Instead of making decisions based on an ideology, decisions can be made based on reality. It is my stance that decisions are better when based on reality; and of course ideologues believe decisions are better when reality is ignored and decisions are based on ideology. That's all pretty much a tautology.
Saying decisions must be based on ideology or else they are flailing, is tantamount to saying morality must be based on religion, or else it is meaningless. I disagree with that statement for the same reason. I don't believe religion or ideology is a good way to make decisions; I prefer reality.
Restrictions on free markets inevitably become heavier and heavier
No, they don't. Sometimes markets are deregulated. I stopped reading your post after you said something so completely wrong, because I assumed that the rest of your point would be premised on the opening falsehood.
Are those honest questions, or rhetorical questions? Do you mean to imply that governments should be constrained to actions which individual citizens are permitted to perform? Golly that would make tax collection really hard.
It's baffling to me that anyone could honestly propose free markets in the real world. Free markets are like perfect circles: an interesting abstract idea, but not something that can exist in the physical universe.
It's not a straw man. "Free market" has one meaning: a market with zero regulations. If libertarians don't want that, then they should stop saying "free market", and I really wish they would do that because it promotes ideology over moderation. If we drop the ideology that "regulations are bad", then we can get to the real adult work of deciding which regulations are net good and which ones are net bad. Do we have too many regulations today? or the wrong kind? Perhaps, but it's hard to discuss it because the ideologues are always ruining the conversation by shouting about free markets.
But, libertarianism is an ideology. It can never be anything else. Libertarians will never change, but the moderate alternative is simply "conservative". I don't consider myself conservative in most regards, but at least they are realistic instead of ideological.
Markets are good; free markets are bad. Moderation is good; ideology is bad.
I love how the summary says that "the most loyal customers got the worst treatment". That is true from a certain angle, but the real truth is the stupidest customers got the worst treatment.
We live in America (many of us) where the political ideology is that the only solitary recourse any consumer has when confronted with bad service is to take their business elsewhere. Although extremely few consumers are ever willing to do so, and thus the ideology is premised on a fantasy, nevertheless it is our only option.
So, instead of being one of those 95% of stupid customers, be one of those 5% who tell Dell to F.O.A.D. and take your dollars elsewhere. After Dell wakes up and fixes your computer, tell them to F.O.A.D. again and still take your money elsewhere.
The death penalty wasn't really ever designed, it is just a continuation of a very old practice of justice. But, its function today is not to prevent recidivism, but rather to make victims and the rest of society feel good that the bad guy has been killed. Some people think that's barbaric, but I disagree with those people, I think public catharsis is sufficient justification for killing terrible criminals. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy I think we should reserve it for crimes more terrible than those for which it is currently reserved.
PS we're about to get a new government in southern Sudan, so watch for how long it takes that government to start killing people.
Okay. Thanks for informing me. I'll assume you're right without checking, because I don't really know a lot about the Win95 architecture except for what my kiddie friends told me 15 years ago.
Oh, well to be clear I disagree that I have to pick one viewpoint, and I disagree because I don't pick either viewpoint. Both are true, sort of. Language evolution might be more true than language stasis, but the evolution is so slow and unpredictable that it's certainly reasonable to object to its apparent direction. It's sort of a case-by-case situation, which looking back at my post is how I described it.
It can be hard to live during the period where a phrase changes meaning, but to be honest that period was the previous 50 years, and we're now on the other side of it. At this point, people cling to the outdated meaning of that phrase only out of literary ideology.
I especially stress that because the actual words in the phrase "begging the question" have a plain meaning which is the new meaning, whereas the old meaning was nothing but a colloquialism. This is a great instance of the common usage improving the language as a whole.
On the other hand, common usage sometimes degrades the language as a whole, such as with the changing meaning of "literally". The etymology of that word has a plain meaning, which is the old meaning, and the new meaning is nothing but a colloquialism. Sometimes language evolution makes things better; sometimes worse.
I'm against this security policy like you are, but the 4th amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches without a warrant. All it says is "unreasoanble". To me, this policy is unreasonable, but I'm only one voice in 300million.You are a second voice. We can convince 150million more people, or we can convince five Supreme Court judges. Sadly, I don't think either of those is likely.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re
on
TSA Pats Down 3-Year-Old
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Now the "Think of the Children" bastards that condone this garbage in the first place have to start re-thinking their cause.
No they won't. I don't think that kind of person is affected by cognitive dissonance.
So that's, what, more than ten times faster than Windows? Yeah, see that's what I'm talking about. Thanks for offering an additional corroborating anecdote.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of making decisions based on an ideology, decisions can be made based on reality. It is my stance that decisions are better when based on reality; and of course ideologues believe decisions are better when reality is ignored and decisions are based on ideology. That's all pretty much a tautology.
Saying decisions must be based on ideology or else they are flailing, is tantamount to saying morality must be based on religion, or else it is meaningless. I disagree with that statement for the same reason. I don't believe religion or ideology is a good way to make decisions; I prefer reality.
Restrictions on free markets inevitably become heavier and heavier
No, they don't. Sometimes markets are deregulated. I stopped reading your post after you said something so completely wrong, because I assumed that the rest of your point would be premised on the opening falsehood.
