One of the problems I have with those "tea parties" and what not is that I'm not sure if they understand this: the less you want government to do, the more _you_ have to do. You don't want the government to help the poor? Then YOU have to do that, if you have enough money. IOW, you have to be responsible not just for yourself but to OTHERs as well -- those the gov't would otherwise help. Wow! What a concept! Now, obviously, corrupt government is no good, but then why not campaign against CORRUPT government (or "Corporate Government", or...) -- why campaign against ALL government? But of course, you CAN campaign against all government. Just remember what you have to take on.
Occasionally someone will have the decency to say something like "hmm that's a good point, you've made me think differently about this" but real adults who can do that are rare. Most are just overgrown two-year-olds, fevered egos trying to save face as if they are fooling anyone.
"MOST" are just overgrown two-year-olds -- do you believe this is a BAD THING? A very big PROBLEM with the world?! If so, do you think it is insurmountable, that this is how things must always be, or do you think they could be better, where 50% were real adults?
Yes, this is backwards. The way it SHOULD be done is:
1. If someone INTENTIONALLY tries to offend people, then it should be condemned in a moral sense, and via non-jail-based, "social" means (but also, non-violent ones).
2. If someone shoots a little girl in the head asking for an education, they should be EXECUTED. I support the death penalty for stuff like that.
Where most people get into trouble is in dealing with the specifics.
And isn't that a really big, HUGE, *PROBLEM* -- that *MOST* people (as opposed to less than 50%) have that trouble? What would it take to change that? To make it so that less than 50% had that trouble?
Basically things like this relieve people of the obligation to be both involved and proactive. Then they can scoot by on minimal effort being reflexive and reactionary with all sorts of travesties taking place.
But one also needs a lot of KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE to be "involved and proactive" in a way that will do more good than harm. Without that EDUCATION, doing so would only do more harm than good. Like having someone who knows jack s**t about medicine do brain surgery. 99.999% chance he'll kill the patient. EDUCATION is necessary.
However, he didn't say the Taliban represented general Pakistanis' views. To me, it just seemed he was disapproving of the Taliban, not Pakistanis in general.
"Those who can not separate their own identity from that of their religion are quite simply trying to purposefully create the environment for hate and violence."
How do you know that's the ONLY reason someone could have for not separating their identity from their religion (to "purposefully create the environment for hate and violence")?
1. Where is he saying in the post above that only the USA is to blame?
2. How could I get enough knowledge to equal you and have exposed, world-compassing, fair thinking and an exciting, brightwitted, praising way of looking at the world?
Doesn't *completely* solve the problem, however -- it only takes *one* civilization who does believe that way. Unless, of course, *all* such civilizations are doomed to failure -- in which case, we'd better heed the lesson implicit in that one.
"The law isn't set up to help YOU, it's set up to help major corporations extract wealth from the working class."
Excellent summary of just what is so TERRIBLY, HORRIBLY, CRUELLY WRONG with this country and world. It is despicable.
Huh? Wouldn't it be a *good* thing if there were some way that the less-well-off could be afforded the full protection of the law? The ones who need it the most...
1. When you use the term "grown ups" are you accusing the other people here of being childish?
2. It' important also to note that there are also people out there who are not opposed to _all_ copyright, but opposed rather to its continuous expansion.
The nut behind the wheel is a problem.
Except that that's not what they're talking about. They're talking about putting a _computer_ behind the wheel -- putting AI behind the wheel:
"The team intends to draw on drone technology to automate as much of the flying as possible. Current fly-by-wire technology, as well as some of the features being used in the development of autonomous or robotic vehicles could all help fleets of these vehicles fly along predefined highways – and crucially avoid each other."
Hopefully they can make an AI that is more competent than the average "idjit" driver.
"The only time it's really appropriate to stop learning is when you're dead."
I suspect they mean "when can we stop doing 10 hours of schoolwork every day".
However, in those cases you can switch to another provider and get essentially the same thing. Not so with software, which is much more variable. I rather would want to be able to _keep_ the software I like as long as I like. Perhaps the person you're responding to sees this in a similar way.
Don't forget the experts themselves have to be skeptical, too (as that's how science works: science without skepticism is not science, it's pseudo-science.).
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems I have with those "tea parties" and what not is that I'm not sure if they understand this: the less you want government to do, the more _you_ have to do. You don't want the government to help the poor? Then YOU have to do that, if you have enough money. IOW, you have to be responsible not just for yourself but to OTHERs as well -- those the gov't would otherwise help. Wow! What a concept! Now, obviously, corrupt government is no good, but then why not campaign against CORRUPT government (or "Corporate Government", or...) -- why campaign against ALL government? But of course, you CAN campaign against all government. Just remember what you have to take on.
