"Thousands of species have colonized the International Space Station -- and only one of them is Homo sapiens".
Incorrect, silly man!
Homo Sapiens - at least healthy specimens - themselves carry around thousands of species of bacteria, viruses and fungi. It's become a cliche that you have ten times as many bacterial cells as human ones - and if you somehow managed to get rid of all the bacteria, you would die.
'"The truth is, there is a lot of crap you don't need," he explains'.
As you go through life you can use the proceeds of your labour for different things. Kevin O'Leary apparently thinks that nothing beats a good big juicy investment portfolio.
If he thinks a cup of coffee cost 18 cents, I can imagine what kind of coffee he drinks. Anyone else thinking "Scrooge"?
One can speculate endlessly, but I notice more and more "English" on the Web that wouldn't be accepted in a primary school. Some comes from people whose first language is other than English; but many of those speak extremely correct English. A lot comes from people who were brought up and educated in Britain, the USA or other English-speaking countries.
If I had to account for it, I could only wonder if it has been hurriedly transcribed by someone whose English is quite poor, from a sound recording of variable quality. That might help to explain such repeated patterns as the substitution of "is" for "has", if not the equally grating misuse of "substitute with" where "replace by" would be correct. Or "for we the people", or "write correctly, such that you will be understood". And so on and so on.
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it".
- Lord Acton (Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887)
Lord Acton was one of the good guys. He corresponded briefly with General Robert E. Lee, so I suppose any statues to him must be torn down. Nevertheless, he enunciated one of the great and eternal truths about politics.
Funny you should say that. Consider the possibility that there are, in fact, a lot of people - including some of the most useful members of society - who are hardly ever noticed and rarely get credit for anything, because they are naturally quiet and shy.
Meanwhile, the small minority of loud, self-advertising extroverts get away with persuading everyone that they are the only people who count. Everything in modern Western (especially US) culture glorifies the extrovert. Yet it seems likely that at least half of the population consists of those who are, to some degree at least, introverted.
... that the people who are loudest in claiming to be highly empathetic never make the slightest effort to empathize with those who are not naturally empathetic. Isn't that odd?
And if we are so enthusiastic for inclusiveness and diversity and not offending anyone, how come there is no tolerance of those who identify as autistic or near-autistic?
The ones who destroy property and hurt people are called criminals.
And the most successful criminals are called "governments". They're the ones who kill hundreds or thousands of times more people than any serial killer, yet they never get punished; instead, they are loaded with honours and enriched.
"Il est défendu de tuer; tout meurtrier est puni, à moins qu’il n’ait tué en grande compagnie, et au son des trompettes".
("It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers to the sound of trumpets").
- Voltaire
(Although nowadays "the sounds of drones, bombers, helicopters, cannon and machine-guns" might be more exact).
Also, he's a wealthy and privileged Jew having been raised on the Upper Westside and spent his entire adult life in elite education institutions yet somehow not actually teaching anything or publishing any research.
Why is it that your post makes me feel a sudden surge of affection and respect for wealthy and privileged Jews who spend their entire adult life in elite education institutions?
To say that Stallman has never actually taught anything is an astonishing distortion, given that he has done more than anyone to popularize the benefits of free software. And what do you mean by "publishing research"? What Stallman has done is immensely more useful and practical than any "research" published in some learned journal.
... but most of them are so grotesquely incompetent it doesn't matter too much.
As Bertrand Russell once observed, ancient Greece was somewhat redeemed by the fact that the police were so inefficient that most decent people were able to escape their attentions.
Someone thinks it's trolling to challenge the view that the entire world beyond the USA is "a gigantic cesspool of filth, poverty, illiteracy, crime, violence and general misery".
How is that any different than the information the employee publishes?
That's a good and logical question. I gave it some thought before posting.
Basically, there is a lot of asymmetry between an individual employee and a corporation. In the first place, of course, the employee is a single person - a private individual - whereas the corporation disposes of a lot more people and resources. But that's just the start. To the employee, the world of work is usually just part of life - perhaps the dominant part, perhaps just an unpleasant but necessary way of earning a living. The corporation, on the other hand, is not a real living person (although it is, by a legal fiction, treated as being a kind of "person"). It has no interests outside the world of its business, no affections, no fears, no human relationships or responsibilities. It has no spouse or children to care about (and worry about) and provide for.
The individual, in his or her private life, has occasion to socialize and exchange information with friends, acquaintances and family members. Such information may impinge, in some ways, on work, but only indirectly. A person may come home and vent on social media about the atrocious treatment he had to put up with at work; that is normal, understandable human behaviour and may meet with sympathetic responses that help to soothe the hurt. To the employer, however, it is a revelation of undesirable attitudes.
The corporation is run according to its various policies and the decisions of managers. It can choose to keep secret whatever it wishes; it has no private life, no feelings, no social intercourse. Unlike the individual human, its guard is always up; it never goes off duty.
The contest is like one between a human being - possibly armed - and a killer robot. Very one-sided. And even if the human being triumphs, the robot doesn't care even if it is destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, congratulations! At last a first post that's relevant and has a good point.
http://www.userfriendly.org/ca...
"Thousands of species have colonized the International Space Station -- and only one of them is Homo sapiens".
Incorrect, silly man!
Homo Sapiens - at least healthy specimens - themselves carry around thousands of species of bacteria, viruses and fungi. It's become a cliche that you have ten times as many bacterial cells as human ones - and if you somehow managed to get rid of all the bacteria, you would die.
'"The truth is, there is a lot of crap you don't need," he explains'.
As you go through life you can use the proceeds of your labour for different things. Kevin O'Leary apparently thinks that nothing beats a good big juicy investment portfolio.
