Yeah, but the concept of "innocent" is really conflated here, because the concept of "right" and "wrong" are messed-up in this kind of world-view.
A person who is "innocent" and is sacrificed, makes up for the "wrongs" in an ideological economy of right and wrong. So, the innocent person really is not innocent, because they are indirectly responsible for wrongs (having nothing to do with the individual concept of "free will") - and therefore, must die to correct the global inbalance.
My statement stands, for a more modern, common view of the definition of "innocent"
If it costs a third of our economic output to fund the SECURITY component of supporting this global trade - and if that money has to come from public funds (rather than privately funded by the specific entities who directly benefit from global trade) - then there's a word for that, and that word is SUBSIDY, and there's another description for that: UNSUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC MODEL.
Global trade is fine and dandy.
But to say we're "dependent" on it - exposes the real problem.
But my point is that, words mean different things to different people. Among anti-theists, the definition of moral consequence is often conflated wrongly with punishment. That's simply not the case in the minds of moderate theists. (although, it's probably true among the fundies).
I try to not give the "KJV Enthusiast" community a hard time, lest I incite an ugly flame war. But they truly are among the nuttiest nuts out there.
During the Republican YouTube debates, one of them held up a KJV bible, and asked Huckabee if he believed in THIS bible as the one true source from God. Now; to Huckabee's credit (and he IS a politician, after all), he dodged the obscure meaning of the question - and confirmed that, if he *is* a KJV nutter, he sure wasn't going to announce it during a national debate, even if the real meaning of the statement was lost on about 99% of the people watching.
If we're falling behind, it's because we've bankrupted ourselves by catering TOO MUCH to the Military Industrial Complex, and not enough to our own Infrastructure, and Education, Training, and Health and Welfare of, well, you know, the PEOPLE who actually spend money and work jobs and make our economy operate.
Yes, it's nice to invest in staying on top of our own self-defense. But if you go too far on that path (and if you also spend a lot of effort trying to dominate the rest of the world out of paranoid fear) - then you're basically shooting yourself in the foot.
...that the deity they subscribe to actually wants them to go out and kill innocent people
by YOUR definition of "innocent". Their belief-system has a different version of "innocent" - NOBODY kills an "innocent" in the name of their god.
It's all just quibbling over what the definition of "innocent" is.
If you look at a purely humanistic definition, even stone-cold mass murderers are "a product of society's ills" and are not responsible for their actions, and therefore, are "innocent" (and should not be punished, but rather, offered therapy, at society's expense).
I think that this is a feature of human beings, and a stark illustration of the fundamental weaknesses inherent in human language (it is not capable of what we believe it to be capable of) - as a tool for communicating ideas to one another. It is not really a feature of Religion. Rather - Tribalism (with Religion as a common "flag").
Those who desire to sucker the US Taxpayer for their profiteering boondoggle have a nice little perpetual-justification machine running over there. Keep spending. Or you will be responsible for genocide (appeals to the Liberal mind), and the next 9/11 (appeals to the Conservative mind). It's pretty simple.
In the Annals of Slimy Marketing, this will go down in history as the most successful boondoggle in the history of human civilization. (right after "Be afraid of the commies!").
Nobody is in control of a fire; but as long as the fire is contained, it's a nice useful tool for the guy selling fire extinguishers. And if the fire spreads, it's an even better tool.
It's almost as if they *want* this to be a lesson to somebody...nah, couldn't be...
If I had just shipped a DRM-supporting OS that was the worst unmitigated disaster since Windows ME, I think I'd want to be teaching folks a lesson about the evils of DRM too.
Only the Content Cartels and their lawyers want DRM.
Companies who make devices, (including software) for the playback of content, really don't have anything to gain by selling crippled devices.
Maybe I'm just fantasising here, but if MS *has* seen the light on DRM, it would give them a chance to make the next version of Windows, um. . . usable and worthwhile. Unlike Vista.
Well, in reality, there is no such thing as "perpetual ownership" of ANYTHING for human beings. Humans die.
Corporations can "own" things in perpetuity.
Hell, in most countries, you can't even really BUY land. For example, in the UK, you lease it from the queen for 99 years. That's the best you can expect.
And in the US, you can't really BUY land either. Because you have to pay taxes on property, and eventually, you have to pay up more than what you paid for the property, and the IRS will just take it if you don't.
So, I don't get where this idea of "perpetual property" comes from. I can understand WANTING to own something forever. But unless you're either a supernatural being, or a Corporation, there is no "forever".
Rejection of the reality of our temporary existance is what allows owners to charge $$$ for the ILLUSION of perpetual ownership of something.
