Atheism is not a "tenet". It is simply the lack of faith in the supernatural.
A tenet may be a belief. Lack of faith in the supernatural (God, gods, whatever) is the central tenet of atheism. Like it or not, the thing that atheism has in common with religion is that both are belief systems.
I'm not actually claiming capitalism does such a thing.
Good, because there is no evidence for it.
I'm just don't see why "the gap" is a problem in and of itself. A smaller piece of a larger pie can be better than a bigger price of a small pie...
Two reasons. First, nobody believes your hypothetical any more than you do. Second, when income disparity goes beyond a certain point, many people start to think it's unfair. There are even theories that a dislike of unfairness is innate to a large degree (toddlers display it, including acting fair towards their peers), and a sense of fairness serves a social purpose. If you think that's childish, consider this. Your rich Uncle Ned dies, and his only heirs are his three nephews. You're one of them. You and Bob each get $1k. Dave, who always treated Uncle Ned like crap, gets $1B. Do you have any cause for complaint? If so, why? You are $1k better off than you were before.
In developed countries, the welfare system allows people to never work at all during their lives and produce as many babies as possible. So all this does is lead to a population explosion of yet more people on welfare.
Yeah Right -provided you are on the right end the rich interest's end.
Look at it in context. He starts by paying homage to capitalism so people won't call him a blasphemer for saying "capitalism alone can't address the needs of the very poor" (damn, am I really defending Bill Gates?).
Where did I mention Linux or the LKML? As was clear from the part of the GGP I quoted, I was talking in more general terms. You're not part of my team, and I don't have a dog, so I'll be blunt: learn to read more carefully.
I saw good techs go down for not having enough "personality"
The people who deserve to go down are the ones who included that in a rating. It'd probably make sense for sales or marketing, but techies are supposed to be surly and anti-social. All kidding aside, "doesn't play well with others" is a legitimate black mark, but that's a long way from "not having enough 'personality'". It does go a long way towards explaining that "nameless" company's products though.
I'm just saying that he's about par for the course if you work with teams that actually get things done instead of teams that just putz along
Bull. The best teams I've worked with are often composed of people that play nice with others. Sure tempers flare sometimes, but on the whole the people are reasonable. In fact that's part of the reason the teams are good - yelling and finger pointing are not very productive. It also turns people into stubborn defensive asses that play NIH. In a good team, even when somebody screws up, it's politely pointed out to them, even to the point of not directly blaming them. Good people know when they've screwed up, and work hard to fix it and make sure it doesn't happen again. If they don't do that, get rid of them. Want to vent? Go yell at your dog.
Madison believed in a narrow interpretation of the general welfare clause.
In general, Madison believed in a narrow (strict constructionist) view of the Constitution, until he and that other noted strict constructionist, Tom Jefferson, threw the whole idea in the trash to make the Louisiana Purchase. At least they knew that they were throwing their previous view of the Constitution in the trash, and stopped claiming a narrow interpretation. That's right folks, for the last 210 years the strict constructionist view of the Constitution has been dead, killed by the very people who created it. If you want to bring back the strict constructionist interpretation, you should start by returning the Louisiana Purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheism is not a "tenet". It is simply the lack of faith in the supernatural.
A tenet may be a belief. Lack of faith in the supernatural (God, gods, whatever) is the central tenet of atheism. Like it or not, the thing that atheism has in common with religion is that both are belief systems.
I'm unclear, does that mean I should feel sorry for myself compared to people living with endemic malaria?
He is a person.
People suck.
Thanks for the fun - always enjoyable to tweak the Evangelical Atheists.
I'm not actually claiming capitalism does such a thing.
Good, because there is no evidence for it.
I'm just don't see why "the gap" is a problem in and of itself. A smaller piece of a larger pie can be better than a bigger price of a small pie...
