads to deliver your products, no courts to enforce your contracts...
Sometimes, helping the people you consider to be "mediocre" can actually help you. If your city is helping the homeless, and people who fit your definition of "productive" don't have to worry about being annoyed by beggers everywhere they go, they are more likely to want to live and work there, bringing more value to the city. Don't get annoyed when society is costing you money if the return you get is worth it. Get annoyed when society is wasting your money and you're not getting a return. Then provide a less costly alternative that is not just, "abandon all the people who are clearly less brilliant than I am", because, in the long run, that will hurt you far more than you think.
Excuses to protect your silly pride from admitting fault are the number one enemy of personal progress.
That was my point. I believe there's a good chance your pride is preventing you from seeing that you are just as affected by marketing as the person you were responding to. Except that because you refuse to admit you have this fault, you can't fix it. I don't know you personally, so I don't want to judge you here. It's entirely possible you are indeed resistant to these influences. Statistically speaking however, people who think they are beyond being influenced are the easiest to manipulate.
It's like an obese person who blames McDonalds instead of getting more exercise and learning how to have a healthy diet that is sustainable long-term.
Right, but that's not what the person you are replying to has done. He has decided TV ads overly influence him, so he stopped watching the ads. That's like said obese person deciding they over-indulge on McDonalds, so they stop going there and start eating healthy instead. He discovered his problem and took action to fix it, he's not lobbying for the government to prevent people from running ads.
Nice, but not worth paying for... I would look at it if I had it, but wouldn't buy it. But that's why I got it for free. Initially, I started getting "your subscriiption is going to expire!" notices. Then I got "last issue!" notices. Then I got more magazines after that. But why? Well, the magazines are full of ads. And those ads are worthless if they can't show the advertisers they have subscribers.
I'd double-check the credit / debit card you used to buy that bike. Years ago I bought something at Best Buy and the cashier said they were offering a free subscription of some magazine, and to just fill out the card with the address to send it to. I was just a stupid college student back then and filled out the card. After those "your subscription is about to expire" notices, I also kept getting the magazines. But they charged the same credit card I used to make the best buy purchase for the renewal, without any action on my part.
I called and got them to refund my money, but it's easy to overlook a $20 purchase that happens once a year, so I'd check just to be sure.
Depends how low you want to set the bar for passing as human.
I'm not the AC you replied to, but I agree with him.
The bar is pretty low. Humans are just like any other animal, mostly ruled by instincts, and our emotions are easily manipulated. We do have capacity for great intellect, and have accomplished great things as a result, but don't fool yourself into thinking your really that much ahead of other animals. It's just that small differences count for a lot.
The people who recognize this are typically far better at resisting their base impulses. People who think they aren't influenced by mass marketing are typically the puppets of their psychological tricks. It's only when you manage to put aside your feeling of superiority that you can see it in yourself. And it's only when you see it in yourself that you can do something to stop it. If you don't know it's happening, you can't fix it.
About half the states have stop and identify laws, so I don't know what delusion (or state) you are living under, when you say that you have some sort of right to not be approached by a law officer.
South Carolina, where we still believe in constitutional rights. And I've never said I have a right to not be approached by a law officer, I said I have the right to not talk to him or show him any identification. And I do.
Their goal is to try to con stupid people, like yourself, into believing that you have some sort of immunity to having to interact with law enforcement people. You don't. If an officer wants to question you, if he finds something vague about you suspicious, he can stop you and ask you questions, PERIOD.
An officer can stop and ask you questions at any time. You may also decline to answer at any time. You may also ask him questions such as, "am I free to go?". If he chooses to detain you, he has the right to do that. You still have the right to not answer any questions, even if you are arrested (and the officer is required by law to inform you of this right if he chooses to arrest you). If you are detained, you will be required to identify yourself (or you may be required to identify yourself by stating your name if you are not detained in certain states with stop and identify statues, but you're not required to provide them written identification). You can also sue the crap out of the department if you believe he had insufficient reason to arrest you.
Finally, even if we did live in the police state you describe, I don't see why you would accept it, instead of working to change it.
Come back in 15 years, sonny, when you have some real life experiences under your belt, you're an idiot.
Being called an idiot by someone like you is an honor, good sir. Some role models you choose to emulate, but there are also those that simply provide you with a reference for the kind of man you don't wish to become.
Actually federal law already requires ALL immigrants to register and carry some form of documentation at all times, legal or otherwise. A green card will suffice.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1304
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1306
So the "papers please" argument already applies nationwide.
You miss the point. Are US citizens required to carry documentation at all times? What happens when you ask for proof of citizenship from someone who actually is a citizen and is therefore not required to carry such proof?
I am against illegal immigration. I'm also against being asked to provide proof for such a thing while walking down the street. If I'm applying for a job, yes, you should be verifying I'm allowed to work. If I'm applying for a government position that requires citizenship, you should be verifying I'm a citizen. If a cop thinks that I might not be American because of a hunch, he can go fuck himself. He doesn't have the right to stop me because he thinks my tan is genetic.
You and your "kind" are the reason this game went belly up.
Hell yeah! That's awesome!
Hopefully the phase of MMOs will finally end as people get bored with WoW and no other MMO finds success. Next step: the return of the adventure game genre.
...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?
[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]
You really expect most Slashdotters to google Gilda?
You expect anyone to need to google Gilda?
Given how Peter Jackson treated LOTR, taking only the outlines and filling them in with his own imagination, the Silmarillion seems like the perfect source for him. It would save him the trouble of having to throw out all the good stuff.
It's funny that I see so much of that online. Everyone I know personally who has both read lotr and seen the movies are of the opinion that Jackson fixed the many things that were wrong with lotr and created a much better story.