When you take that into consideration; yes - a physical CD is a much better deal, because you "OWN" it for as long as the physical media lasts, or you die, whichever comes first. (and if you die first, your heirs can have it).
Next: we need to embrace the reality that paying about $1 for a real-physical-media song, is a much better deal than paying about $1 for a DRM-ed digital copy.
Once we are able to look at this objectively, it really starts to appear as if a DRM-ed song is really only worth about a nickel or so.
When Apple first came out with iTMS - I said that 99 cents was WAY TOO MUCH for a DRM-ed file. The market disagreed, and made iTMS the #1 retailer in the country. I posit, that The Market is STUPID.
I think that MOST people who are unashamed carnivores today, would choose vat-meat over killing a living creature. Even if vat-meat was nominally lower "quality" (texture, flavor, etc.)
Consider this: Hamburger was invented to feed soldiers certain cuts of meat that were normally wasted, because they were too tough to chew; too much grisle, etc. Today, ground meat, whether pure beef, or blended types (chicken, turkey, pork, etc.) is the most popular kind of meat, most people choosing it over regular cuts, if not for cost, for sheer personal preference. Sausage. Hamburger. Hot dogs. Meatballs. etc. Often, the fat content of ground meats is worse than regular cuts.
I believe that vat-meat is going to become EXTREMELY popular. The lack-of-cruelty feature will not be the main consideration, but it will certainly help.
If I recall correctly, the KJV controversy has to do with a divergence in the cannon scripture that occurred when the Vatican contracted out some Egyptian Coptics to transcribe the collected works into a single "Majority Text" - but when the KJV version was created, there was a Church of England split with the Vatican, (of course), so they specifically chose the Minority Text as source material.
To date, most bibles that have been retranslated have come from the majority text source (including the NIV). And the KJV is the only popular version that comes from minority text source.
The KJV "enthusiasts" believe that the Egyptian Coptics purposely mistranslated portions of the text, to change the meaning, and that they were inspired by the devil, and that the Catholic church is the work of Satan, meant to drive people away from the true faith.
It describes God creating Adam and Eve, and God creating "Man" (presumably the rest of humanity).
Now, the interesting interpretation here, is the racist conclusion that there are "chosen" people, descended from Adam, who are blessed by God, and can be "saved", and then there's the rest of us.
The "two creations" are there - but it's conveniently overlooked in its ramifications by biblical scholars, because of what it implies.
(there's also the alternative interpretation of the Great Flood, that only part of the whole globe was covered, because the "World" only included that region of the globe (the middle-east) that is spoken of, or named, specifically, in Genesis. (ie. the "New World" isn't mentioned.) So we are not all necessarily descended from Noah, or even Adam.
And the sick thing is, I used to work for Seagate, back when the founder, Al Shugart (the guy who practically invented the disk drive when he worked for IBM) was in charge, and he was VERY vocal about his opposition to the "sue em" business model.
Well, maybe it's better to explain how electroflourisis works:
In a layman's understanding (which is my experience here): The DNA sample is amplified (replicated) so that the small sample is copied hundreds of thousands of time.
Then the DNA is split up into components via an enzyme.
Then the resulting chunks are put into solution, and the solution applied to a (gelatin-coated plastic?) sheet, and soaked in a solvent and exposed to electric current.
Different components will migrate across the plastic at different rates, creating sort of a visual fingerprint, much like a spectrograph, of different size black bars.
While this visual pattern IS (almost) unique, for your DNA (there's supposedly a small percentage chance of two different DNA donors producing a visually indistinguishable pattern) - it lends absolutely zero insight into genetic structure, encoding, or actual functionality.
That said; given the massive abuses by law enforcement in the past (particularly over the past 7 years, but certainly not limited to that time period) - no, I am absolutely not comfortable with them maintaining this personal information, on me, OR my countrymen.
and found that his secretary was being taxed at a final rate (comparing final amount of taxes to gross income) that was three times his own,
That's because the anti-tax zealots don't talk in terms of RATE when they say that the Rich pay all the taxes. They talk in terms of AMOUNT.
It's a simple-math boondoggle. And because people are stupid, they fall for it, and vote for Repbulicans, who do cut the taxes, but then they raise spending; which forces more borrowing, which taxes EVERYONE again, by increasing inflation.
(then they change how inflation is calculated; by eliminating silly things like energy and food costs, and housing prices - so that they can claim there's low or nominal inflation).
So yeah; maybe the secretary was paying 3 times the rate, but probably a far lesser amount. Never mind that the WAR her taxes (and consequent loss of earning power due to the falling dollar) are financing has done nothing to benefit her, but the bosses stock portfolio probably benefited a whole bunch.
