I'm saying that in certain situations, I could very well see that it should be kept secret. To start from the position that secrecy is always bad, like Assange does, betrays a lack of critical thinking. As an example, take a country where minority group X is persecuted by majority group Y. Let's say citizens in majority group Y frequently assault and kill members of group X. Any political leader who publicly sympathizes or tries to stop this is voted out of office or assassinated. Would it be unethical for a leader to quietly and illegally siphon money off from the government's budget to secretly help members of group X flee the country to someplace safer? I don't think it would be. Would it be unethical for an organization like wikileaks to publicize this embezzlement? I think it would be.
No offense to those who died. The people rising up violently as a result to finding out about massive corruption in their own government, in my opinion, cannot be the fault of the group who revealed the corruption.
And those of us in the real world realize that only fanatics argue from black and white positions like that.
Yes, I understand, but on my iphone I have never been able to look up directions while I'm on the phone talking to someone. People here are saying they can, but it's never worked for me.
I have my own disagreements with Rand, but I've tired of people who believe the asinine smugly condemning the merely incorrect.
I don't smugly condemn Rand because she's incorrect; I actually have a great deal of respect for philosophers and thinkers who I disagree with totally. I smugly condemn her because she was incompetent.
While I think Ayn Rand is a third-rate hack in everything she did, I will say that I had a philosophy professor in college, who was very much a serious academic, who I found out later did write scholarly treatises on Rand.
I think one could also say that most philosophers do not have a working knowledge of the science from the last 100 years. I don't think it is an accident that a great deal of the most famous philosophers came from the mechanistic era before relativity and quantum mechanics.
Thomas Kuhn had a lot of very similar ideas to Feyarebend, and he had a PhD in physics.
The first chapter presents the philosophical foundations of the theory, which builds directly on the theory of concepts developed by Ayn Rand. Unfortunately for the general reader, Harriman assumes familiarity with Rand's theory of knowledge, including her views of concepts as open-ended, knowledge as hierarchical, certainty as contextual, perceptions as self-evident, and arbitrary ideas as invalid. Those unfamiliar with these ideas may find this section to be confusing.
"Ayn Rand" and "philosophical foundations" should not be in the same sentence. If you like something Ayn Rand says, then I guarantee you can find another philosopher said it only in a far more intellectually rigorous manner.
According to dictionary.com a qualm means "1. An uneasy feeling of doubt, worry, or fear; a misgiving. 2. A momentary faint or sick feeling." You wouldn't characterize someone who doesn't feel "uneasy" or doubtful about killing someone isn't a sociopath?
Not having qualms about wounding or killing people is the mark of a sociopath. Note that in some situations a non-sociopath may have to wound or kill someone in self-defense. But they will have qualms about it. A sociopath enjoys it.
Hmmm, that's funny, I get a monthly bar journal from one of the states I work in listing the attorneys that have been disciplined, including those disbarred. There are several every month who have their licenses completely yanked, almost inevitably because they've done something with their client's money. And you are seriously asserting that lawyers "never sue each other," despite the thousands of legal malpractice lawsuits that are filed every year? And the significant number of attorneys whose SOLE area of law is either prosecuting or defending legal malpractice actions? Why do most law firms buy legal malpractice insurance then? Isn't that a waste of money?
Pirates are cowards, they aren't wanting to get in a gun fight, they want to be the only ones with the guns during the fight. These Somalian pirates are not military trained, hell, most are likely not even literate, and certainly not the most disciplined. They ARE determined, but only when they have the upper hand.
I don't think you understand the third world mentality. These pirates have known violence their entire life, through civil war, banditry, ethnic rivalries, etc. They grew up with AK-47s in their hand; do you really think they're going to run away that easily?
It should be ranked much, much higher. You can get really rich by being an attorney, much more so than a software engineer.
