Interestingly enough, humans can only eat a small percentage of plants that are out there, most of which we've modified by selectively breeding them to create large seeds, fruit, or vegetation. Most grocery store vegetables share wild mustard as an ancestor. A few species of cereals (wheat, barley, corn) make up most of human's other plant-derived food. On the flip side, humans can eat practically any animal, even most insects.
So, objectively speaking, it's more natural for people to eat other animals. Until the advent of plant domestication about 10,000 years ago, most people wouldn't have been able to survive on a vegetarian diet and even if they could they'd spend most of their time collecting wild seeds as most plants we think of as food don't exist in nature. People have been omnivores as long as they've been around because 'beggars can't be choosers.' Our ancestors ate what was available that was compatible with their digestive systems.
If they had chose to respect 'animal rights' then civilization wouldn't exist. It was the use of animal-drawn plows that allowed for large-scale agriculture and thus civilization to come about. Animal domestication, or as the animal-rights people would say, 'animal enslavement,' was a necessary part of human progress. Not to mention the fact that without animal domestication cows, chickens, and dogs (to name a few) wouldn't exist as none of those animals ever existed in nature -- they're man-made species.
I kind of got off point but it remained on topic so I'll leave it. Point was, humans can eat many more animals than we can plants, so I'd modify your "homo sapiens eat everything" to "homo sapiens eat every animal, and a few plants we modified to be compatible with our digestive systems." If our digestive system could break down cellulose starvation would be a non-issue (as it is, starvation is just an economic issue, but that's another discussion altogether).
it's no more dangerous than power-hungry idiots finding some other, perhaps less convenient, excuse to do the same thing.
Except that religion explicitly insists on unconditional, unquestioning, evidence-free belief.
That is dangerous in itself.
Maybe some particular religion insists on those things, but there's nothing about religion in general that demands unconditional, unquestioning, evidence-free belief. The Dali Lama, one of the most influential religious leaders in the world, has explicitly stated that one should not be so devout as to have unconditional, unquestioning, evidence-free belief. In fact, he's stated that throughout his life he's often doubted his faith and challenged himself to question its basic tenants.
Evidence-free belief also isn't as egregious as you make it sound. Not everything is a science experiment. Moral questions aren't the type that can be answered with empiricism.
The fact that you think that supernaturalism and religion are synonymous demonstrates that you don't understand religion very well. Atheism just means not a theist -- 'a' is a prefix that means 'not.' If you don't believe in God but you believe in ghosts, you're an atheist. Sure, some religions incorporate supernaturalism -- fundamentalist Christians and some variants of Hinduism, for example -- but many do not and supernaturalism isn't a necessary component of religion. Zen Buddhism, Taoism, non-fundamentalist Christianity, and non-Orthodox Judaism are a couple examples.
A common trend you'll see among the religious -- that the stupid also believe in the supernatural -- you'll see among atheists as well. An atheist who believes that aliens built the pyramids is just as crazy as the Christian who believes that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles. The crazies will be crazies, religion or no religion.
Being skeptical of weird stuff doesn't mean one can't be religious so that's not a valid definition of atheism. Atheism is a strict belief that any form of theism is incorrect. That may not be a very complicated (or rational) belief system, but it's still a belief system.
This is pretty much what I was going to post. This whole "critique of the military-industrial complex" view fails to take into account that the bugs were an actual threat to earth.
Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by the most famous movie critic of all time:
It doesn't really matter, since the Bugs aren't important except as props for the interminable action scenes, and as an enemy to justify the film's quasi-fascist militarism. Heinlein was of course a right-wing saberrattler, but a charming and intelligent one who wrote some of the best science fiction ever. "Starship Troopers'' proposes a society in which citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield.
Heinlein intended his story for young boys, but wrote it more or less seriously. The one redeeming merit for director Paul Verhoeven's film is that by remaining faithful to Heinlein's material and period, it adds an element of sly satire. This is like the squarest but most technically advanced sci-fi movie of the 1950s, a film in which the sets and costumes look like a cross between Buck Rogers and the Archie comic books, and the characters look like they stepped out of Pepsodent ads.
