Who cares if you're sick of the sentiment? Bottom line is - you kill. I could care less about the difference between the thrill of the kill and the thrill of the hunt. If it was just the thrill of the hunt, why not use non-lethal guns, like paint ball guns? The mark of paint is a sign you've hit it - no need for killing. The fact that you're so deep into it that you can't see a sane alternative suggests there is something about the act of killing that you do enjoy. You don't know anyone who enjoys the killing, but then why mortally wound the animal in the first place?
How about, true liberty is when the sheep stop being sheep?
You REALLY think you want to be surrounded by sheep with guns?
You REALLY think that, in a discussion about research about intelligence and democracy, that the only solution is guns?
Where were the small government gun nuts when the government took away your liberties? They were on the side of the government because - you guessed it - they were sheep.
You really are an idiot if you think a group of people with guns cannot be convinced to do things which ultimately makes things worse of for them an everyone.
For me, the best practice I find is to have a demarcation between your code, and whatever language/libraries you are interfacing with. Understand the contracts of your own code and make sure nothing that passes through the border violates the contracts. That way, within your own code, you can assume certain type information will always hold true. I find it works whether the program's type system is formal or informal*.
* I prefer to use the formal/informal distinction for type systems instead of static/dynamic, because if you think about it, "static" and "dynamic" is actually about the implementation of the type system, whereas "formal" and "informal" tells you the class the rules of type conformance in a language are: whether something is spec'd out in advance (which is possible in static or dynamic languages), or if there is some delayed type comparison calculation (which is also possible in both static or dynamic languages).
Nice soundbite. How does that actually solve any problems or even contribute to understanding of the problem?
Please provide a form of hard money that actually can keep up with the growth in GDP of most developed Western nations?
Like it or not, money, hard or soft, has always been a substitute for time, information, and a whole bunch of other intangibles with volatile worth.
Lastly what the hell does your rambling on hard money have any bearing on the failure of all markets, free or otherwise, to pay the real worth of a job?
Free people did naturally use money that had intrinsic worth. And then the system evolved as the weaknesses of the money were exposed.
Do you really want to argue that the modern economy was completely planned right from the start when we climbed down from the trees?
I'm not confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians confuse nice ideas with the actual world.
Since when did we have a free market? The only reason the financial industry makes the money they do is because they literally make the money. If we had hard money and 100% reserve banking they wouldn't be able to make money and would have to earn money.
That's always the excuse. That's the problem with Libertarian philosophy in general: "if things were perfect, things would work perfectly".
Under a completely free market, what you excuse is COMPLETELY WITHIN the concept of a free market. You are free to sell whatever it is you want if there is a buyer. "Hard money" requires a GOVERNMENT to actually give it a value for tender, whether that government is a democratically elected one, or a corporate one.
Do you know what's the ultimate free market? Evolution by natural selection. Seriously, it's like libertarians argue that in nature, everything plays nice and within the rules. We had a free market. And that naturally evolved into what we have today. The first "winners" of the original free market, we called the chief of the tribe. Then we called them kings and nobles. This is what things do: they evolve to survive, and the fact that we don't have a free market is proof that a free market evolves to become non-free ALL THE TIME.
So again, the problem with Libertarian philosophy is: "if things were perfect, things would work perfectly".
That's what rich people tell themselves to allow themselves to sleep at night, and tell you to keep you where you belong.
Libertarians talk about how the market will solve everything, but the market shows time and time again that it does not value the correct jobs.
Don may not be in it for the money, but by all rights he should get more money as a matter of principle.
And you must be a Apple fanboi completely beyond the event horizon of the Reality Distortion Field to fail to understand that Apple still could not have designed their tablet completely free from influence of past designs, INCLUDING RECTANGULAR SCREEN WITH BLACK BORDER AROUND IT.
Apple did not invent the look.
Dumbass.
Abolitionism started in England, with massive input from both Christian and secular sources. Phrenologists and eugenicists had to leave Britain because they found a much more accepting audience in the US: Christians. And considering Christian theology is the major reason for slavery, no you DON'T get credit for wanting to abolish something you're ultimately responsible for.