Life may (or may not) actually thrive in radioactive environments.
That's actually a red-herring in the argument against nuclear power and NIMBY-ism. The real worry isn't about real health effects. It's financial.
The real argument is; "If your plant explodes, because you spent money on CEO bonuses instead of safety inspections, even if your radioactive cloud does not meaningfully impact my health and safety, the measurable radiation in the soil of my back yard will destroy the value of my property in the open real estate market, while your endowed CEO floats gently down to an easy retirement on his golden parachute."
This is a REAL and measurable negative impact from nuclear power, and no amount of "radiation is good for you" PR-spin is going to change it. Nobody wants their nest-egg destroyed. Nobody wants their hometown community erased.
Even increased regulation and vigilance is not going to impact this effect that nuclear power plants have on residential real estate markets.
Not really true. That "big name" school is a BRAND, that will lend your credentials credibility, not just for changing jobs, but for promotions within a job.
Your work-experience DOES take increasing precedence, as time goes by. But that name will always stand out on your CV over your competitors.
True; Learning to deal with women is a crucial skill.
Because if you end up with the wrong one, the results can certainly be far more disastrous than the worst employment outcome imaginable from graduating from the "wrong" school with a CS degree.
Example: you graduate from MIT with your CS degree. You fall in with one of those women who, for whatever reason, can not be happy no matter what you do for her. At the same time, you get a great job making 6 figures right out of school, you work on some amazing projects, even get a few patents under your belt.
Then the female finally leaves after squirting out three kids, and takes half your stuff, and out of what's left, you end up paying maintenance and child support for the next 20 years, while you watch the next poor fool to fall under her spell raise your kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the concept of "innocent" is really conflated here, because the concept of "right" and "wrong" are messed-up in this kind of world-view.
A person who is "innocent" and is sacrificed, makes up for the "wrongs" in an ideological economy of right and wrong. So, the innocent person really is not innocent, because they are indirectly responsible for wrongs (having nothing to do with the individual concept of "free will") - and therefore, must die to correct the global inbalance.
My statement stands, for a more modern, common view of the definition of "innocent"
The US is heavily dependent on global trade.
If it costs a third of our economic output to fund the SECURITY component of supporting this global trade - and if that money has to come from public funds (rather than privately funded by the specific entities who directly benefit from global trade) - then there's a word for that, and that word is SUBSIDY, and there's another description for that: UNSUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC MODEL.
Global trade is fine and dandy.
But to say we're "dependent" on it - exposes the real problem.
"Moral Consequence" != "punishment"
It's not that simple.
But my point is that, words mean different things to different people. Among anti-theists, the definition of moral consequence is often conflated wrongly with punishment. That's simply not the case in the minds of moderate theists. (although, it's probably true among the fundies).
thanks for the fstdt link.
I try to not give the "KJV Enthusiast" community a hard time, lest I incite an ugly flame war. But they truly are among the nuttiest nuts out there.
During the Republican YouTube debates, one of them held up a KJV bible, and asked Huckabee if he believed in THIS bible as the one true source from God. Now; to Huckabee's credit (and he IS a politician, after all), he dodged the obscure meaning of the question - and confirmed that, if he *is* a KJV nutter, he sure wasn't going to announce it during a national debate, even if the real meaning of the statement was lost on about 99% of the people watching.
If we're falling behind, it's because we've bankrupted ourselves by catering TOO MUCH to the Military Industrial Complex, and not enough to our own Infrastructure, and Education, Training, and Health and Welfare of, well, you know, the PEOPLE who actually spend money and work jobs and make our economy operate.
Yes, it's nice to invest in staying on top of our own self-defense. But if you go too far on that path (and if you also spend a lot of effort trying to dominate the rest of the world out of paranoid fear) - then you're basically shooting yourself in the foot.
Just like the Romans did.
Just like the British Empire did.
Just like the 3rd Reich did.
Just like the Soviet Union did.
Wow.
That's even better than:
Failure Reporting And Corrective Action System(FRACAS)!
getting some splash or spatter would be pretty nasty - but no worse than splash or splatter from shrapnel from a bomb going off nearby.
...that the deity they subscribe to actually wants them to go out and kill innocent people
by YOUR definition of "innocent".
Their belief-system has a different version of "innocent" - NOBODY kills an "innocent" in the name of their god.
It's all just quibbling over what the definition of "innocent" is.
If you look at a purely humanistic definition, even stone-cold mass murderers are "a product of society's ills" and are not responsible for their actions, and therefore, are "innocent" (and should not be punished, but rather, offered therapy, at society's expense).