Ebert still gave the film a paltry 2 out of 4 stars. Whether the director was trying to satirize Heinlein or not, it was still a pretty shabby movie.
Blue collar jobs often actually do background checks and just toss out applicants who have criminal records. It's just a supply/demand issue: the supply of blue collar workers is extremely high while the demand for them is extremely low. Therefore, companies can choose to be extremely picky in who they hire. This creates a terrible situation for many who don't have the resources or intelligence to gain the higher education necessary to make them valuable enough for a company to overlook any misdemeanors they've been charged with. I assume that you have either an education or skills that make you valuable enough to your employer to overlook whatever prior offense you have on your record, or your skills in combination with your interview meant they didn't see any reason to bother with a background check.
Unfortunately, blue collar workers, who probably have the most reason to protest, also have the most to lose by doing so. They could make themselves unemployable to all but the lowest paying fast food jobs, which in turn would make crime a more appealing source of income, at which point they become part of the penal system's revolving door trap.
My reply to both you and the parent is that IMHO most people (including Greenspan
That would be strange considering that she consulted Greenspan when writing Atlas Shrugged and they were good friends.
Although the book vehemently treats all politicians as scum, Rand herself rallied behind certain Republican politicians. In the dystopic Atlas Shrugged the 'collectivists' have already taken over the entire government and it's too late for the 'individuals' to do anything about it. If anything the book is a rallying cry for ultra-conservatives to become more involved in government to save it from the FDR-type liberals that Rand saw as incompetent tyrants who had taken over.
there is a third group
And there's a fourth group and a fifth group and so on. However, I don't believe that the difference Nietzsche's Man and Superman is that between master and slave. My interpretation was that it's more akin to the difference between animal and man. Like how there's a difference between spiders and cats. Spiders are somewhat like automatons -- they do what they do almost purely based on cause and effect. Cats, on the other hand, make good pets because they are closer to man's mental capacity -- even though they sometimes act purely upon cause/effect type stimuli (such as play with string), they also seem to somewhat have a will of their own and they are emotional creatures. Regardless, they have nowhere near the logical capacity as man.
If I understand Nietzsche correctly (which I admit is questionable), then the Superman is a man who lives up to his mental potential. Many people live their entire lives without even attempting to take advantage of their potential -- like animals they can be satisfied with mere carnal pleasure and they only use their mental potential to increase this carnal pleasure. Nietzsche asserts that we ought to esteem to be something greater than what we tend to be; in our ambitions, morals, and our ability to reason.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It's sad that whenever the bullying topic gets brought up on Slashdot it brings all the crybabies out of the woodwork. I mean, I get that on a site full of nerds, many were bullying in high school, but it's just pathetic how many still haven't gotten over it.
People who think insults can be harmful have never really grown up.
I think the most important lesson a person can learn in life is that they don't matter. Their emotions don't matter. The only thing about a person that matters is what they do with their life. If you choose to take your own life, especially before you've actually done anything, you really don't matter. This life is precious shit makes me sick. People just think life is precious because they don't want to die.
There's are simple solutions to all the problems you mention: Don't use Facebook or G+ or any other social networking site. Go to your cell phone provider and tell them you don't want to receive anonymous text messages because of the problem -- harassing text messages can also be dealt with by the police (but more importantly, they can be ignored). If someone sets up a website with the express purpose of defaming you or harassing you then all you have to do is shoot an e-mail to the company that hosts it. They won't want to deal with that liability.
Or you could just whine about the emotional vulnerability of THE CHILDREN! and tell them they're all unique and special like a snowflake and no one has the right to say anything that might shatter their ever so fragile self esteem. Go last place trophies! And let's charge children with felonies if they dare be mean to one another! Yeah, that's an awesome solution.
I think that monitoring what your child does online qualifies as helicopter parenting. I can understand some type of filter system (proxy or software, like what schools have) that will block out porn and extremist hate sites, but on social sites like Facebook or G+ it's difficult to meddle without being overbearing. Especially for preteens. But I don't even know how one goes about that on smartphones. I'm sure there's probably something.
