I also am not naive enough to believe that the truly rich got that way by creating wealth when we have clear evidence that for a significant fraction this is not the case.
See... go again and read the post you are replying to... Here's the snippet I think is relevant:
It's the difference between creating money and creating wealth. The people who concentrate on the latter tend to be more successful in the long run.
Are you sure you aren't confusing "being successful" with "being rich"?
E.g. would you consider Mother Theresa unsuccessful?
I also mentioned that in my original post. Its not wrong/immoral/evil to expose lies, its just that an entity that wishes for peace would conduct themselves accordingly, i.e. not trying to do things they know causes people to get possibly violent.
Wasn't evident to me at the first reading, thanks for repeating.
Then, if my understanding is correct, your argument is with the person that nominated WIkileaks for the peace price, do you confirm?
You cannot say that Wikileaks is a peaceful movement, because they do not address peace as an issue,
I'd argue the laureates don't need to address the peace as an issue - that's a "constraint" I can't accept in your argumentation - but to carry work or actions that leads to that. I'm quite sure that Mother Theresa did not have in mind the peace, in fact her actions were directed to individuals. Same goes for Gandhi, he promoted resistance against tyranny by non-violent mass civil disobedience. And I'm sure he's done it having India in mind (and not the world peace).
...they only care about justice.
Hmmm... no... I agree they care about the truth, I suspect some of its members would have justice in mind as well, but checking what they do declare on their site I don't see anything saying "We publish leaks because we want justice". Up to the rest of the world what they do with the truth. And, again, maybe they deserve or maybe they don't deserve now the peace prize, but I'm confident that world will be a better place because a higher amount of truth is known (if not, humanity is doomed. Delusion is not a survival trait on long term).
This is a good thing in my opinion, but the Nobel peace prize is meant for people that spend their lives helping people get along rather than spending their time helping people have more things to get pissed off about.
"Getting along" based on lies or hiding the truth/actions/etc can succeed only on short term and on matters that are trivial (which I'd argue peace is neither). Anything else fails on long term... that's my experience Here: like cheating on your wife and hiding it just "to get along with her" (possibly "for the sake of children" to have an even better justification?).
Historically our country has relied upon publishers to exercise some discretion about disclosure of classified information, so as not to risk our soldiers or allies on the battlefield.
And you believe that the wars (in which your soldiers and allies are/were on the battle-field) is peace? (not arguing on "Wikileaks deserves or not the Nobel prize", but rather trying to understand how's your mind working)
Wikileaks reached a huge audience with titillating trivia and entertaining news sound bites.
Then TFS quote:
Valen cited WikiLeaks' role in disclosing the assets of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile."
Wikileaks wants you to be informed at all costs, even if that means revolution or war
And the responsibility stays with the messenger?
I'd rather argue the responsibility should stay with the entities that choose to hide the reality, or created such conditions that people feel revolting is a solution, or the responsibility of those who launch the war.
Better said: "A previous lack of knowledge almost always lead to problems on short terms when corrected".
When expressed under this form, the immediate question is: "Would you rather stay blissfully ignorant or perhaps have problems?" Sometimes, I think that's the key point in evaluating if a being is intelligent.
Why would you trust Montenegro to stand up for your rights?.
I don't. But before considering OpenNIC or the like, here why.me has a better level of trust:
- historically, nobody heard about.me domains being seized (not that it cannot happen in the future)...
-... but.org,.net and.com... continue to happen.
Between.me and {.org,.net,.com} - excluding others - who do you trust better?
What property is being seized? These are just bits on a server being set differently, just as downloading a movie without paying for it is sending bits down a wire. If one is "imaginary property" isn't the other? Or is there a double standard?
The "property" that one bought when paying for a domain registration. No matter how you call it, the situation is now: "I paid for it and is no longer the way I paid for" (seized, corrupted, adjusted, censored... whatever words you use it, the basic fact remains).
So, the short summary of that agenda-driven polemic appears to be that you agree it will happen, you just want to whine about how it will be economically viable as opposed to supporting a romanticized utopia? Yeah, that was real helpful. Can I have my five minutes back?
