Your right he was a control freak, "passion for perfection" is a euphemism. But, as a consumer, I'm much happier with Apple products then any other companies. mostly because Im impressed with Apples design. I'm loyal to them because they are giving me what I want in a product. The closest analogy I can come up with is cars. Some people like cars they can tinker with and hotrod, and some people want a car that just works they way they like to drive.
Even if climate change is true, it doesn't matter heres why. Because Humans can figure out how to adapt and survive in any environment. Thats right, human ingenuity is strong such that we can develop technologies to deal with storms, rising weather, extreme temperatures and altered environments in general. Think about in history at what we as a species have done so far as proof of own knowledge and ability to survive. Personally, I don't buy into the notion that the government needs to save us from ourselves. That's never how problems are solved as the governement only has one tool in its tool box which is to use force. Forcing people to pay more money won't solve anything.
US-centric problem. The problem in the US isn't the science. As science is the rational search for knowledge. Its the application of the knowledge where the disagreement starts. For example the knowledge of nuclear energy can create bombs or power plants. GMO technology can be applied to maximize profits or maximize consumers health. Here in the US it seems to be used to maximize profits. The application of science is entirely debatable by the public because in a free market consumers have a choice. when a technology is being debated about its use in the US, it comes down to a risk to reward ratio. The promoters of such technology invest time and money trying to convince the public that the risk is zero (i.e. its safe) so that the appearance of the technology is all rewards. But in reality, we know that there are always tradeoffs with the use of any technology.
No its not harmless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
you NEED to do more research before you post non-sense.
yea, the intellectual property is another facet of the argument I agree with you on. the labelling thing from what I understand is already factored in because organic means non-gmo to my understanding. so if you don't want gmo then buy organic. From a marketing standpoint, the type of people who buy GMO free food would also want it to be pesticide free as well. these people wouldn't buy one quality without the other included.
What's really bad is that some people(I'm American as well) would probably say that B biased or morally void. I believe the phrase "moral relativism" is used by these people. The reason they say this is that they believe that neutrality doesn't exist and that NPOV is unattainable. So therefore it must be biased some way. I happen to think differently. I think NPOV is attainable and should be used for a global encyclopedia that is inclusive of everyone.
yes, people assume that if you want an explaination of a claim, your intentions are to derail thier arguement. Thats typically the case. However, just being curious from a non-partisan viewpoint is something that I do myself. Some people think that it's impossible to be non-partisan at all. They think that you have already made up your mind and only want the explaination so you can attack thier point. This isn't always the case. In some cases myself I would like to hear the detailed claims of many sides for informational purposes so that I can make up my mind.
you know what led to this censorship don't you? Originally my university effectively had an open door policy on the networks. Then napster came out, filesharing became more popular, the admins started blocking ports, the following year they required mac addresses to be registered. Now everything gets scanned for offensive material,intellectual property, spy ware, viruses, hate etc.. Essentially the pattern is clear, in the name of security, freedoms were abridged.
It may be a plutocracy, but those that are rich can only stay rich if they sell things to the common man. That is, if they are going to stay in power they have to continue to generate revenue and continue to be voted into offive. Because there is competition at the plutacracy level. Times change, the people in power don't stay in power forever. A lot of the power prower brokers, in four years they may be stronger or they may be weaker. So the system is highly dynamic. The fortune 500 and the people in power today are not the same as it was a few years ago.
I'm saying that that those types of intellectual skills are only marketable because the government showers it with money, hence the military industrial economy and defense contracts. In a normal market economy you wouldnt have that. I'm also saying that the military industrial complex has a multiplying effect on the entire country because of the technology that eventually finds its way into the normal market (no the military industrial one). Computers, Radio, communication tech, where designed for military purposes.
allow me to enlighten you a little. Women tend to be attracted to those those they perceive will have the best chances of reproduction. If a society rewards intellectualism then most likely they will have the resources to reproduce and hence be more attractive. However, in the US we are a partial capitalist system. I say partial because we have a lot of government involvement in certain industries. But in a normal state of affairs if you do not have capital (The Means of production or distribution), then you must sell your labor or prodcuts/ service that you make. The price of your skills varies according to the demand by society and the supply or people who can do this. This type of system doesnt reward intellectualism for its own sake, unless there is demand for the work. Basically, what is rewarded, because the laws are set up that way, are people who can bring goods and services to the most amount of people. To give you an idea, good art in the US is art that sells, not art that intellectuals think is good art. Unless, of course, it happens to sell. Now, there are jobs in the US for skills that are un-marketable to masses. For example research mathmatics and high energy physics. But most of these jobs are government jobs which involve makeing weapons or solving major infrastructure problems. Eventually these technologies trickle down into industry. which follows the rules of a market economy. If the technology is not usefull for profits it is disregarded.
you know there have been attempts to actually try to start legitimate businesses there. The problem is they still have lingering bad attitudes from communism. Basically capitalism without integrity is nothing more then crime. The russians problem is integrity and character. they are all too busy trying to screw each other instead of coming together for the common good. It would do a world of good for the russians to read up on the works of John Locke, Adam Smith and in general the philosophy of Freedom. Basically they have forgotten or never learned the lessons of the West.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right he was a control freak, "passion for perfection" is a euphemism. But, as a consumer, I'm much happier with Apple products then any other companies. mostly because Im impressed with Apples design. I'm loyal to them because they are giving me what I want in a product. The closest analogy I can come up with is cars. Some people like cars they can tinker with and hotrod, and some people want a car that just works they way they like to drive.
beginning to wonder what happened to slashdot, used to be libertarian now liberal..sad
Even if climate change is true, it doesn't matter heres why. Because Humans can figure out how to adapt and survive in any environment. Thats right, human ingenuity is strong such that we can develop technologies to deal with storms, rising weather, extreme temperatures and altered environments in general. Think about in history at what we as a species have done so far as proof of own knowledge and ability to survive. Personally, I don't buy into the notion that the government needs to save us from ourselves. That's never how problems are solved as the governement only has one tool in its tool box which is to use force. Forcing people to pay more money won't solve anything.
