Complaining about improved economic efficiency is characteristic of disgruntled rent seekers. Fact is, there are more workers than jobs, and we as a society have to figure out how to keep them happy, because otherwise it is kill or be killed.
That's not what it means. You fail. It means that you do not have savings upon which you can live while you regroup if your paycheck is terminated. Everyone else on the planet understands what this means, so you're not fooling anyone.
No, the majority of individuals are not capable of creative thought or focussed, intentional actions. I fear you have been living in a bubble of privilege. Vast swaths of humanity do not have the training, the nurture, the resources, or even the genetics to survive in an information-based society. Either society bifurcates into eloi and morlocks, or we find a way to support the majority of humans as benign parasites. Hopefully in a way that does not encourage them to breed.
It's just never true that it is good for the whole of society for an individual to cede their rights. In practice, this always leads to a hell-hole of a "society".
You're confusing libertarianism with Randian "objectivism" and its radical individualism. A libertarian may well hold that the rigorous defense of the rights of the individual is in fact in the best interest of the collective society. Unfortunately, one cannot reason with a collective.
64 bit wide bus means 2x the bandwidth compared to 32 bit wide bus. Of course that's a gross oversimplification in general, but it's almost true in embedded.
The only thing the U.S. government does remarkably well is to enslave it's population to enrich it's owners. The federal government instituted slavery, committed the genocide of the American Indians, has continually waged wars of choice and aggression since the civil war, and is currently institutionalizing assassination, torture, and the grandest enslavement of the population since Mao. Worse than torture, death or robbery, it has subjected everyone on the planet to the inhuman degradation of submission to an evil tyrant. There is no possible rational balance between federal and state power in the U.S. Only the absolute annihilation of the federal power can salve humane conscience. Certain nation-states are just too evil to be allowed. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China and the U.S. top the list of nations which come to mind when recalling Orwell's vision of man's future: A hobnailed boot endlessly stomping on a human face. It is morally respectable to argue whether it should be destroyed by Ghandian tactics, assassination politics, or nuclear war, but there can be no respect for apologism or appeasement.
Many people find evil sufficiently offensive so that they cannot accept an omnipotent God. I would point out however, that no matter how much evil there is in the world, if it is redeemable, then a good omnipotent deity will create that world, since it is eventually better for that world to exist that for it not to exist. Of course there will be a lot of complaining along the way, but it all comes out in the end. It's just your misfortune to be born in one such world. I personally would prefer to have been born in a world without any transitory suffering, but I'm not entirely sure such a perfect world is actually logically possible.
You're quite mistaken. Soren Kierkegaard, writing under the pseudonym of Johannes Climacus, proposed the argument that has been tritely characterized by his detractors (i.e. the detractors of Johannes Climacus, not those of Soren Kierkegaard) in the way you describe, but it's not a fair characterization. Paul, in contrast, considered the resurrection of Jesus to be adequate historical proof of his messianic role, and considered the traditions of Jewish prophecy to be corroborative support, with didactic value.
Kierkegaard's straw man actually made an argument which is of some persuasive quality from a Hegelian point of view, such as was prevalent in his millieux, but has little value from the viewpoint of modern British analytical philosophy. That argument is more fairly summarized thus:
The Absolute (godhead) is absolutely transcendant and necessary.
The incarnation is categorically immanent and contingent.
The very notion of godhead incarnate, therefore, is so utterly contradictory as to be beyond human conception.
Consequently, the real and present concept demonstrates transcendent intervention in facticity, i.e. that God is real and manifesting himself to us in history by means of Absolute Contradiction.
There being no other way to adequately explain the manifest phenomena, we must therefore believe this absurdity on the basis of its sheer absurdity alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Complaining about improved economic efficiency is characteristic of disgruntled rent seekers.
Fact is, there are more workers than jobs, and we as a society have to figure out how to keep them happy, because otherwise it is kill or be killed.
Most of the wealth in this country is generational. 15 descendants of Sam Walton alone have more wealth than 48% of the population combined.
That's not what it means. You fail. It means that you do not have savings upon which you can live while you regroup if your paycheck is terminated. Everyone else on the planet understands what this means, so you're not fooling anyone.