Nope... the moment you started to read my post you implicitly agreed with the EULA, Terms of Service, warranty conditions, disclaimer, waiver of rights and the whole legalese kit.
What is even worse for you: you did all the above when you were born. Get over it and go back in line, your future is already cast.
Hey - most US farmers were already put out of business by megacorps like Monsanto and Archer-Daniels Midland..... similar to what happened with the tinkers, tailors, and candlestick makers. Corporations are more efficient and harvest corn/cows/other products cheaper than a bunch of single farmers. So the farmers were driven-out a long time ago, and only a few souls remain.
Ok. Simply ignore point 4, tick it as "already done".
So, let the govt chip in for Mironov's research and then let Monsanto take care of the whole caboodle once it's done, they know how to do it.
Well they already are. We value that land more highly for building homes and shopping malls than for food, and until the price of the food reaches a point where it's more profitable to farm than sell off for development people are just going to keep selling their land.
Gotta be kidding, right? I mean, what is there to build with so many foreclosures? Shantytowns?
Hunger and starvation isn't a production issue, its a distribution issue. If we're facing an inevitable meat scarcity resulting from land shortages...
Somehow, land shortages in US doesn't ring true... 7.2% beef carcass exported in 2009... doesn't seem Mironov has a case with this argument... unless something changed from 2009...
Hang on! the McDonalds stock price doubled in the last 5 years... maybe there IS actually a need for low-quality/very-low price mince... use enough fat, flavors and enhancers and, if it is supersized and at the same price, it doesn't matter anymore.
Make higher quality meat than most of the current producers (that's not hard, we're not talking wagyu here) and do it cheaper than them (and that *really* shouldn't be hard, you're basically making beer here).
Economics will do the rest.
You've got it wrong, buddy, the "economy doing the rest" I mean. Here's my take on the "faith in the economy at work" (I dare you to prove me wrong, with real-world examples in the last 10 years):
1. set up the process to produce meant and do it at a good enough quality (don;t care even to do it at "higher than most of the producers", the trick is: you don't need to. Don't believe me? Continue reading)
2. outsource the production plants to India/China. This is how they'll become cheaper (and the associated env impact NIMBY, who cares that some people the other side of the globe commit suicide or are poisoned in the process?)
3. create the MeatMart chain of stores to distribute the product to US. Macas and BurgerKing will be quite happy to have a slice of it (better said "a mince of it")... after all, their most stable consumers don't care if it can be made to taste reasonable (read: "deep fried and/or full of saturated fats, MSG and other flavor enhancers"), it's dirt cheap and comes in supersized serves (now they'll be able to have it HYPERSIZED for the same price).
4. drive into the ground the US farmers, by I-don't-know-what-miracle (hormones and mexican workforce in slaughter-houses?) they still manage somehow to produce excess of beef carcases for the export (7.2 percent in 2009).. That's simply unacceptable, better drive them 9 feet under, they'll be quiet and won't get to use their shotguns the X-th amendment allows them to bear for just-in-case
5.... profit... (what else).
As extension, whine hard about taxes and use some of your (untaxed, in a Cayman Island bank) profit to sponsor the Tea Party, lobby the Congress and fuel another bubble (at your choice, but don't try another house bubble as yet: the "economics" isn't now quite on the "build and they'll come" side)
Slashdot Mirror
Can we call them "potentially habitable planets" instead of going all the way to "habitable" that quickly?
Because, if we think they are habitable, we can safely continue to abuse the Earth?
I also am not naive enough to believe that the truly rich got that way by creating wealth when we have clear evidence that for a significant fraction this is not the case.
See... go again and read the post you are replying to... Here's the snippet I think is relevant:
It's the difference between creating money and creating wealth. The people who concentrate on the latter tend to be more successful in the long run.
Are you sure you aren't confusing "being successful" with "being rich"?
E.g. would you consider Mother Theresa unsuccessful?
I also mentioned that in my original post. Its not wrong/immoral/evil to expose lies, its just that an entity that wishes for peace would conduct themselves accordingly, i.e. not trying to do things they know causes people to get possibly violent.