I don't think I've heard anyone even mention the Green Party since Nader was relevant in 2000. Maybe in 2004.
Just from observation, I would guess that Slashdot is approximately 1/3 libertarian, 1/3 socialist, and 1/3 'mainstream' (Republican/Democrat). I'd agree that the vast majority of American Slashdotters probably voted Democrat in the last election, but that's probably more a reflection of the Tea Party influence on the Republican party than the voters being more liberal. Intelligent fiscal conservatives don't really have a viable party right now with the way the Tea Party is shaping the Republican party.
I would also add that we need smaller classrooms. It's easy to get distracted when the teacher has to give a generic lecture for 30+ kids. When I was in high school we'd play euchre in most classes and the teachers wouldn't even know. Some kids would chew dip, some kids would sleep. It just wasn't possible for the teachers to ensure that everyone was doing something constructive or paying attention. Class size is one of the most important distinctions between a crappy school and a good one, and unfortunately reducing class size costs a lot.
It's only an epidemic because the media portrays it that way. People being mean to other people is just a fact of life. It's nothing new, and I'd argue it was a lot worse in the past than it is today. The only difference is that today stories like this go national rather than remain confined to a local news station. Then the various news outlets beat the dead horse until a new salacious scandal can take its place.
The biggest problem with bullying today is this attitude that children need to be insulated from it rather than stand up against it. What ever happened to 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me'? If we're going to blame anyone I blame this girl's parents for raising her to be so emotionally weak that she would rather die than stand up for herself.
Who know who doesn't get bullied? Kids with backbones. Because it's no fun to bully kids who stand up for themselves.
Genius! I don't know how you come up with these ideas. Did you know we can eliminate the risk of being in an automobile crash by never leaving home? And we will never suffer from food poisoning if we just don't eat.
We get it. You don't use Facebook. You think that makes you special. I bet you don't have a TV either. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a TV looks like. We understand you here.
The difference between Facebook and automobiles is that automobiles aren't just convenient, but for most people they're necessary. Your food analogy is even worse. A more apt food analogy is that the OP eats a balanced diet of organic food that provides him with nutrition and energy, represented by useful and informative websites; while you eat fast food every day that clogs your arteries and gives you postprandial somnolence, represented by Facebook.
You're not an ethical consumer. We get it. You think it makes you fit in. I bet you only watch reality TV. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a book looks like. We understand you here.
The necessity to convince to people to go and fight has been a limiting factor in history.
This is very true. One pattern that can been seen is that to convince people to fight suicidally in war (i.e., without retreating despite how grim things look -- something that's necessary unless the opponent it completely outmatched) they need to believe it's the right thing to do. This isn't so difficult when fighting defensively against an opponent whose goal is to rape, pillage, and murder. Fighting suicidally against the Vikings, for example, was the only option available.
It gets a little more difficult when the conquerors only wish to oppress. Then ideals need to be fought for -- "They can take your lives, but they'll never take your freedom!"
It gets real difficult when you want to take the offensive. That requires some more abstract ideology -- nationalism, religion, or better yet a combination of the two. A good example of this is the power of the Roman army when it consisted of proud Romans who believed they were civilizing the world (they actually kind of were), and the fall of Rome when the armies largely consisted of mercenaries gathered from conquered territories that were far from the capitol. Nationalism at work. The Crusades are another clear example of this -- fight to keep the holy land holy. Religion at work.
Joan of Arc did both. The Japanese did both in WWII, which was epitomized by their kamikaze attacks. They didn't just fight suicidally -- they fought with suicide.
Basically, a robot allows one to cut the bullshit and just send it out to kill. We're already doing this with drone attacks. Perhaps these things will help illustrate to people how horribly unethical this is.
However if you need to pick and choose, then Open Source may not always be the best option.
Maybe for a business. If your goal is to educate then open source is always the best option.
Your explanation is really reaching. If a teacher can't figure out LibreOffice -- especially one who already understands MS Office -- then they're too incompetent to teach. If they want to focus on database stuff rather than object oriented then they're not really concerned about educating, they're focussed on job training. That type of teaching belongs in a tech school, not a public education system.