There is a flaw in this system, and it is you. Survival of the fittest is a description, not a prescription.
No, the majority of individuals are not capable of creative thought or focussed, intentional actions. I fear you have been living in a bubble of privilege. Vast swaths of humanity do not have the training, the nurture, the resources, or even the genetics to survive in an information-based society. Either society bifurcates into eloi and morlocks, or we find a way to support the majority of humans as benign parasites. Hopefully in a way that does not encourage them to breed.
+1
Murder for hire is also a market. Being a market does not make it clever or useful or right or desirable.
lately he's been on the road away from a mouse, towards a touch screen.
actually, there were witnesses, and he gunned up, not down: martin was on top of him, beating his head against asphalt.
It's just never true that it is good for the whole of society for an individual to cede their rights. In practice, this always leads to a hell-hole of a "society".
You're confusing libertarianism with Randian "objectivism" and its radical individualism. A libertarian may well hold that the rigorous defense of the rights of the individual is in fact in the best interest of the collective society. Unfortunately, one cannot reason with a collective.
that is brilliant. what country? i want to live there.
64 bit wide bus means 2x the bandwidth compared to 32 bit wide bus. Of course that's a gross oversimplification in general, but it's almost true in embedded.
paranoid persecution complex much?
Dude died in Baluchistan in December of 2001 of kidney failure.
Hey, I'll reign in the NSA if elected.
The only thing the U.S. government does remarkably well is to enslave it's population to enrich it's owners. The federal government instituted slavery, committed the genocide of the American Indians, has continually waged wars of choice and aggression since the civil war, and is currently institutionalizing assassination, torture, and the grandest enslavement of the population since Mao. Worse than torture, death or robbery, it has subjected everyone on the planet to the inhuman degradation of submission to an evil tyrant. There is no possible rational balance between federal and state power in the U.S. Only the absolute annihilation of the federal power can salve humane conscience. Certain nation-states are just too evil to be allowed. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China and the U.S. top the list of nations which come to mind when recalling Orwell's vision of man's future: A hobnailed boot endlessly stomping on a human face. It is morally respectable to argue whether it should be destroyed by Ghandian tactics, assassination politics, or nuclear war, but there can be no respect for apologism or appeasement.
Unless you have the fiber to wage war, I suggest you remain submissive.
That only works in a place where rule of law is a thing.
So your theory is that a few nitrate molecules on your pants make you a serious danger to aviation?
Many people find evil sufficiently offensive so that they cannot accept an omnipotent God. I would point out however, that no matter how much evil there is in the world, if it is redeemable, then a good omnipotent deity will create that world, since it is eventually better for that world to exist that for it not to exist. Of course there will be a lot of complaining along the way, but it all comes out in the end. It's just your misfortune to be born in one such world. I personally would prefer to have been born in a world without any transitory suffering, but I'm not entirely sure such a perfect world is actually logically possible.
You're quite mistaken. Soren Kierkegaard, writing under the pseudonym of Johannes Climacus, proposed the argument that has been tritely characterized by his detractors (i.e. the detractors of Johannes Climacus, not those of Soren Kierkegaard) in the way you describe, but it's not a fair characterization. Paul, in contrast, considered the resurrection of Jesus to be adequate historical proof of his messianic role, and considered the traditions of Jewish prophecy to be corroborative support, with didactic value.
Kierkegaard's straw man actually made an argument which is of some persuasive quality from a Hegelian point of view, such as was prevalent in his millieux, but has little value from the viewpoint of modern British analytical philosophy. That argument is more fairly summarized thus:
The Absolute (godhead) is absolutely transcendant and necessary.
The incarnation is categorically immanent and contingent.
The very notion of godhead incarnate, therefore, is so utterly contradictory as to be beyond human conception.
Consequently, the real and present concept demonstrates transcendent intervention in facticity, i.e. that God is real and manifesting himself to us in history by means of Absolute Contradiction.
There being no other way to adequately explain the manifest phenomena, we must therefore believe this absurdity on the basis of its sheer absurdity alone.
The U.S. is a pretty good example of a libertarian state, from 1787 to 1860, albeit with slaves.
Right. Kropotkin is my wing-man.
Just about any android phone doubles as a "PC" in the same sense. Canonical is an also-ran.