I think that this is a feature of human beings, and a stark illustration of the fundamental weaknesses inherent in human language (it is not capable of what we believe it to be capable of) - as a tool for communicating ideas to one another. It is not really a feature of Religion. Rather - Tribalism (with Religion as a common "flag").
Oh, it's even worse than that.
The people who are profitting off of $118/bbl. oil, are going to use that money to purchase:
a) more news outlet consolidation.
b) congress.
Future? Good luck with that.
The situation is beyond anybody's control?
Please.
The situation is in perfect control.
Those who desire to sucker the US Taxpayer for their profiteering boondoggle have a nice little perpetual-justification machine running over there. Keep spending. Or you will be responsible for genocide (appeals to the Liberal mind), and the next 9/11 (appeals to the Conservative mind). It's pretty simple.
In the Annals of Slimy Marketing, this will go down in history as the most successful boondoggle in the history of human civilization. (right after "Be afraid of the commies!").
Nobody is in control of a fire; but as long as the fire is contained, it's a nice useful tool for the guy selling fire extinguishers. And if the fire spreads, it's an even better tool.
It's almost as if they *want* this to be a lesson to somebody...nah, couldn't be...
If I had just shipped a DRM-supporting OS that was the worst unmitigated disaster since Windows ME, I think I'd want to be teaching folks a lesson about the evils of DRM too.
Only the Content Cartels and their lawyers want DRM.
Companies who make devices, (including software) for the playback of content, really don't have anything to gain by selling crippled devices.
Maybe I'm just fantasising here, but if MS *has* seen the light on DRM, it would give them a chance to make the next version of Windows, um. . . usable and worthwhile. Unlike Vista.
Well, in reality, there is no such thing as "perpetual ownership" of ANYTHING for human beings. Humans die.
Corporations can "own" things in perpetuity.
Hell, in most countries, you can't even really BUY land. For example, in the UK, you lease it from the queen for 99 years. That's the best you can expect.
And in the US, you can't really BUY land either. Because you have to pay taxes on property, and eventually, you have to pay up more than what you paid for the property, and the IRS will just take it if you don't.
So, I don't get where this idea of "perpetual property" comes from. I can understand WANTING to own something forever. But unless you're either a supernatural being, or a Corporation, there is no "forever".
Rejection of the reality of our temporary existance is what allows owners to charge $$$ for the ILLUSION of perpetual ownership of something.
When you take that into consideration; yes - a physical CD is a much better deal, because you "OWN" it for as long as the physical media lasts, or you die, whichever comes first. (and if you die first, your heirs can have it).
Next: we need to embrace the reality that paying about $1 for a real-physical-media song, is a much better deal than paying about $1 for a DRM-ed digital copy.
Once we are able to look at this objectively, it really starts to appear as if a DRM-ed song is really only worth about a nickel or so.
When Apple first came out with iTMS - I said that 99 cents was WAY TOO MUCH for a DRM-ed file. The market disagreed, and made iTMS the #1 retailer in the country. I posit, that The Market is STUPID.
(take that, you dumb-ass Invisible Hand.)
Next thing you know, they'll be complaining that the poor animal sample is effectively in SLAVERY to producing vat-clones.
Mark my words.
I think that MOST people who are unashamed carnivores today, would choose vat-meat over killing a living creature. Even if vat-meat was nominally lower "quality" (texture, flavor, etc.)
Consider this: Hamburger was invented to feed soldiers certain cuts of meat that were normally wasted, because they were too tough to chew; too much grisle, etc. Today, ground meat, whether pure beef, or blended types (chicken, turkey, pork, etc.) is the most popular kind of meat, most people choosing it over regular cuts, if not for cost, for sheer personal preference. Sausage. Hamburger. Hot dogs. Meatballs. etc. Often, the fat content of ground meats is worse than regular cuts.
I believe that vat-meat is going to become EXTREMELY popular. The lack-of-cruelty feature will not be the main consideration, but it will certainly help.
It's called the "counter-Enlightenment".
If I recall correctly, the KJV controversy has to do with a divergence in the cannon scripture that occurred when the Vatican contracted out some Egyptian Coptics to transcribe the collected works into a single "Majority Text" - but when the KJV version was created, there was a Church of England split with the Vatican, (of course), so they specifically chose the Minority Text as source material.
To date, most bibles that have been retranslated have come from the majority text source (including the NIV). And the KJV is the only popular version that comes from minority text source.
The KJV "enthusiasts" believe that the Egyptian Coptics purposely mistranslated portions of the text, to change the meaning, and that they were inspired by the devil, and that the Catholic church is the work of Satan, meant to drive people away from the true faith.
Re-read Genesis.
