By claiming it is impossible you are conceding that it didn't happen. In my opinion a communist democracy would come much closer to the idea of a classless society than anything else.
As for defending Marx, I really didn't intend to, I just didn't like the comparison between two people who were famous as political revolutionaries and two who were famous as economic idealists. If you don't like Lenin and Stalin being substituted in, how about swapping in Adam Smith for Washington and Jefferson.
Unfortunately, your argument works equally well for religion. From a religious standpoint all of the natural laws that form the basis for everything you mentioned plus all of the natural world that man isn't responsible for are the result of God's handiwork.
He didn't say anything about questioning it because you're a denier, question it because you're not convinced it's correct, question it because you think there may be a natural cause, it really doesn't matter why you're questioning it, you're far more likely to get a reasonable discussion on the Christian forum than on the AGW forum.
In most cases you won't get cut off from society if you challenge religious beliefs either, as evidenced by the large number of people here on/. challenging those beliefs.
Most science requires the implicit assumption that there is no omnipotent god interfering in your observations, this assumption cannot be proven but is necessary to investigate anything.
Your first example is rather flawed, the educated people in Columbus's time generally believed the earth was round. Columbus believed (wrongly) that the earth was smaller than was generally believed and set out to establish a trade route to the Indies. Fortunately for him, America was in the way. By the time Magellan got around to sailing across the Pacific there was little doubt to the world's roundness.
Science claims to be based on evidence, religion does not. An argument against scientific beliefs rooted in science has merit, an argument against religious beliefs rooted in science does not. If you could construct an argument against religious beliefs rooted in that religion, it would have merit.
It isn't really about perception or damage or we'd expect to actually notice a 1 or 2. The main reason for using a logarithmic scale for earthquakes is the massive difference in energy released. Using another scale you would end up with very large numbers or very small numbers that are hard to talk about.
Marx and Engels wanted a casteless, classless society of equals. The USSR was just another version of the bourgeoisie vs proletariat where the ones in power claimed that everyone owned the various businesses.
Supposing one could see the future and named the year, wouldn't it be likely that doing so would cause the people of the future to alter their behavior in such a way that it would happen the year before or after.
Even when you do things in a statistically meaningful manner you will get wrong results from time to time, the only difference is that you have a fairly good idea of how often you will get wrong results.
Of course, if he had said that, Interpol would have a different name because they wouldn't want to be thought a religious organization and they would have set this up in 2010 or 2012 instead.
Since Marx and Engels didn't really have anything to do with the later corruption of their works, I'd have to say the two that lead a revolution against their government would be the bigger monsters. That said, I wouldn't really classify any of them as being particularly monsterous. A better comparison would be to Lenin and Stalin, the fathers of what most people think of when you talk about communism.
IMO a decent balance between these ideas could be obtained by letting the users flag their content. Things with a high priority flag would go through faster but have lower bandwidth caps resulting in a slower overall experience if you flag everything high priority, making them good for latency sensitive material. Lower priority flags would be good for downloading and other activities where user input is not required.
As I recall, setting up a PayPal account that could be used with people that didn't accept credit cards required hours or days of waiting. (depending on how often your bank updates their online statements) Compared to a few minutes downloading and searching that is a significant barrier.
I disagree slightly, people will be willing to pay for legitimacy, but they are far less likely to suffer inconvenience for legitimacy. If pirating something is easier than buying it people are much more likely to pirate it than they would be otherwise. This is one of the biggest problems with most DRM schemes and a big part of why Steam is so successful.
To be fair, people who are educated and relatively wealthy don't really need a library to get access to any books they may want. The problem is that while the town in general may be wealthy I doubt everyone there is.
Slashdot Mirror
By claiming it is impossible you are conceding that it didn't happen. In my opinion a communist democracy would come much closer to the idea of a classless society than anything else.
As for defending Marx, I really didn't intend to, I just didn't like the comparison between two people who were famous as political revolutionaries and two who were famous as economic idealists. If you don't like Lenin and Stalin being substituted in, how about swapping in Adam Smith for Washington and Jefferson.