Since those are very poor decisions, it seems more likely to me that certain corporations have influenced these decisions. Ockam's razor disagrees with your rationalization.
I'm no fan of Teslas (or any electric cars) but I really can't criticize the car itself for this. Anything with enough energy to power an automobile -- be it gasoline, diesel, hydrogen or electricity stored in a battery -- has the potential to explode or catch fire in the wrong set of circumstances. If this vehicle hadn't been involved in an accident, that would be a problem. Considering that it was, a fire isn't that shocking. There's a reason the fire department shows up at the scene of any large accident, whether there's an immediate fire or not.
Unless it's like the Pinto where getting rear-ended could cause the thing to burst into flames, I don't think Tesla owners have any real cause for concern.
That just about sums up the American political situation right there. The sad part is that the only people who aren't part of 'the establishment' are the Tea Partiers and their independence doesn't matter because they're all so stupid.
You know that the U.S. Constitution really hasn't mattered ever since Lincoln wiped his ass with it and went to war with half the nation, right? The people who took up the option you allude to lost and this nation has been federalist in name only since the end of the Civil War. The government has just used more perverse interpretations of the Constitution since that time. For example, look at like 99% of the federal laws that rely on the Commerce Clause as their justification for existence.
At some point a new Constitution needs to be written or this will just continue. The "right to bear arms," for example, is open to many interpretations. More importantly, so are the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments. And that damn Commerce Clause. We need a Constitution that's written in concise and clear language that leaves no room for abstract interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, humans can only eat a small percentage of plants that are out there, most of which we've modified by selectively breeding them to create large seeds, fruit, or vegetation. Most grocery store vegetables share wild mustard as an ancestor. A few species of cereals (wheat, barley, corn) make up most of human's other plant-derived food. On the flip side, humans can eat practically any animal, even most insects.
So, objectively speaking, it's more natural for people to eat other animals. Until the advent of plant domestication about 10,000 years ago, most people wouldn't have been able to survive on a vegetarian diet and even if they could they'd spend most of their time collecting wild seeds as most plants we think of as food don't exist in nature. People have been omnivores as long as they've been around because 'beggars can't be choosers.' Our ancestors ate what was available that was compatible with their digestive systems.
If they had chose to respect 'animal rights' then civilization wouldn't exist. It was the use of animal-drawn plows that allowed for large-scale agriculture and thus civilization to come about. Animal domestication, or as the animal-rights people would say, 'animal enslavement,' was a necessary part of human progress. Not to mention the fact that without animal domestication cows, chickens, and dogs (to name a few) wouldn't exist as none of those animals ever existed in nature -- they're man-made species.
I kind of got off point but it remained on topic so I'll leave it. Point was, humans can eat many more animals than we can plants, so I'd modify your "homo sapiens eat everything" to "homo sapiens eat every animal, and a few plants we modified to be compatible with our digestive systems." If our digestive system could break down cellulose starvation would be a non-issue (as it is, starvation is just an economic issue, but that's another discussion altogether).
Or it represents the majority opinion, but you surely wouldn't allow yourself to accept that now, would you
There's no '-1 disagree' option in moderation.
it's no more dangerous than power-hungry idiots finding some other, perhaps less convenient, excuse to do the same thing.
Except that religion explicitly insists on unconditional, unquestioning, evidence-free belief.
That is dangerous in itself.
Maybe some particular religion insists on those things, but there's nothing about religion in general that demands unconditional, unquestioning, evidence-free belief. The Dali Lama, one of the most influential religious leaders in the world, has explicitly stated that one should not be so devout as to have unconditional, unquestioning, evidence-free belief. In fact, he's stated that throughout his life he's often doubted his faith and challenged himself to question its basic tenants.
Evidence-free belief also isn't as egregious as you make it sound. Not everything is a science experiment. Moral questions aren't the type that can be answered with empiricism.