First of all, money is not everything, and it is certainly not a great gauge of happiness, which this list is supposed to measure. Secondly, the vast majority of attorneys do not make a lot of money. In fact, the median salary of attorneys doesn't even break six figures, and that number has probably plummeted in the past few years. I know of licensed attorneys working at KFC, or pizza parlors, or bars. The field is beyond saturated. Even those of us who have decent-paying jobs tend to hate them because while the subject matter and work can be interesting, the way the profession is run in terms of hours and the personalities you have to deal with is horrible.
For instance, you can specialize in wills and estates. Then, you do wills for rich people, and write their wills so that you inherit everything, instead of their families.
Wow...didn't know you were part of the black helicopter set. That's something an attorney can get disbarred for. And whatever other flaws the profession has, it is far more likely than similar professions to strip its members of their licenses if they stray out of line.
You might think you'd get sued or something, but it's not likely, as lawyers are loathe to sue each other.
The average slashdotter could be mugged by a 6 year old; it's hilarious how the comments to this article has turned into weepy boasts about how too many people are willing to surrender to criminals, except of course for the badass PHP coders and helpdesk workers here who think because they go to the shooting range on the weekend they would be able to take out Somali pirates.
The facts are simple. A shipping company is not going to risk losing a $500 million dollar ship, $30 million in cargo, and the lives of its crew members when it can pay a tiny fraction of that to get their ship back.
You think that after I kill a boatload of Somalian pirates in international waters I'm going to submit myself to Somali justice?
Because pasty white office workers are such efficient killers. I love how all the suburban kids on slashdot have this image of themselves as deadly commandos.
Exactly; the private sector cannot be trusted to do things safer/more efficiently/better. This is exactly why strong government regulation, especially when it comes to environmental and health issues, is needed.
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, it will cost another $40,000 to run the same test?
Wow, if we lost such a vital national asset as AOL, I don't know what we'd do.
All I know is when I try to do both voice and google maps it doesn't work. Never has, in the 2 years I've had the phone.
You have way too many preconceptions to really understand what I'm saying, I think.
I'm saying that in certain situations, I could very well see that it should be kept secret. To start from the position that secrecy is always bad, like Assange does, betrays a lack of critical thinking. As an example, take a country where minority group X is persecuted by majority group Y. Let's say citizens in majority group Y frequently assault and kill members of group X. Any political leader who publicly sympathizes or tries to stop this is voted out of office or assassinated. Would it be unethical for a leader to quietly and illegally siphon money off from the government's budget to secretly help members of group X flee the country to someplace safer? I don't think it would be. Would it be unethical for an organization like wikileaks to publicize this embezzlement? I think it would be.
No offense to those who died. The people rising up violently as a result to finding out about massive corruption in their own government, in my opinion, cannot be the fault of the group who revealed the corruption.
And those of us in the real world realize that only fanatics argue from black and white positions like that.
So is Assange.
Yes, I understand, but on my iphone I have never been able to look up directions while I'm on the phone talking to someone. People here are saying they can, but it's never worked for me.
Huh, google maps doesn't give directions while you're on the phone already on AT&T.
I have my own disagreements with Rand, but I've tired of people who believe the asinine smugly condemning the merely incorrect.
I don't smugly condemn Rand because she's incorrect; I actually have a great deal of respect for philosophers and thinkers who I disagree with totally. I smugly condemn her because she was incompetent.
While I think Ayn Rand is a third-rate hack in everything she did, I will say that I had a philosophy professor in college, who was very much a serious academic, who I found out later did write scholarly treatises on Rand.
No uneasiness about killing another human being? No slight sick feeling that you've been put into this situation?
The modern scientific method evolved by breaking away from religions of the past, choosing to investigate rather than just take things at face value
You're completely the wrong way here; religions were created precisely in order NOT to take things at face value.
I think one could also say that most philosophers do not have a working knowledge of the science from the last 100 years. I don't think it is an accident that a great deal of the most famous philosophers came from the mechanistic era before relativity and quantum mechanics.
Thomas Kuhn had a lot of very similar ideas to Feyarebend, and he had a PhD in physics.