Wasn't evident to me at the first reading, thanks for repeating.
Then, if my understanding is correct, your argument is with the person that nominated WIkileaks for the peace price, do you confirm?
You cannot say that Wikileaks is a peaceful movement, because they do not address peace as an issue,
I'd argue the laureates don't need to address the peace as an issue - that's a "constraint" I can't accept in your argumentation - but to carry work or actions that leads to that.
I'm quite sure that Mother Theresa did not have in mind the peace, in fact her actions were directed to individuals.
Same goes for Gandhi, he promoted resistance against tyranny by non-violent mass civil disobedience. And I'm sure he's done it having India in mind (and not the world peace).
...they only care about justice.
Hmmm... no... I agree they care about the truth, I suspect some of its members would have justice in mind as well, but checking what they do declare on their site I don't see anything saying "We publish leaks because we want justice". Up to the rest of the world what they do with the truth.
And, again, maybe they deserve or maybe they don't deserve now the peace prize, but I'm confident that world will be a better place because a higher amount of truth is known (if not, humanity is doomed. Delusion is not a survival trait on long term).
Wow, you are naive. The name Bernie Madoff mean anything to you?
Can I have a sincere answer from you: do you take Bernie Madoff as your role model?
This is a good thing in my opinion, but the Nobel peace prize is meant for people that spend their lives helping people get along rather than spending their time helping people have more things to get pissed off about.
"Getting along" based on lies or hiding the truth/actions/etc can succeed only on short term and on matters that are trivial (which I'd argue peace is neither). Anything else fails on long term... that's my experience
Here: like cheating on your wife and hiding it just "to get along with her" (possibly "for the sake of children" to have an even better justification?).
Historically our country has relied upon publishers to exercise some discretion about disclosure of classified information, so as not to risk our soldiers or allies on the battlefield.
And you believe that the wars (in which your soldiers and allies are/were on the battle-field) is peace? (not arguing on "Wikileaks deserves or not the Nobel prize", but rather trying to understand how's your mind working)
I disagree.
Wikileaks reached a huge audience with titillating trivia and entertaining news sound bites.
Then TFS quote:
Valen cited WikiLeaks' role in disclosing the assets of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile."
You sure you aren't on a wrong track?
Wikileaks wants you to be informed at all costs, even if that means revolution or war
And the responsibility stays with the messenger?
I'd rather argue the responsibility should stay with the entities that choose to hide the reality, or created such conditions that people feel revolting is a solution, or the responsibility of those who launch the war.
Knowledge almost always leads to problems --
Better said: "A previous lack of knowledge almost always lead to problems on short terms when corrected".
When expressed under this form, the immediate question is: "Would you rather stay blissfully ignorant or perhaps have problems?"
Sometimes, I think that's the key point in evaluating if a being is intelligent.
With both China and US being pissed on the Nobel Committee, indeed a risky business being one of the members.
google "freenet"
And be quick... before ICE seizes the freenet.org domain as well.
Alt DNS roots may be another idea.
transition to other domains such as .me
Why would you trust Montenegro to stand up for your rights?.
I don't. But before considering OpenNIC or the like, here why .me has a better level of trust:
.me domains being seized (not that it cannot happen in the future)...
... but .org, .net and .com... continue to happen.
- historically, nobody heard about
-
Between .me and {.org, .net, .com} - excluding others - who do you trust better?
the internet which was associated so closely with '.com' extension
The final deflation of the dotCom-bubble just started. The internet will be fine... until somebody will start seizing the IP addresses.
Either both piracy and seizing domains without due process are wrong, or neither is wrong.
Niiice... "Piracy without due process" (just kidding)
What property is being seized? These are just bits on a server being set differently, just as downloading a movie without paying for it is sending bits down a wire. If one is "imaginary property" isn't the other? Or is there a double standard?
The "property" that one bought when paying for a domain registration. No matter how you call it, the situation is now: "I paid for it and is no longer the way I paid for" (seized, corrupted, adjusted, censored... whatever words you use it, the basic fact remains).
Ya got that backwards. ;-)
Apologies, forgot to grin before/after the posted suggestion.