Taste. It's subjective.
People who jump out of perfectly good airplanes.
Get zero sympathy at all if anything bad ever happens.
Zero. Ever.
I don't get whuffos. You're ok with staying in the plane while it flies around, right? The parachute is just another flying machine. A pretty reliable one at that.
We're pretty much on the same page.
I still don't think it's a strong argument for convincing people who disagree.
Right, agreed. I wasn't trying to convince the app developer in question, I was more explaining what my views on the subject are. Specifically, I was explaining that according to the morals I hold, "I can't make money unless I develop to a closed platform" isn't an argument that carries any weight. My answer is, "so what? You're not entitled to making money. Go find something else to do in which you can make money." If a closed platform is working for him, and it doesn't violate his moral code, then I won't participate in it, but I'll leave him alone. It's not harming me directly.
I basically objected to his whining, not his development choice. I see we weren't clear.
Mostly I agree (100% with the gay thing [though I reserve the right to think that those claiming gay sex immoral are disrespectful and nasty people who place judgments on people for something that would cause them no harm if they didn't insist on making it harmful by making it a problem for them inside their own brain - how I loathe such idiots].
You and me both, but that's part of our moral code. Lots of people have religious objections, and they will argue that they take their moral code from a higher power, it's not something they are allowed to change. I don't agree with it, it doesn't make any sense to me (delegating your morals to an all-powerful being is basically a version of might makes right, which goes against my moral code), and I haven't observed them to be particularly consistent in following rules from their reference text (often the reference text isn't consistent with itself). That said, I'm not going to interfere with their beliefs unless these beliefs are being used to directly harm others. So, if your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting gays, and you want to stay away from them, by all means, do so. I bet they don't want you around either. However, you don't get to make laws that prevent consenting adults from living their lives however they choose.
Personally, I hope this doesn't change. It is a relic of the golden age of aviation, of a simpler time with less regulation. One hopes that pilots who fly without radios are paying attention to their nav charts (which list drop zones). But there are plenty of stupid pilots, just like there are plenty of stupid skydivers.
I'm 100% with you. That's why we're supposed to be watching out for these planes ourselves, we have a bigger chance of spotting them than they do of spotting us. It also does make me feel better knowing that radio-less planes are fairly rare, and as you point out, I imagine people flying them would be extra careful. I was curious and wanted to hear a pilot's side. Thanks for that.
So you are unconcerned with the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft thousands of feet above the ground and relying on a piece of fabric to arrest your fall, but you *are* worried about the additional minuscule chance you will get clobbered by a dentist spacing out at the controls of his Cessna? :)
Hah. It's a good question. The answer is two-fold. First, as I said, I realize the chances are rather small, and I'm not that worried about it. Second, the risks associated with intentionally jumping out of an aircraft are much smaller than people assume. It's a rather safe sport.
Well, I suppose a more accurate answer is that it's "as dangerous as you make it." There aren't many skydiving deaths (roughly 20-25 a year or so, millions of jumps). Of those deaths, the vast majority of them are people who are very experience, with thousands of jumps, with very highly loaded canopies, doing high performance landings, or something else that ups their risk considerably (like not paying attention to canopy traffic around them. Last year we had a disproportionate amount of deaths due to canopy collisions, as compared to other years). If you've never done it, I highly recommend you do a tandem sometime. I imagine that, statistically, your biggest risk is getting addicted to it and spending money to get your A license. That's what happened to me :)/p>
I realize skydivers operate under VFR rules...
Ugh...now I need to hit myself in the head with the same bat I used to hit people who say they're going to use the ATM machine.
Also, uncontrolled airport -- those without towers -- don't require radio communication to use. If you have a radio it is best to make an announcement on the CTAF/Unicom frequency for safety, but it isn't required.
You're right, and knowing this scares the hell out of me.
I skydive, and before people start jumping off the plane, the pilot announces over radio, "jumpers in the air." They generally tend to broadcast announcements of the entire operation status, and the general jump run location. The regulars of the airport obviously know this is going on, but I have seen people land there to refuel while traveling someplace else get all amazed watching the skydivers land.
It's somewhat unnerving to me to know that anyone can just show up without a radio, and without knowing the airport is a dropzone. I assume it can be somewhat hard to visually spot people falling at 120 mph. Obviously there's a lot of empty space up there, so it's not like a collision is likely to happen, but still, it bothers me. Any pilots want to weigh in? Does knowing there are skydivers in an airport bother you? Do you think radio communication should be required in this day and age, or are there good reasons not to have a radio on your plane? Depending of course, on the class of plane. I realize skydivers operate under VFR rules, so if a radio was required, we'd have to strap one on, I guess :)
Both of you are idiots. All you are really complaining about is having to sit through the entire video just so you can get the green check mark next to the video and earn your badges.
Badge? Green check mark? What the hell are you talking about?
When I went to check his videos out, he didn't have any of that. I was merely stating that his videos suck at teaching. You're much better off going to your local library and grabbing a book. It'll be a lot easier to learn the concept.
"Sex between a man and a woman, and only after marriage, is the only moral way to have sex"
In other words, go fuck yourself and your idea of "morals".
There's a pretty big difference between me and the anti-gay crowd.
I'm a strong believer in moral relativism. That means that I don't require my morals to be your morals. You don't think it's immoral to lock down a device from its own user, fine. You go write software for walled garden platforms. I'm not forcing you to stop. I am, however, going to object to your practices and vote with your wallet, instead of participating in the activity that goes against my morals.
Basically, thinking gay sex is immoral is fine. Just don't have gay sex. The problem is when those people try stopping other consenting adults from participating in it.