US-centric problem. The problem in the US isn't the science. As science is the rational search for knowledge. Its the application of the knowledge where the disagreement starts. For example the knowledge of nuclear energy can create bombs or power plants. GMO technology can be applied to maximize profits or maximize consumers health. Here in the US it seems to be used to maximize profits. The application of science is entirely debatable by the public because in a free market consumers have a choice.
when a technology is being debated about its use in the US, it comes down to a risk to reward ratio. The promoters of such technology invest time and money trying to convince the public that the risk is zero (i.e. its safe) so that the appearance of the technology is all rewards. But in reality, we know that there are always tradeoffs with the use of any technology.
No its not harmless
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
you NEED to do more research before you post non-sense.
yea, the intellectual property is another facet of the argument I agree with you on. the labelling thing from what I understand is already factored in because organic means non-gmo to my understanding. so if you don't want gmo then buy organic. From a marketing standpoint, the type of people who buy GMO free food would also want it to be pesticide free as well. these people wouldn't buy one quality without the other included.
What's really bad is that some people(I'm American as well)
would probably say that B biased or morally void. I believe the phrase "moral relativism" is used by these people.
The reason they say this is that they believe that neutrality doesn't exist and that NPOV is unattainable.
So therefore it must be biased some way.
I happen to think differently.
I think NPOV is attainable and should be used for a global encyclopedia that is inclusive of everyone.
yes, people assume that if you want an explaination of a claim, your intentions are to derail thier arguement.
Thats typically the case. However, just being curious from a non-partisan viewpoint is something that I do myself.
Some people think that it's impossible to be non-partisan at all. They think that you have already made up your mind and only want the explaination so you can attack thier point. This isn't always the case. In some cases myself I would like to hear the detailed claims of many sides for informational purposes so that I can make up my mind.
you know what led to this censorship don't you?
Originally my university effectively had an open door policy on the networks. Then napster came out, filesharing became more popular, the admins started blocking ports, the following year they required mac addresses to be registered.
Now everything gets scanned for offensive material,intellectual property, spy ware, viruses, hate etc..
Essentially the pattern is clear, in the name of security, freedoms were abridged.
I wonder how many linux users think Forbes magazine is for losers.
It may be a plutocracy, but those that are rich can only stay rich if they sell things to the common man. That is, if they are going to stay in power they have to continue to generate revenue and continue to be voted into offive. Because there is competition at the plutacracy level. Times change, the people in power don't stay in power forever. A lot of the power prower brokers, in four years they may be stronger or they may be weaker. So the system is highly dynamic. The fortune 500 and the people in power today are not the same as it was a few years ago.
You, know I often hear the words that perception is reality. Of course how women percieve you, and how other men percieve you may be very different.
I'm saying that that those types of intellectual skills are only marketable because the government showers it with money, hence the military industrial economy and defense contracts. In a normal market economy you wouldnt have that. I'm also saying that the military industrial complex has a multiplying effect on the entire country because of the technology that eventually finds its way into the normal market (no the military industrial one).
Computers, Radio, communication tech, where designed for military purposes.
yes its tempting, but then we would just like Communist China, trying to regulate what people say.
allow me to enlighten you a little. Women tend to be attracted to those those they perceive will have the best chances of reproduction. If a society rewards intellectualism then most likely they will have the resources to reproduce and hence be more attractive. However, in the US we are a partial capitalist system. I say partial because we have a lot of government involvement in certain industries. But in a normal state of affairs if you do not have capital (The Means of production or distribution), then you must sell your labor or prodcuts/ service that you make. The price of your skills varies according to the demand by society and the supply or people who can do this. This type of system doesnt reward intellectualism for its own sake, unless there is demand for the work. Basically, what is rewarded, because the laws are set up that way, are people who can bring goods and services to the most amount of people. To give you an idea, good art in the US is art that sells, not art that intellectuals think is good art. Unless, of course, it happens to sell. Now, there are jobs in the US for skills that are un-marketable to masses. For example research mathmatics and high energy physics. But most of these jobs are government jobs which involve makeing weapons or solving major infrastructure problems. Eventually these technologies trickle down into industry. which follows the rules of a market economy. If the technology is not usefull for profits it is disregarded.
actually Adam Smith wrote several books on Ethics
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
He knew that capitalism without ethics would fail.
you know there have been attempts to actually try to start legitimate businesses there. The problem is they still have lingering bad attitudes from communism. Basically capitalism without integrity is nothing more then crime. The russians problem is integrity and character. they are all too busy trying to screw each other instead of coming together for the common good. It would do a world of good for the russians to read up on the works of John Locke, Adam Smith and in general the philosophy of Freedom. Basically they have forgotten or never learned the lessons of the West.