Considering your signature says that you think whistle blowers exposed coverups regarding AGW, despite every independent review afterward saying no such thing happened, I say you have a severely tainted view of history.
Go fuck yourself. That was not the argument being made. Yours is a strawman and completely polarizing.
Someone can be for regulations without being for "regulations for everything".
Yours is a packaged deal fallacy.
So go fuck yourself.
Do people really start their laughs with a "bwa"? I have never heard any laughs beginning with a "bwa". Maybe a "pff" or a snort.
Calling someone a "hater" may only mean you can not rationally rebut their argument, but starting off an attempt at a rebuttal with a fake laugh + "oh they're serious" means they take small things too seriously, and is thus a hater.
That is just tired, neocon Randian fluff. And there are still some economists and consultants who will tell you so. In a free market, the ultimate objective of many intelligent company managements is to identify a profitable niche and fill it.
No it's not. Any company, if given the chance, would prefer complete market dominance over anything else. In a completely free market, there's nothing stopping you from buying up all your competitors, and that kind of power snowballs. You can start to buy up companies in completely separate market niches. And that's even with "intelligent company managements". Yours is just tired old Randian fluff.
Now they just claim it isn't caused by humans. Global warming deniers are the new creationists - moving goalposts every time they are proven wrong because they can't stand what science is telling them. They have zero credibility.
But there are lots of them
Yes, but you see, according to the new mathematics developed by these true skeptics, "lots of them" multiplied by "zero credibility" equals "infinity plus one credibility to perpetuity".
Now that you mention a mouse trap, I think I know what the question could have been.
It's one of those old ID/Creationist tropes that has been answered many times before by Dawkins in his many books and by many other evolutionary biologists. So just because he chose to answer ONE interview in one certain way does not mean he is unable to answer. And given Dawkins role as a science educator, he was choosing an interesting way to answer a question.
So it seems what's really going on here is you have an impossible standard of proof, complemented by an unrealistic expectation that, in an INTERVIEW, a scientist's answer is somehow a complete monograph of a subject...
Thank you! If you read Dawkins and others, they make it very clear they would accept any scientific evidence that disproves natural selection and biological evolution. To date there has been none, which is why it's now accepted as a fact. The same cannot be said of anthropomorphic climate change which is flimsy on evidence and cannot be falsified to date. Not to mention the political forces that support it.
Actually, I saw a debate between Dawkins and a Creationist once, where the Creationist brought up a very valid point that I had to agree with, and stated that evolution "will not work" because of this problem. Then Dawkins said, "Well, let's see if we can solve that problem, because look over here at this completely different thing that doesn't solve the problem at all, but seems tangentially related to the plebes, so it'll seem good enough to them."
It was nothing more than a Chewbacca defence, and he never did come up with anything to counter the issue raised by the Creationist.
Because Richard Dawkins is obviously meant to come up with original research right on the spot. Because that's how science is done. In publicity debates, not through scientific journals.
You realize your attempt at "logical thinking" is the Glenn Beck attack, right? "I'll raise a question, and the fact that he didn't answer me personally is PROOF he's guilty of what he's been accused!"
He claims to be open and unbiased, but he's most certainly not.
He doesn't claim to be unbiased. He's biased on the side of evidence. He's always maintained that. So what you're really implying is that, in your view, someone who's "open and unbiased" is someone who should automatically bat for the other side in the event that someone presents an opposing argument for which the answer is not clear cut.
Slashdot Mirror
---- Someone better go read Rene Descartes....
That pedantic ol' windbag? I think not.
<POOF!> <crickets>
Come on, just because his name's "Rene" doesn't make him a poof.
But they ARE blaming modern progress - Wikipedia IS the only progress of modern times of note to be able to compete with Britannica.
