All caps has the distinct connotation of trying to ram something down people's throats.
I'm not ready to swallow that Bush told us something he didn't himself believe ("It's not a lie if you believe it" cf. G. Costanza), but if I could do that how is our current WH exempt from:
(1) having the IRS agitate against people for one side of political beliefs and not the other
(2) broad, open warrants
(3) ordering the Syrian embassy security to an artificially low level (Paris had more security on deck)
And then call all of these things "phony scandals"?
I think you are using all capital letters because you realize you are in a little over your head here with your claims.
As verbose as the law books are... they leave a lot open to interpretation.
As they should.
For example: what is the difference between legally defined assault and a expression of free speech? (Btw, "assault" doesn't mean someone was actually hit, that's battery). The difference is whether or not a "reasonable person" would interpret an act intentionally threatening physical violence. There is no law book anywhere that defines how a "reasonable person" thinks and acts. Of course the question about whether reasonable people are happier remains open (I say "no").
So legal authority has really nothing to do with how things are defined by law.
If you are suggesting some kind of visible/empirical means must exist to draw the line (empirical is a fancy way of saying "judging by appearances", and empiricism is indistinguishable from sheer superficiality) you are looking for a visual confirmation of an invisible entity. You can't define "value" based on how court documents describe value, for example. Adam Smith laid it out perfectly when he said economics is driven by an invisible hand (i.e. you can't see what a consumer is thinking when they by something).
Human beings have had their rights taken away because they couldn't prove agency. This started during the French Enlightenment (circa 17th century) when people started making the first insane asylums.
A) Here is a very bad thing that happened under Batista.
B) Here is a terrible thing that happened under Batista.
Sure. I think the mafia and prostitution are bad. I fully concede all of that.
But were people risking their lives to raft themselves to Florida during Batista? Were the Castro refugees mindless hamsters? Would you tell them they don't know a thing about Cuba?
And why do the people from Cuba hate oversized government with a vengance? Would you tell those people they don't anything about Cuba either?
You are making a losing case, my friend.
Nationalism sounds too governmenty to me. So I wouldn't label my solution that way.
Please explain to the childish hamster brain why all the cars in Cuba were built during the Bautista administration.
Are you really going to make the claim that Cubans are better off now than they were during the Bautista days?
You seem to indicate you think it is OK to just take foreign property in your response. Does that mean the US should just be able to seize whatever it wants from other countries as well? Or is this more like a one sided kind of thing?
I want a tone that OWNS opinions as if they were being written by a human being. That's a pretty natural style: if you like something, you should be able to tell people about it.
So I say hate on Microsoft if you believe they deserve it.
But as soon as you start taking oaths and vows like "reality", "inarguable", etc. you are in fishy territory, and I don't eat fish.
Could we get a summary that isn't like: "In an unbiased and purely 3rd party perspective Microsoft has been historically bad..."?
I interpret this tone as: "You are an idiot that needs to be spoon fed value judgments" OR "You are an idiot, and I think I can manipulate you by disguising my opinion in here as uncontroversial, monolithic, undeniable claims".
You think conquering the entire eastern half of the Roman empire and forcing the occupied residents to convert to Islam was peaceful and tolerant?
This is just Suleman "the Great" all over again.
And you think this is a problem with Judaism and Christianity? What happened after we conquered Iraq? We gave it back. Do you think an Islamic state would ever allow self-rule over a country they conquered?
You, sir, simply detest religion and present your aversion as if no interpretation was necessary.
Oren Etzioni hit the nail on the head. Agency is required to make choices.
Many people who become knowledgeable, intelligent, good-looking, strong, etc abdicate their agency, but many lacking these qualities find agency in a different way.
Slashdot Mirror
"The prior administration LIED"
All caps has the distinct connotation of trying to ram something down people's throats.
I'm not ready to swallow that Bush told us something he didn't himself believe ("It's not a lie if you believe it" cf. G. Costanza), but if I could do that how is our current WH exempt from:
(1) having the IRS agitate against people for one side of political beliefs and not the other
(2) broad, open warrants
(3) ordering the Syrian embassy security to an artificially low level (Paris had more security on deck)
And then call all of these things "phony scandals"?
I think you are using all capital letters because you realize you are in a little over your head here with your claims.
Without America the internet would be a small network used by a handful of university kids.
The govies are responsible for this. And people like me are being required to pay for it !!
I'm all for freedom of speech, but the UN doesn't care about anything more than taking over the world and promoting terrorism.
As verbose as the law books are ... they leave a lot open to interpretation.
As they should.
For example: what is the difference between legally defined assault and a expression of free speech? (Btw, "assault" doesn't mean someone was actually hit, that's battery). The difference is whether or not a "reasonable person" would interpret an act intentionally threatening physical violence. There is no law book anywhere that defines how a "reasonable person" thinks and acts. Of course the question about whether reasonable people are happier remains open (I say "no").