The first chapter presents the philosophical foundations of the theory, which builds directly on the theory of concepts developed by Ayn Rand. Unfortunately for the general reader, Harriman assumes familiarity with Rand's theory of knowledge, including her views of concepts as open-ended, knowledge as hierarchical, certainty as contextual, perceptions as self-evident, and arbitrary ideas as invalid. Those unfamiliar with these ideas may find this section to be confusing.
"Ayn Rand" and "philosophical foundations" should not be in the same sentence. If you like something Ayn Rand says, then I guarantee you can find another philosopher said it only in a far more intellectually rigorous manner.
According to dictionary.com a qualm means "1. An uneasy feeling of doubt, worry, or fear; a misgiving. 2. A momentary faint or sick feeling." You wouldn't characterize someone who doesn't feel "uneasy" or doubtful about killing someone isn't a sociopath?
Not having qualms about wounding or killing people is the mark of a sociopath. Note that in some situations a non-sociopath may have to wound or kill someone in self-defense. But they will have qualms about it. A sociopath enjoys it.
Exactly. And that's why not.
Hmmm, that's funny, I get a monthly bar journal from one of the states I work in listing the attorneys that have been disciplined, including those disbarred. There are several every month who have their licenses completely yanked, almost inevitably because they've done something with their client's money. And you are seriously asserting that lawyers "never sue each other," despite the thousands of legal malpractice lawsuits that are filed every year? And the significant number of attorneys whose SOLE area of law is either prosecuting or defending legal malpractice actions? Why do most law firms buy legal malpractice insurance then? Isn't that a waste of money?
Pirates are cowards, they aren't wanting to get in a gun fight, they want to be the only ones with the guns during the fight. These Somalian pirates are not military trained, hell, most are likely not even literate, and certainly not the most disciplined. They ARE determined, but only when they have the upper hand.
I don't think you understand the third world mentality. These pirates have known violence their entire life, through civil war, banditry, ethnic rivalries, etc. They grew up with AK-47s in their hand; do you really think they're going to run away that easily?
It should be ranked much, much higher. You can get really rich by being an attorney, much more so than a software engineer.
First of all, money is not everything, and it is certainly not a great gauge of happiness, which this list is supposed to measure. Secondly, the vast majority of attorneys do not make a lot of money. In fact, the median salary of attorneys doesn't even break six figures, and that number has probably plummeted in the past few years. I know of licensed attorneys working at KFC, or pizza parlors, or bars. The field is beyond saturated. Even those of us who have decent-paying jobs tend to hate them because while the subject matter and work can be interesting, the way the profession is run in terms of hours and the personalities you have to deal with is horrible. For instance, you can specialize in wills and estates. Then, you do wills for rich people, and write their wills so that you inherit everything, instead of their families.
Wow...didn't know you were part of the black helicopter set. That's something an attorney can get disbarred for. And whatever other flaws the profession has, it is far more likely than similar professions to strip its members of their licenses if they stray out of line.
You might think you'd get sued or something, but it's not likely, as lawyers are loathe to sue each other.
That's just not true.
The average slashdotter could be mugged by a 6 year old; it's hilarious how the comments to this article has turned into weepy boasts about how too many people are willing to surrender to criminals, except of course for the badass PHP coders and helpdesk workers here who think because they go to the shooting range on the weekend they would be able to take out Somali pirates.
The facts are simple. A shipping company is not going to risk losing a $500 million dollar ship, $30 million in cargo, and the lives of its crew members when it can pay a tiny fraction of that to get their ship back.
Don't worry, the article is aimed at non-sociopaths, not you.
You think that after I kill a boatload of Somalian pirates in international waters I'm going to submit myself to Somali justice?
Because pasty white office workers are such efficient killers. I love how all the suburban kids on slashdot have this image of themselves as deadly commandos.
Exactly; the private sector cannot be trusted to do things safer/more efficiently/better. This is exactly why strong government regulation, especially when it comes to environmental and health issues, is needed.