If on Windows "ipconfig /flushdns" might solve your problem.
So, the short summary of that agenda-driven polemic appears to be that you agree it will happen, you just want to whine about how it will be economically viable as opposed to supporting a romanticized utopia? Yeah, that was real helpful. Can I have my five minutes back?
Nope... the moment you started to read my post you implicitly agreed with the EULA, Terms of Service, warranty conditions, disclaimer, waiver of rights and the whole legalese kit.
What is even worse for you: you did all the above when you were born. Get over it and go back in line, your future is already cast.
Boredom. We've seen it already and there are too little chances for something new and better.
(is that sand comfy for your head?)
You've got it wrong, buddy, the "economy doing the rest" I mean. Here's my take...
My god, that's breathtaking. You've leapt the chasm from one man's vision to an unpleasant long term result in one cynical bound.
Can't help... life's too short to waste with same old stories: tell them, be done with them and, if possible, do something meaningful.
(whispers)
Hey - most US farmers were already put out of business by megacorps like Monsanto and Archer-Daniels Midland..... similar to what happened with the tinkers, tailors, and candlestick makers. Corporations are more efficient and harvest corn/cows/other products cheaper than a bunch of single farmers. So the farmers were driven-out a long time ago, and only a few souls remain.
Ok. Simply ignore point 4, tick it as "already done".
So, let the govt chip in for Mironov's research and then let Monsanto take care of the whole caboodle once it's done, they know how to do it.
Economics will do the rest.
Well they already are. We value that land more highly for building homes and shopping malls than for food, and until the price of the food reaches a point where it's more profitable to farm than sell off for development people are just going to keep selling their land.
Gotta be kidding, right? I mean, what is there to build with so many foreclosures? Shantytowns?
Hunger and starvation isn't a production issue, its a distribution issue. If we're facing an inevitable meat scarcity resulting from land shortages...
Somehow, land shortages in US doesn't ring true... 7.2% beef carcass exported in 2009... doesn't seem Mironov has a case with this argument... unless something changed from 2009...
Hang on! the McDonalds stock price doubled in the last 5 years... maybe there IS actually a need for low-quality/very-low price mince... use enough fat, flavors and enhancers and, if it is supersized and at the same price, it doesn't matter anymore.
Vegetarianism isn't a bull.
FTFY
Make higher quality meat than most of the current producers (that's not hard, we're not talking wagyu here) and do it cheaper than them (and that *really* shouldn't be hard, you're basically making beer here).
Economics will do the rest.
You've got it wrong, buddy, the "economy doing the rest" I mean. Here's my take on the "faith in the economy at work" (I dare you to prove me wrong, with real-world examples in the last 10 years):
1. set up the process to produce meant and do it at a good enough quality (don;t care even to do it at "higher than most of the producers", the trick is: you don't need to. Don't believe me? Continue reading)
2. outsource the production plants to India/China. This is how they'll become cheaper (and the associated env impact NIMBY, who cares that some people the other side of the globe commit suicide or are poisoned in the process?)
3. create the MeatMart chain of stores to distribute the product to US. Macas and BurgerKing will be quite happy to have a slice of it (better said "a mince of it")... after all, their most stable consumers don't care if it can be made to taste reasonable (read: "deep fried and/or full of saturated fats, MSG and other flavor enhancers"), it's dirt cheap and comes in supersized serves (now they'll be able to have it HYPERSIZED for the same price).
4. drive into the ground the US farmers, by I-don't-know-what-miracle (hormones and mexican workforce in slaughter-houses?) they still manage somehow to produce excess of beef carcases for the export (7.2 percent in 2009).. That's simply unacceptable, better drive them 9 feet under, they'll be quiet and won't get to use their shotguns the X-th amendment allows them to bear for just-in-case
5. ... profit... (what else).
As extension, whine hard about taxes and use some of your (untaxed, in a Cayman Island bank) profit to sponsor the Tea Party, lobby the Congress and fuel another bubble (at your choice, but don't try another house bubble as yet: the "economics" isn't now quite on the "build and they'll come" side)