Occasionally someone will have the decency to say something like "hmm that's a good point, you've made me think differently about this" but real adults who can do that are rare. Most are just overgrown two-year-olds, fevered egos trying to save face as if they are fooling anyone.
"MOST" are just overgrown two-year-olds -- do you believe this is a BAD THING? A very big PROBLEM with the world?! If so, do you think it is insurmountable, that this is how things must always be, or do you think they could be better, where 50% were real adults?
Yes, this is backwards. The way it SHOULD be done is: 1. If someone INTENTIONALLY tries to offend people, then it should be condemned in a moral sense, and via non-jail-based, "social" means (but also, non-violent ones). 2. If someone shoots a little girl in the head asking for an education, they should be EXECUTED. I support the death penalty for stuff like that.
Well I don't know about locking them up, but it's definitely a moral wrong to intentionally upset somebody.
Where most people get into trouble is in dealing with the specifics.
And isn't that a really big, HUGE, *PROBLEM* -- that *MOST* people (as opposed to less than 50%) have that trouble? What would it take to change that? To make it so that less than 50% had that trouble?
Basically things like this relieve people of the obligation to be both involved and proactive. Then they can scoot by on minimal effort being reflexive and reactionary with all sorts of travesties taking place.
But one also needs a lot of KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE to be "involved and proactive" in a way that will do more good than harm. Without that EDUCATION, doing so would only do more harm than good. Like having someone who knows jack s**t about medicine do brain surgery. 99.999% chance he'll kill the patient. EDUCATION is necessary.
Not all religious people are bad. Two wrongs do not make a right.
However, he didn't say the Taliban represented general Pakistanis' views. To me, it just seemed he was disapproving of the Taliban, not Pakistanis in general.
"Those who can not separate their own identity from that of their religion are quite simply trying to purposefully create the environment for hate and violence." How do you know that's the ONLY reason someone could have for not separating their identity from their religion (to "purposefully create the environment for hate and violence")?
BOTH need to be curtailed (the speech AND the violence itself.).
1. Where is he saying in the post above that only the USA is to blame? 2. How could I get enough knowledge to equal you and have exposed, world-compassing, fair thinking and an exciting, brightwitted, praising way of looking at the world?
And if the regime is that bad, then wouldn't it be good if it were to collapse?
Doesn't *completely* solve the problem, however -- it only takes *one* civilization who does believe that way. Unless, of course, *all* such civilizations are doomed to failure -- in which case, we'd better heed the lesson implicit in that one.
The law isn't set up to help YOU, it's set up to help major corporations extract wealth from the working class.
And that's a BAD, BAD THING! If there's anything here we should be OUTRAGED about, it is THIS!
"The law isn't set up to help YOU, it's set up to help major corporations extract wealth from the working class." Excellent summary of just what is so TERRIBLY, HORRIBLY, CRUELLY WRONG with this country and world. It is despicable.
Huh? Wouldn't it be a *good* thing if there were some way that the less-well-off could be afforded the full protection of the law? The ones who need it the most...
So then, the full protection of law is only available to the rich. Law: By and for the rich, not so much by and for the people.
However, you should note that he didn't say *ONLY* the USA did it. He just said the USA does it. Not that it's the *ONLY* offender in that regard.
1. When you use the term "grown ups" are you accusing the other people here of being childish? 2. It' important also to note that there are also people out there who are not opposed to _all_ copyright, but opposed rather to its continuous expansion.
So does this mean it is essentially impossible to be able to produce a truly _good_ Free/opensource OS? That proprietary is the only way to greatness?
The nut behind the wheel is a problem. Except that that's not what they're talking about. They're talking about putting a _computer_ behind the wheel -- putting AI behind the wheel: "The team intends to draw on drone technology to automate as much of the flying as possible. Current fly-by-wire technology, as well as some of the features being used in the development of autonomous or robotic vehicles could all help fleets of these vehicles fly along predefined highways – and crucially avoid each other." Hopefully they can make an AI that is more competent than the average "idjit" driver.
... and yet, it's still evil.
"The only time it's really appropriate to stop learning is when you're dead." I suspect they mean "when can we stop doing 10 hours of schoolwork every day".
"Post-PC" = "Post-Freedom". Discuss.
However, in those cases you can switch to another provider and get essentially the same thing. Not so with software, which is much more variable. I rather would want to be able to _keep_ the software I like as long as I like. Perhaps the person you're responding to sees this in a similar way.
Don't forget the experts themselves have to be skeptical, too (as that's how science works: science without skepticism is not science, it's pseudo-science.).