It describes God creating Adam and Eve, and God creating "Man" (presumably the rest of humanity).
Now, the interesting interpretation here, is the racist conclusion that there are "chosen" people, descended from Adam, who are blessed by God, and can be "saved", and then there's the rest of us.
The "two creations" are there - but it's conveniently overlooked in its ramifications by biblical scholars, because of what it implies.
(there's also the alternative interpretation of the Great Flood, that only part of the whole globe was covered, because the "World" only included that region of the globe (the middle-east) that is spoken of, or named, specifically, in Genesis. (ie. the "New World" isn't mentioned.) So we are not all necessarily descended from Noah, or even Adam.
. . . yep.
And the sick thing is, I used to work for Seagate, back when the founder, Al Shugart (the guy who practically invented the disk drive when he worked for IBM) was in charge, and he was VERY vocal about his opposition to the "sue em" business model.
No wonder he was forced out.
Well, maybe it's better to explain how electroflourisis works:
In a layman's understanding (which is my experience here): The DNA sample is amplified (replicated) so that the small sample is copied hundreds of thousands of time.
Then the DNA is split up into components via an enzyme.
Then the resulting chunks are put into solution, and the solution applied to a (gelatin-coated plastic?) sheet, and soaked in a solvent and exposed to electric current.
Different components will migrate across the plastic at different rates, creating sort of a visual fingerprint, much like a spectrograph, of different size black bars.
While this visual pattern IS (almost) unique, for your DNA (there's supposedly a small percentage chance of two different DNA donors producing a visually indistinguishable pattern) - it lends absolutely zero insight into genetic structure, encoding, or actual functionality.
That said; given the massive abuses by law enforcement in the past (particularly over the past 7 years, but certainly not limited to that time period) - no, I am absolutely not comfortable with them maintaining this personal information, on me, OR my countrymen.
and found that his secretary was being taxed at a final rate (comparing final amount of taxes to gross income) that was three times his own,
That's because the anti-tax zealots don't talk in terms of RATE when they say that the Rich pay all the taxes. They talk in terms of AMOUNT.
It's a simple-math boondoggle. And because people are stupid, they fall for it, and vote for Repbulicans, who do cut the taxes, but then they raise spending; which forces more borrowing, which taxes EVERYONE again, by increasing inflation.
(then they change how inflation is calculated; by eliminating silly things like energy and food costs, and housing prices - so that they can claim there's low or nominal inflation).
So yeah; maybe the secretary was paying 3 times the rate, but probably a far lesser amount. Never mind that the WAR her taxes (and consequent loss of earning power due to the falling dollar) are financing has done nothing to benefit her, but the bosses stock portfolio probably benefited a whole bunch.
Life may (or may not) actually thrive in radioactive environments.
That's actually a red-herring in the argument against nuclear power and NIMBY-ism. The real worry isn't about real health effects. It's financial.
The real argument is;
"If your plant explodes, because you spent money on CEO bonuses instead of safety inspections, even if your radioactive cloud does not meaningfully impact my health and safety, the measurable radiation in the soil of my back yard will destroy the value of my property in the open real estate market, while your endowed CEO floats gently down to an easy retirement on his golden parachute."
This is a REAL and measurable negative impact from nuclear power, and no amount of "radiation is good for you" PR-spin is going to change it. Nobody wants their nest-egg destroyed. Nobody wants their hometown community erased.
Even increased regulation and vigilance is not going to impact this effect that nuclear power plants have on residential real estate markets.
Well yeah. In a way.
The person trying to quit smoking will keep getting cigarrette ads jammed down his throat.
Not really true.
That "big name" school is a BRAND, that will lend your credentials credibility, not just for changing jobs, but for promotions within a job.
Your work-experience DOES take increasing precedence, as time goes by. But that name will always stand out on your CV over your competitors.
True;
Learning to deal with women is a crucial skill.
Because if you end up with the wrong one, the results can certainly be far more disastrous than the worst employment outcome imaginable from graduating from the "wrong" school with a CS degree.
Example: you graduate from MIT with your CS degree. You fall in with one of those women who, for whatever reason, can not be happy no matter what you do for her. At the same time, you get a great job making 6 figures right out of school, you work on some amazing projects, even get a few patents under your belt.
Then the female finally leaves after squirting out three kids, and takes half your stuff, and out of what's left, you end up paying maintenance and child support for the next 20 years, while you watch the next poor fool to fall under her spell raise your kids.
"Women" certainly is a very important skill.
What a bunch of horse shit.
Anyone can well-round their life on their own. Paying $500-$1000 per credit hour is not required to have a well-rounded life.
Go to a bookstore. Get a hobby. Sheesh!