The fact that you think that supernaturalism and religion are synonymous demonstrates that you don't understand religion very well. Atheism just means not a theist -- 'a' is a prefix that means 'not.' If you don't believe in God but you believe in ghosts, you're an atheist. Sure, some religions incorporate supernaturalism -- fundamentalist Christians and some variants of Hinduism, for example -- but many do not and supernaturalism isn't a necessary component of religion. Zen Buddhism, Taoism, non-fundamentalist Christianity, and non-Orthodox Judaism are a couple examples.
A common trend you'll see among the religious -- that the stupid also believe in the supernatural -- you'll see among atheists as well. An atheist who believes that aliens built the pyramids is just as crazy as the Christian who believes that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles. The crazies will be crazies, religion or no religion.
Being skeptical of weird stuff doesn't mean one can't be religious so that's not a valid definition of atheism. Atheism is a strict belief that any form of theism is incorrect. That may not be a very complicated (or rational) belief system, but it's still a belief system.
This is pretty much what I was going to post. This whole "critique of the military-industrial complex" view fails to take into account that the bugs were an actual threat to earth.
Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by the most famous movie critic of all time:
It doesn't really matter, since the Bugs aren't important except as props for the interminable action scenes, and as an enemy to justify the film's quasi-fascist militarism. Heinlein was of course a right-wing saberrattler, but a charming and intelligent one who wrote some of the best science fiction ever. "Starship Troopers'' proposes a society in which citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield.
Heinlein intended his story for young boys, but wrote it more or less seriously. The one redeeming merit for director Paul Verhoeven's film is that by remaining faithful to Heinlein's material and period, it adds an element of sly satire. This is like the squarest but most technically advanced sci-fi movie of the 1950s, a film in which the sets and costumes look like a cross between Buck Rogers and the Archie comic books, and the characters look like they stepped out of Pepsodent ads.
Ebert still gave the film a paltry 2 out of 4 stars. Whether the director was trying to satirize Heinlein or not, it was still a pretty shabby movie.
Blue collar jobs often actually do background checks and just toss out applicants who have criminal records. It's just a supply/demand issue: the supply of blue collar workers is extremely high while the demand for them is extremely low. Therefore, companies can choose to be extremely picky in who they hire. This creates a terrible situation for many who don't have the resources or intelligence to gain the higher education necessary to make them valuable enough for a company to overlook any misdemeanors they've been charged with. I assume that you have either an education or skills that make you valuable enough to your employer to overlook whatever prior offense you have on your record, or your skills in combination with your interview meant they didn't see any reason to bother with a background check.
Unfortunately, blue collar workers, who probably have the most reason to protest, also have the most to lose by doing so. They could make themselves unemployable to all but the lowest paying fast food jobs, which in turn would make crime a more appealing source of income, at which point they become part of the penal system's revolving door trap.
My reply to both you and the parent is that IMHO most people (including Greenspan
That would be strange considering that she consulted Greenspan when writing Atlas Shrugged and they were good friends.
Although the book vehemently treats all politicians as scum, Rand herself rallied behind certain Republican politicians. In the dystopic Atlas Shrugged the 'collectivists' have already taken over the entire government and it's too late for the 'individuals' to do anything about it. If anything the book is a rallying cry for ultra-conservatives to become more involved in government to save it from the FDR-type liberals that Rand saw as incompetent tyrants who had taken over.
there is a third group
And there's a fourth group and a fifth group and so on. However, I don't believe that the difference Nietzsche's Man and Superman is that between master and slave. My interpretation was that it's more akin to the difference between animal and man. Like how there's a difference between spiders and cats. Spiders are somewhat like automatons -- they do what they do almost purely based on cause and effect. Cats, on the other hand, make good pets because they are closer to man's mental capacity -- even though they sometimes act purely upon cause/effect type stimuli (such as play with string), they also seem to somewhat have a will of their own and they are emotional creatures. Regardless, they have nowhere near the logical capacity as man.
If I understand Nietzsche correctly (which I admit is questionable), then the Superman is a man who lives up to his mental potential. Many people live their entire lives without even attempting to take advantage of their potential -- like animals they can be satisfied with mere carnal pleasure and they only use their mental potential to increase this carnal pleasure. Nietzsche asserts that we ought to esteem to be something greater than what we tend to be; in our ambitions, morals, and our ability to reason.