Are those honest questions, or rhetorical questions? Do you mean to imply that governments should be constrained to actions which individual citizens are permitted to perform? Golly that would make tax collection really hard.
What's wrong with that?
It's shortsighted, I'd say. Perhaps it's even... myopic.
It's circular logic to say that the free market gives people what they want, and people want whatever they get from the free market.
Instead, ask people what they want, and then investigate why the market doesn't conform to those statements.
It's baffling to me that anyone could honestly propose free markets in the real world. Free markets are like perfect circles: an interesting abstract idea, but not something that can exist in the physical universe.
It's not a straw man. "Free market" has one meaning: a market with zero regulations. If libertarians don't want that, then they should stop saying "free market", and I really wish they would do that because it promotes ideology over moderation. If we drop the ideology that "regulations are bad", then we can get to the real adult work of deciding which regulations are net good and which ones are net bad. Do we have too many regulations today? or the wrong kind? Perhaps, but it's hard to discuss it because the ideologues are always ruining the conversation by shouting about free markets.
But, libertarianism is an ideology. It can never be anything else. Libertarians will never change, but the moderate alternative is simply "conservative". I don't consider myself conservative in most regards, but at least they are realistic instead of ideological.
Markets are good; free markets are bad. Moderation is good; ideology is bad.
I love how the summary says that "the most loyal customers got the worst treatment". That is true from a certain angle, but the real truth is the stupidest customers got the worst treatment.
We live in America (many of us) where the political ideology is that the only solitary recourse any consumer has when confronted with bad service is to take their business elsewhere. Although extremely few consumers are ever willing to do so, and thus the ideology is premised on a fantasy, nevertheless it is our only option.
So, instead of being one of those 95% of stupid customers, be one of those 5% who tell Dell to F.O.A.D. and take your dollars elsewhere. After Dell wakes up and fixes your computer, tell them to F.O.A.D. again and still take your money elsewhere.
Yeah, except we're kidding, but for them it's a daily activity. Thus, they are douchebags and we are just internet bloviators.
Court cases don't require lawyers at all, unless you count the judge.
Only if psychopathy is genetic. It could be epigenegic, or behavioral. I don't actually know either way, though.
The death penalty wasn't really ever designed, it is just a continuation of a very old practice of justice. But, its function today is not to prevent recidivism, but rather to make victims and the rest of society feel good that the bad guy has been killed. Some people think that's barbaric, but I disagree with those people, I think public catharsis is sufficient justification for killing terrible criminals. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy I think we should reserve it for crimes more terrible than those for which it is currently reserved.
PS we're about to get a new government in southern Sudan, so watch for how long it takes that government to start killing people.
Why does my browser need anything more than read/write on the cache folder and write for Downloads?
For uploads, I imagine. Also, for loading html files on the local filesystem.
I only spent three seconds thinking about it, there may be other reasons.
Seriously. Especially after 17 years of development.
I agree. Similarly, if you divorce your wife and marry your mistress, then it's no longer extra-marital sex.
Okay. Thanks for informing me. I'll assume you're right without checking, because I don't really know a lot about the Win95 architecture except for what my kiddie friends told me 15 years ago.
Oh, well to be clear I disagree that I have to pick one viewpoint, and I disagree because I don't pick either viewpoint. Both are true, sort of. Language evolution might be more true than language stasis, but the evolution is so slow and unpredictable that it's certainly reasonable to object to its apparent direction. It's sort of a case-by-case situation, which looking back at my post is how I described it.
I beg your pardon?
RMS's primary goal is to have a motherfucking sweetass beard. All this software bullshit is just gravy.
It's more like comparing Granny Smith apples to Honeycrisp apples. Or, caramel apples to candied apples.
Actually maybe it's more like comparing apples (server/basic Linux) to candied apples (basic Linux plus a GUI).
And, even if you don't like any of those metaphors, apples and oranges have a LOT in common.
Whatever the metaphor, the comparison is fair so long as you understand what you are comparing.
It can be hard to live during the period where a phrase changes meaning, but to be honest that period was the previous 50 years, and we're now on the other side of it. At this point, people cling to the outdated meaning of that phrase only out of literary ideology.
I especially stress that because the actual words in the phrase "begging the question" have a plain meaning which is the new meaning, whereas the old meaning was nothing but a colloquialism. This is a great instance of the common usage improving the language as a whole.
On the other hand, common usage sometimes degrades the language as a whole, such as with the changing meaning of "literally". The etymology of that word has a plain meaning, which is the old meaning, and the new meaning is nothing but a colloquialism. Sometimes language evolution makes things better; sometimes worse.
Windows 95 still ran on top of DOS. Maybe you and I don't mean the same thing by "ground up".
I'm against this security policy like you are, but the 4th amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches without a warrant. All it says is "unreasoanble". To me, this policy is unreasonable, but I'm only one voice in 300million.You are a second voice. We can convince 150million more people, or we can convince five Supreme Court judges. Sadly, I don't think either of those is likely.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now the "Think of the Children" bastards that condone this garbage in the first place have to start re-thinking their cause.
No they won't. I don't think that kind of person is affected by cognitive dissonance.
So that's, what, more than ten times faster than Windows? Yeah, see that's what I'm talking about. Thanks for offering an additional corroborating anecdote.