Two reasons. First, nobody believes your hypothetical any more than you do. Second, when income disparity goes beyond a certain point, many people start to think it's unfair. There are even theories that a dislike of unfairness is innate to a large degree (toddlers display it, including acting fair towards their peers), and a sense of fairness serves a social purpose. If you think that's childish, consider this. Your rich Uncle Ned dies, and his only heirs are his three nephews. You're one of them. You and Bob each get $1k. Dave, who always treated Uncle Ned like crap, gets $1B. Do you have any cause for complaint? If so, why? You are $1k better off than you were before.
Microsoft screws many of us over on a regular basis.
Much as I hate having to use Microsoft products, I don't feel too sorry for myself compared to people living with endemic malaria.
In developed countries, the welfare system allows people to never work at all during their lives and produce as many babies as possible. So all this does is lead to a population explosion of yet more people on welfare.
Wow, are you living in the past (particularly about the US). Welfare queens driving Cadillacs was a line Reagan pushed in the 80's. In case you pulled a Rip van Winkle, here's an update: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
P.S. Don't say anything good about George III.
As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor.
But that hardly seems to apply to Gates (damn, second time I'm defending him, truth is stranger than fiction).
Like the US and Imperialist Europe and their economic manipulation/hegemony?
It's always so much easier to blame "them", and ignore the problems that many 3rd world countries have created for themselves.
Yeah Right -provided you are on the right end the rich interest's end.
Look at it in context. He starts by paying homage to capitalism so people won't call him a blasphemer for saying "capitalism alone can't address the needs of the very poor" (damn, am I really defending Bill Gates?).
Microsoft hating is soooo 90's, and we didn't know how good we had it back then. With the NSA around, why bother to get upset about bad software?
Religion.
Atheism.
Where did I mention Linux or the LKML? As was clear from the part of the GGP I quoted, I was talking in more general terms. You're not part of my team, and I don't have a dog, so I'll be blunt: learn to read more carefully.
I saw good techs go down for not having enough "personality"
The people who deserve to go down are the ones who included that in a rating. It'd probably make sense for sales or marketing, but techies are supposed to be surly and anti-social. All kidding aside, "doesn't play well with others" is a legitimate black mark, but that's a long way from "not having enough 'personality'". It does go a long way towards explaining that "nameless" company's products though.
See OP's step 1.
you don't understand the value of C or C++
Ask Linus what he thinks of using C++ in the kernel.
We studied the circuit diagrams for radio receivers ... They're done.
Really? I wish you'd told me that before I started my latest design. BTW, what's in your cell phone or WiFi?
The younger people want to hear the ka-ching sound when writing code, not the fact that they wrote something to scratch an itch.
Right, back in the 90's nobody even thought of making a buck off of writing code.
And thus you prove the GP's point.
Why do you think that's the case (honest curiosity - no intent to start a flame war)?
Flame war! Flame war! Flame war!
You're pulling a Linus - but without the creds.
I'm just saying that he's about par for the course if you work with teams that actually get things done instead of teams that just putz along
Bull. The best teams I've worked with are often composed of people that play nice with others. Sure tempers flare sometimes, but on the whole the people are reasonable. In fact that's part of the reason the teams are good - yelling and finger pointing are not very productive. It also turns people into stubborn defensive asses that play NIH. In a good team, even when somebody screws up, it's politely pointed out to them, even to the point of not directly blaming them. Good people know when they've screwed up, and work hard to fix it and make sure it doesn't happen again. If they don't do that, get rid of them. Want to vent? Go yell at your dog.
Madison believed in a narrow interpretation of the general welfare clause.
In general, Madison believed in a narrow (strict constructionist) view of the Constitution, until he and that other noted strict constructionist, Tom Jefferson, threw the whole idea in the trash to make the Louisiana Purchase. At least they knew that they were throwing their previous view of the Constitution in the trash, and stopped claiming a narrow interpretation. That's right folks, for the last 210 years the strict constructionist view of the Constitution has been dead, killed by the very people who created it. If you want to bring back the strict constructionist interpretation, you should start by returning the Louisiana Purchase.
Some people refuse to let facts get in the way of a comforting ideology. That seems to be especially true of those with a libertarian bent.