If it was such a bad change in their DNA, why did it propagate to the entire species instead of being weeded out?
Unfortunately, your argument works equally well for religion. From a religious standpoint all of the natural laws that form the basis for everything you mentioned plus all of the natural world that man isn't responsible for are the result of God's handiwork.
For example, if only repeatable things are true, all origin theories are out.
He didn't say anything about questioning it because you're a denier, question it because you're not convinced it's correct, question it because you think there may be a natural cause, it really doesn't matter why you're questioning it, you're far more likely to get a reasonable discussion on the Christian forum than on the AGW forum.
In most cases you won't get cut off from society if you challenge religious beliefs either, as evidenced by the large number of people here on /. challenging those beliefs.
Most science requires the implicit assumption that there is no omnipotent god interfering in your observations, this assumption cannot be proven but is necessary to investigate anything.
Your first example is rather flawed, the educated people in Columbus's time generally believed the earth was round. Columbus believed (wrongly) that the earth was smaller than was generally believed and set out to establish a trade route to the Indies. Fortunately for him, America was in the way. By the time Magellan got around to sailing across the Pacific there was little doubt to the world's roundness.
Science claims to be based on evidence, religion does not. An argument against scientific beliefs rooted in science has merit, an argument against religious beliefs rooted in science does not. If you could construct an argument against religious beliefs rooted in that religion, it would have merit.
It isn't really about perception or damage or we'd expect to actually notice a 1 or 2. The main reason for using a logarithmic scale for earthquakes is the massive difference in energy released. Using another scale you would end up with very large numbers or very small numbers that are hard to talk about.
Marx and Engels wanted a casteless, classless society of equals. The USSR was just another version of the bourgeoisie vs proletariat where the ones in power claimed that everyone owned the various businesses.
Supposing one could see the future and named the year, wouldn't it be likely that doing so would cause the people of the future to alter their behavior in such a way that it would happen the year before or after.
Even when you do things in a statistically meaningful manner you will get wrong results from time to time, the only difference is that you have a fairly good idea of how often you will get wrong results.
None, he successfully found many ways that didn't work.
I'm having the same problem but I discovered through annoyance that clicking repeatedly works for some reason.
Of course, if he had said that, Interpol would have a different name because they wouldn't want to be thought a religious organization and they would have set this up in 2010 or 2012 instead.
Since Marx and Engels didn't really have anything to do with the later corruption of their works, I'd have to say the two that lead a revolution against their government would be the bigger monsters. That said, I wouldn't really classify any of them as being particularly monsterous. A better comparison would be to Lenin and Stalin, the fathers of what most people think of when you talk about communism.
Protect it from whom? The only people I currently see potentially taking away that right are the people in charge of the military.
IMO a decent balance between these ideas could be obtained by letting the users flag their content. Things with a high priority flag would go through faster but have lower bandwidth caps resulting in a slower overall experience if you flag everything high priority, making them good for latency sensitive material. Lower priority flags would be good for downloading and other activities where user input is not required.
Sorry, I didn't make that very clear, rather unclear actually, I meant:
If I remember correctly it was algebra for things more complicated than linear equations. For example powers, roots, etc.
As I recall, setting up a PayPal account that could be used with people that didn't accept credit cards required hours or days of waiting. (depending on how often your bank updates their online statements) Compared to a few minutes downloading and searching that is a significant barrier.
Sure it is, just not for the CDs they're selling. A full CD by a decent artist could easily be worth that much.
I disagree slightly, people will be willing to pay for legitimacy, but they are far less likely to suffer inconvenience for legitimacy. If pirating something is easier than buying it people are much more likely to pirate it than they would be otherwise. This is one of the biggest problems with most DRM schemes and a big part of why Steam is so successful.
Obviously in his future we follow the socialist ways of Star Trek and the like ensuring shelter and computer access for even the poorest citizens.
To be fair, people who are educated and relatively wealthy don't really need a library to get access to any books they may want. The problem is that while the town in general may be wealthy I doubt everyone there is.