If he thinks a cup of coffee cost 18 cents, I can imagine what kind of coffee he drinks. Anyone else thinking "Scrooge"?
"The Human Advantage: How Our Brains Became Remarkable"
(MIT Press) Paperback
April 21, 2017
by Suzana Herculano-Houzel
https://www.amazon.com/Human-A...
Copying Apple has worked for 30 years. Why quit now?
http://applemuseum.bott.org/se...
One can speculate endlessly, but I notice more and more "English" on the Web that wouldn't be accepted in a primary school. Some comes from people whose first language is other than English; but many of those speak extremely correct English. A lot comes from people who were brought up and educated in Britain, the USA or other English-speaking countries.
If I had to account for it, I could only wonder if it has been hurriedly transcribed by someone whose English is quite poor, from a sound recording of variable quality. That might help to explain such repeated patterns as the substitution of "is" for "has", if not the equally grating misuse of "substitute with" where "replace by" would be correct. Or "for we the people", or "write correctly, such that you will be understood". And so on and so on.
https://warnewsupdates.blogspo...
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it".
- Lord Acton (Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887)
Lord Acton was one of the good guys. He corresponded briefly with General Robert E. Lee, so I suppose any statues to him must be torn down. Nevertheless, he enunciated one of the great and eternal truths about politics.
Seriously, has no one read Jurassic Park?
A handful of the elderly, perhaps. But even they know "it's only fiction".
"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".
Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).
Funny you should say that. Consider the possibility that there are, in fact, a lot of people - including some of the most useful members of society - who are hardly ever noticed and rarely get credit for anything, because they are naturally quiet and shy.
Meanwhile, the small minority of loud, self-advertising extroverts get away with persuading everyone that they are the only people who count. Everything in modern Western (especially US) culture glorifies the extrovert. Yet it seems likely that at least half of the population consists of those who are, to some degree at least, introverted.
... that the people who are loudest in claiming to be highly empathetic never make the slightest effort to empathize with those who are not naturally empathetic. Isn't that odd?
And if we are so enthusiastic for inclusiveness and diversity and not offending anyone, how come there is no tolerance of those who identify as autistic or near-autistic?
Being a rich jew also helps.
You're just jealous, aren't you?
The ones who destroy property and hurt people are called criminals.
And the most successful criminals are called "governments". They're the ones who kill hundreds or thousands of times more people than any serial killer, yet they never get punished; instead, they are loaded with honours and enriched.
"Il est défendu de tuer; tout meurtrier est puni, à moins qu’il n’ait tué en grande compagnie, et au son des trompettes".
("It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers to the sound of trumpets").
- Voltaire
(Although nowadays "the sounds of drones, bombers, helicopters, cannon and machine-guns" might be more exact).
Also, he's a wealthy and privileged Jew having been raised on the Upper Westside and spent his entire adult life in elite education institutions yet somehow not actually teaching anything or publishing any research.
Why is it that your post makes me feel a sudden surge of affection and respect for wealthy and privileged Jews who spend their entire adult life in elite education institutions?
To say that Stallman has never actually taught anything is an astonishing distortion, given that he has done more than anyone to popularize the benefits of free software. And what do you mean by "publishing research"? What Stallman has done is immensely more useful and practical than any "research" published in some learned journal.
Well, on the one hand I'm glad I wasn't the one to say that...
All governments are "bad"...
... but most of them are so grotesquely incompetent it doesn't matter too much.
As Bertrand Russell once observed, ancient Greece was somewhat redeemed by the fact that the police were so inefficient that most decent people were able to escape their attentions.
Droll! Moderate up.
Ho ho ho, "'recursive': see 'recursive'".
Americans usually know American English.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Only if "American English" is a confused, ungrammatical mess that speakers of real English can barely understand.
As a qualified speaker of proper English, I can testify that most Russians I know speak better English than most Americans I know.
... he brought home non-government malware that might have stolen the government malware he was working on?
Someone thinks it's trolling to challenge the view that the entire world beyond the USA is "a gigantic cesspool of filth, poverty, illiteracy, crime, violence and general misery".
It seemed so pathetic that it wasn't worth confronting.
I quite agree. But I have come to feel that, time permitting, one should always crunch such statements into the floor and grind down hard.
For the record.
As too many people believe that "silence implies consent".
How is that any different than the information the employee publishes?
That's a good and logical question. I gave it some thought before posting.
Basically, there is a lot of asymmetry between an individual employee and a corporation. In the first place, of course, the employee is a single person - a private individual - whereas the corporation disposes of a lot more people and resources. But that's just the start. To the employee, the world of work is usually just part of life - perhaps the dominant part, perhaps just an unpleasant but necessary way of earning a living. The corporation, on the other hand, is not a real living person (although it is, by a legal fiction, treated as being a kind of "person"). It has no interests outside the world of its business, no affections, no fears, no human relationships or responsibilities. It has no spouse or children to care about (and worry about) and provide for.
The individual, in his or her private life, has occasion to socialize and exchange information with friends, acquaintances and family members. Such information may impinge, in some ways, on work, but only indirectly. A person may come home and vent on social media about the atrocious treatment he had to put up with at work; that is normal, understandable human behaviour and may meet with sympathetic responses that help to soothe the hurt. To the employer, however, it is a revelation of undesirable attitudes.
The corporation is run according to its various policies and the decisions of managers. It can choose to keep secret whatever it wishes; it has no private life, no feelings, no social intercourse. Unlike the individual human, its guard is always up; it never goes off duty.
The contest is like one between a human being - possibly armed - and a killer robot. Very one-sided. And even if the human being triumphs, the robot doesn't care even if it is destroyed.