So legal authority has really nothing to do with how things are defined by law.
If you are suggesting some kind of visible/empirical means must exist to draw the line (empirical is a fancy way of saying "judging by appearances", and empiricism is indistinguishable from sheer superficiality) you are looking for a visual confirmation of an invisible entity. You can't define "value" based on how court documents describe value, for example. Adam Smith laid it out perfectly when he said economics is driven by an invisible hand (i.e. you can't see what a consumer is thinking when they by something).
Human beings have had their rights taken away because they couldn't prove agency. This started during the French Enlightenment (circa 17th century) when people started making the first insane asylums.
You're a person because you have agency.
Animals don't exhibit traits of agency (e.g. learned helplessness).
The world applauds this move, but Argentina quietly loses the respect of individuals.
Your response basically reads to me like this:
A) Here is a very bad thing that happened under Batista.
B) Here is a terrible thing that happened under Batista.
Sure. I think the mafia and prostitution are bad. I fully concede all of that.
But were people risking their lives to raft themselves to Florida during Batista? Were the Castro refugees mindless hamsters? Would you tell them they don't know a thing about Cuba?
And why do the people from Cuba hate oversized government with a vengance? Would you tell those people they don't anything about Cuba either?
You are making a losing case, my friend.
Nationalism sounds too governmenty to me. So I wouldn't label my solution that way.
Please explain to the childish hamster brain why all the cars in Cuba were built during the Bautista administration.
Are you really going to make the claim that Cubans are better off now than they were during the Bautista days?
You seem to indicate you think it is OK to just take foreign property in your response. Does that mean the US should just be able to seize whatever it wants from other countries as well? Or is this more like a one sided kind of thing?
I want a tone that OWNS opinions as if they were being written by a human being. That's a pretty natural style: if you like something, you should be able to tell people about it.
So I say hate on Microsoft if you believe they deserve it.
But as soon as you start taking oaths and vows like "reality", "inarguable", etc. you are in fishy territory, and I don't eat fish.
By "evolutionary role" you are delving into religion too shameful to be embraced as such.
...
I'm going to consult my phylogeny chart to see if I should eat a donut
Step 1: Become an economist for the federal government (80% + of economists have done this).
Step 2: Claim that the economy depends on spending as much as possible (most economists are Keynesians).
Step 3: Profit (government spends more money on economics research -i.e. on economists).
Is this the same NASA that spent over $200M to build a tower that did nothing?
Cuba's failures have nothing to do with Cuba seizing and redistributing the property of its people.
Also, this is not happening because one of the two countries is trying to openly embrace communism for the first time.
I'm glad you are keeping up with the DNC memo's and talking points.
Could we get a summary that isn't like: "In an unbiased and purely 3rd party perspective Microsoft has been historically bad ..."?
I interpret this tone as: "You are an idiot that needs to be spoon fed value judgments" OR "You are an idiot, and I think I can manipulate you by disguising my opinion in here as uncontroversial, monolithic, undeniable claims".
You are aware that most of the Muslim world was wildly celebrating on Sept 11, 2001, right?
If we can educate the police to use progressive labels, it will confirm the truth of our progressive political views.
Typical slashdot response to lump Christians with Muslims.
Those videos from Iraq where people get their heads cut off? Not the Christians doing that stuff.
You think conquering the entire eastern half of the Roman empire and forcing the occupied residents to convert to Islam was peaceful and tolerant?
This is just Suleman "the Great" all over again.
And you think this is a problem with Judaism and Christianity? What happened after we conquered Iraq? We gave it back. Do you think an Islamic state would ever allow self-rule over a country they conquered?
You, sir, simply detest religion and present your aversion as if no interpretation was necessary.
Give Obama an attaboy ..?
Didn't Brennan (who works directly for Obama) deny and try to cover up the report?
According to your hold-leadership-responsible theory, Obama is the foremost guilty party!
Try explaining to Eric Snowden how transparent and accountable this administration is.
If this report is really so bad (actually I think it isn't) then the first place we should point our fingers is the White House.
Pushing costs onto the customers ...?
So, like when you order a cheeseburger at McDonald's you're not implicitly paying for the lights to be on?
Oren Etzioni hit the nail on the head. Agency is required to make choices.
Many people who become knowledgeable, intelligent, good-looking, strong, etc abdicate their agency, but many lacking these qualities find agency in a different way.
You need a spectacular event to receive spectacular funding.
Big data is not a fad. It started slow (might be where you are coming from).
.NET developers with Mongo.
... big data.
In my last job search 3 of the places I interviewed were interested in
Mongo because
lol :)
>> ... then killing the host is not a problem.
...
Depends on whose perspective you are talking about there