Ah, yes, blame the French. And when you can blame the French and Communism at the same time, even better. Your red herring is so scary.
The US, by and large, is still governed more by reason and pragmatism.
I don't even know what to say about this one.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It's sad that whenever the bullying topic gets brought up on Slashdot it brings all the crybabies out of the woodwork. I mean, I get that on a site full of nerds, many were bullying in high school, but it's just pathetic how many still haven't gotten over it.
People who think insults can be harmful have never really grown up.
I think the most important lesson a person can learn in life is that they don't matter. Their emotions don't matter. The only thing about a person that matters is what they do with their life. If you choose to take your own life, especially before you've actually done anything, you really don't matter. This life is precious shit makes me sick. People just think life is precious because they don't want to die.
There's are simple solutions to all the problems you mention: Don't use Facebook or G+ or any other social networking site. Go to your cell phone provider and tell them you don't want to receive anonymous text messages because of the problem -- harassing text messages can also be dealt with by the police (but more importantly, they can be ignored). If someone sets up a website with the express purpose of defaming you or harassing you then all you have to do is shoot an e-mail to the company that hosts it. They won't want to deal with that liability.
Or you could just whine about the emotional vulnerability of THE CHILDREN! and tell them they're all unique and special like a snowflake and no one has the right to say anything that might shatter their ever so fragile self esteem. Go last place trophies! And let's charge children with felonies if they dare be mean to one another! Yeah, that's an awesome solution.
I think that monitoring what your child does online qualifies as helicopter parenting. I can understand some type of filter system (proxy or software, like what schools have) that will block out porn and extremist hate sites, but on social sites like Facebook or G+ it's difficult to meddle without being overbearing. Especially for preteens. But I don't even know how one goes about that on smartphones. I'm sure there's probably something.
I don't think I've heard anyone even mention the Green Party since Nader was relevant in 2000. Maybe in 2004.
Just from observation, I would guess that Slashdot is approximately 1/3 libertarian, 1/3 socialist, and 1/3 'mainstream' (Republican/Democrat). I'd agree that the vast majority of American Slashdotters probably voted Democrat in the last election, but that's probably more a reflection of the Tea Party influence on the Republican party than the voters being more liberal. Intelligent fiscal conservatives don't really have a viable party right now with the way the Tea Party is shaping the Republican party.
Or maybe it's because if they micromanage their child's life it will cause resentment and their child will never trust them.
I would also add that we need smaller classrooms. It's easy to get distracted when the teacher has to give a generic lecture for 30+ kids. When I was in high school we'd play euchre in most classes and the teachers wouldn't even know. Some kids would chew dip, some kids would sleep. It just wasn't possible for the teachers to ensure that everyone was doing something constructive or paying attention. Class size is one of the most important distinctions between a crappy school and a good one, and unfortunately reducing class size costs a lot.
this "bullying" epidemic
It's only an epidemic because the media portrays it that way. People being mean to other people is just a fact of life. It's nothing new, and I'd argue it was a lot worse in the past than it is today. The only difference is that today stories like this go national rather than remain confined to a local news station. Then the various news outlets beat the dead horse until a new salacious scandal can take its place.
The biggest problem with bullying today is this attitude that children need to be insulated from it rather than stand up against it. What ever happened to 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me'? If we're going to blame anyone I blame this girl's parents for raising her to be so emotionally weak that she would rather die than stand up for herself.
Who know who doesn't get bullied? Kids with backbones. Because it's no fun to bully kids who stand up for themselves.
Genius! I don't know how you come up with these ideas. Did you know we can eliminate the risk of being in an automobile crash by never leaving home? And we will never suffer from food poisoning if we just don't eat.
We get it. You don't use Facebook. You think that makes you special. I bet you don't have a TV either. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a TV looks like. We understand you here.
The difference between Facebook and automobiles is that automobiles aren't just convenient, but for most people they're necessary. Your food analogy is even worse. A more apt food analogy is that the OP eats a balanced diet of organic food that provides him with nutrition and energy, represented by useful and informative websites; while you eat fast food every day that clogs your arteries and gives you postprandial somnolence, represented by Facebook.