Who cares if you're sick of the sentiment? Bottom line is - you kill. I could care less about the difference between the thrill of the kill and the thrill of the hunt. If it was just the thrill of the hunt, why not use non-lethal guns, like paint ball guns? The mark of paint is a sign you've hit it - no need for killing. The fact that you're so deep into it that you can't see a sane alternative suggests there is something about the act of killing that you do enjoy. You don't know anyone who enjoys the killing, but then why mortally wound the animal in the first place?
Like it or not, China is a free market capitalist at the core.
Too bad you can't sue them for harassment.
Shutting down the Tevatron with the turn-on of the LHC was the right move, from my perspective in the field.
Yes, but surely, being in the field makes both the Tevatron and the LHC hard to see.
How about, true liberty is when the sheep stop being sheep?
You REALLY think you want to be surrounded by sheep with guns?
You REALLY think that, in a discussion about research about intelligence and democracy, that the only solution is guns?
Where were the small government gun nuts when the government took away your liberties? They were on the side of the government because - you guessed it - they were sheep.
You really are an idiot if you think a group of people with guns cannot be convinced to do things which ultimately makes things worse of for them an everyone.
Your major competitor... he wouldn't happen to own a few expensive yachts would he? Friends with an apple seller?
For me, the best practice I find is to have a demarcation between your code, and whatever language/libraries you are interfacing with. Understand the contracts of your own code and make sure nothing that passes through the border violates the contracts. That way, within your own code, you can assume certain type information will always hold true. I find it works whether the program's type system is formal or informal*.
* I prefer to use the formal/informal distinction for type systems instead of static/dynamic, because if you think about it, "static" and "dynamic" is actually about the implementation of the type system, whereas "formal" and "informal" tells you the class the rules of type conformance in a language are: whether something is spec'd out in advance (which is possible in static or dynamic languages), or if there is some delayed type comparison calculation (which is also possible in both static or dynamic languages).
Nice soundbite. How does that actually solve any problems or even contribute to understanding of the problem? Please provide a form of hard money that actually can keep up with the growth in GDP of most developed Western nations? Like it or not, money, hard or soft, has always been a substitute for time, information, and a whole bunch of other intangibles with volatile worth. Lastly what the hell does your rambling on hard money have any bearing on the failure of all markets, free or otherwise, to pay the real worth of a job?
Free people did naturally use money that had intrinsic worth. And then the system evolved as the weaknesses of the money were exposed. Do you really want to argue that the modern economy was completely planned right from the start when we climbed down from the trees? I'm not confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians confuse nice ideas with the actual world.
I like how we've conflated "making deals" with "getting things done". In today's economy, that often means "getting things done in another country".
Since when did we have a free market? The only reason the financial industry makes the money they do is because they literally make the money. If we had hard money and 100% reserve banking they wouldn't be able to make money and would have to earn money.
That's always the excuse. That's the problem with Libertarian philosophy in general: "if things were perfect, things would work perfectly". Under a completely free market, what you excuse is COMPLETELY WITHIN the concept of a free market. You are free to sell whatever it is you want if there is a buyer. "Hard money" requires a GOVERNMENT to actually give it a value for tender, whether that government is a democratically elected one, or a corporate one. Do you know what's the ultimate free market? Evolution by natural selection. Seriously, it's like libertarians argue that in nature, everything plays nice and within the rules. We had a free market. And that naturally evolved into what we have today. The first "winners" of the original free market, we called the chief of the tribe. Then we called them kings and nobles. This is what things do: they evolve to survive, and the fact that we don't have a free market is proof that a free market evolves to become non-free ALL THE TIME. So again, the problem with Libertarian philosophy is: "if things were perfect, things would work perfectly".
That's what rich people tell themselves to allow themselves to sleep at night, and tell you to keep you where you belong. Libertarians talk about how the market will solve everything, but the market shows time and time again that it does not value the correct jobs. Don may not be in it for the money, but by all rights he should get more money as a matter of principle.
And you must be a Apple fanboi completely beyond the event horizon of the Reality Distortion Field to fail to understand that Apple still could not have designed their tablet completely free from influence of past designs, INCLUDING RECTANGULAR SCREEN WITH BLACK BORDER AROUND IT. Apple did not invent the look. Dumbass.