You're not an ethical consumer. We get it. You think it makes you fit in. I bet you only watch reality TV. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a book looks like. We understand you here.
Snark is the wit of morons.
There are many types of corn. The most readily edible is sweetcorn. It can be eaten raw if you wish.
That doesn't make it a plentiful or efficient source of nutrients. There's a reason corn still looks like corn when you poo it out.
The necessity to convince to people to go and fight has been a limiting factor in history.
This is very true. One pattern that can been seen is that to convince people to fight suicidally in war (i.e., without retreating despite how grim things look -- something that's necessary unless the opponent it completely outmatched) they need to believe it's the right thing to do. This isn't so difficult when fighting defensively against an opponent whose goal is to rape, pillage, and murder. Fighting suicidally against the Vikings, for example, was the only option available.
It gets a little more difficult when the conquerors only wish to oppress. Then ideals need to be fought for -- "They can take your lives, but they'll never take your freedom!"
It gets real difficult when you want to take the offensive. That requires some more abstract ideology -- nationalism, religion, or better yet a combination of the two. A good example of this is the power of the Roman army when it consisted of proud Romans who believed they were civilizing the world (they actually kind of were), and the fall of Rome when the armies largely consisted of mercenaries gathered from conquered territories that were far from the capitol. Nationalism at work. The Crusades are another clear example of this -- fight to keep the holy land holy. Religion at work.
Joan of Arc did both. The Japanese did both in WWII, which was epitomized by their kamikaze attacks. They didn't just fight suicidally -- they fought with suicide.
Basically, a robot allows one to cut the bullshit and just send it out to kill. We're already doing this with drone attacks. Perhaps these things will help illustrate to people how horribly unethical this is.
They're probably just programmed not to shoot white people. Kind of like the police.
However if you need to pick and choose, then Open Source may not always be the best option.
Maybe for a business. If your goal is to educate then open source is always the best option.
Your explanation is really reaching. If a teacher can't figure out LibreOffice -- especially one who already understands MS Office -- then they're too incompetent to teach. If they want to focus on database stuff rather than object oriented then they're not really concerned about educating, they're focussed on job training. That type of teaching belongs in a tech school, not a public education system.
Since those are very poor decisions, it seems more likely to me that certain corporations have influenced these decisions. Ockam's razor disagrees with your rationalization.
I'm no fan of Teslas (or any electric cars) but I really can't criticize the car itself for this. Anything with enough energy to power an automobile -- be it gasoline, diesel, hydrogen or electricity stored in a battery -- has the potential to explode or catch fire in the wrong set of circumstances. If this vehicle hadn't been involved in an accident, that would be a problem. Considering that it was, a fire isn't that shocking. There's a reason the fire department shows up at the scene of any large accident, whether there's an immediate fire or not.
Unless it's like the Pinto where getting rear-ended could cause the thing to burst into flames, I don't think Tesla owners have any real cause for concern.
their alleged opponents
That just about sums up the American political situation right there. The sad part is that the only people who aren't part of 'the establishment' are the Tea Partiers and their independence doesn't matter because they're all so stupid.
Wouldn't Mint be what you're talking about? It's already more grandma-friendly than Ubuntu. Or does it not count since it's based on Ubuntu?
You know that the U.S. Constitution really hasn't mattered ever since Lincoln wiped his ass with it and went to war with half the nation, right? The people who took up the option you allude to lost and this nation has been federalist in name only since the end of the Civil War. The government has just used more perverse interpretations of the Constitution since that time. For example, look at like 99% of the federal laws that rely on the Commerce Clause as their justification for existence.
At some point a new Constitution needs to be written or this will just continue. The "right to bear arms," for example, is open to many interpretations. More importantly, so are the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments. And that damn Commerce Clause. We need a Constitution that's written in concise and clear language that leaves no room for abstract interpretation.
This pretty much blows away the "trust the government - it would never abuse its power" argument the apologists like to trot out so readily.
Who the hell are those people? The only people I've heard make that argument were congressmen and pundits who religiously support their party.