Abolitionism started in England, with massive input from both Christian and secular sources. Phrenologists and eugenicists had to leave Britain because they found a much more accepting audience in the US: Christians. And considering Christian theology is the major reason for slavery, no you DON'T get credit for wanting to abolish something you're ultimately responsible for. Considering your signature says that you think whistle blowers exposed coverups regarding AGW, despite every independent review afterward saying no such thing happened, I say you have a severely tainted view of history.
Australian here: Should we be urging you guys to get this bill pushed through?
Go fuck yourself. That was not the argument being made. Yours is a strawman and completely polarizing. Someone can be for regulations without being for "regulations for everything". Yours is a packaged deal fallacy. So go fuck yourself.
Do people really start their laughs with a "bwa"? I have never heard any laughs beginning with a "bwa". Maybe a "pff" or a snort. Calling someone a "hater" may only mean you can not rationally rebut their argument, but starting off an attempt at a rebuttal with a fake laugh + "oh they're serious" means they take small things too seriously, and is thus a hater.
*ducks*runs* :)
They normally fly.
That is just tired, neocon Randian fluff. And there are still some economists and consultants who will tell you so. In a free market, the ultimate objective of many intelligent company managements is to identify a profitable niche and fill it.
No it's not. Any company, if given the chance, would prefer complete market dominance over anything else. In a completely free market, there's nothing stopping you from buying up all your competitors, and that kind of power snowballs. You can start to buy up companies in completely separate market niches. And that's even with "intelligent company managements". Yours is just tired old Randian fluff.
I hope I'm considered for the role. I've always wanted a RIM job.
Now they just claim it isn't caused by humans. Global warming deniers are the new creationists - moving goalposts every time they are proven wrong because they can't stand what science is telling them. They have zero credibility.
But there are lots of them
Yes, but you see, according to the new mathematics developed by these true skeptics, "lots of them" multiplied by "zero credibility" equals "infinity plus one credibility to perpetuity".
Now that you mention a mouse trap, I think I know what the question could have been. It's one of those old ID/Creationist tropes that has been answered many times before by Dawkins in his many books and by many other evolutionary biologists. So just because he chose to answer ONE interview in one certain way does not mean he is unable to answer. And given Dawkins role as a science educator, he was choosing an interesting way to answer a question. So it seems what's really going on here is you have an impossible standard of proof, complemented by an unrealistic expectation that, in an INTERVIEW, a scientist's answer is somehow a complete monograph of a subject...
Thank you! If you read Dawkins and others, they make it very clear they would accept any scientific evidence that disproves natural selection and biological evolution. To date there has been none, which is why it's now accepted as a fact. The same cannot be said of anthropomorphic climate change which is flimsy on evidence and cannot be falsified to date. Not to mention the political forces that support it.
Actually, I saw a debate between Dawkins and a Creationist once, where the Creationist brought up a very valid point that I had to agree with, and stated that evolution "will not work" because of this problem. Then Dawkins said, "Well, let's see if we can solve that problem, because look over here at this completely different thing that doesn't solve the problem at all, but seems tangentially related to the plebes, so it'll seem good enough to them."
It was nothing more than a Chewbacca defence, and he never did come up with anything to counter the issue raised by the Creationist.
Because Richard Dawkins is obviously meant to come up with original research right on the spot. Because that's how science is done. In publicity debates, not through scientific journals. You realize your attempt at "logical thinking" is the Glenn Beck attack, right? "I'll raise a question, and the fact that he didn't answer me personally is PROOF he's guilty of what he's been accused!"
He claims to be open and unbiased, but he's most certainly not.
He doesn't claim to be unbiased. He's biased on the side of evidence. He's always maintained that. So what you're really implying is that, in your view, someone who's "open and unbiased" is someone who should automatically bat for the other side in the event that someone presents an opposing argument for which the answer is not clear cut.