You say the idea of being aborted doesn't bother you. On some level you are speaking truthfully, but let us be more specific. That level is, to be exact, the surface level.
When I hear the phrase "surface level" I think of: resume word-smithing, fantasy novels, campaign promises, risquee attire, marketing research, pillow talk, etc. Sure, everyone engages in some of that, and (when it's not driving your life) this is even morally acceptable. It is an entirely different matter when you propose murdering people in the name of some lofty future narrative built largely on speculation.
Here is where the rubber meets the road:
Suppose that when you are typing your response you are interrupted mid-way by a surgeon with a scalpel tapping you on the shoulder. I won't go into the details about what he is fixing to vacuum out of your skull, other than to say that is his intent.
Let's say you disagree with this plan (I wonder, would it be nonchalantly or vigorously?) and he patiently explains at great length his plan to extend the lifespan of "society" and the world historical significance of his work, how people can all have a similar genetic makeup, and how they "won't have to take aspirin when they have headaches", etc.
How close are you to being bothered? This surgeon has reduced your life to the value of sparing someone -not from the pain of having headaches, but from the pain of having to get off the couch to take some aspirin. There is a fantastic inequality here.
If you claim none of this bothers you, well, I call shenanigans. In that case you are just too sophisticated to understand who you really are and too refined in your pursuit of approval from a blurred assortment of individuals (the deceit of which is called "society").
Truth on the surface level is -for all intents and purposes- a lie. Or worse since it doesn't bother to stake out a committed opinion about things but contents itself to making observations about appearances, etc.
When you typed on the keyboard thoughts were going through your head, you were breathing, and probably digesting something in your entrails. This is a different thing from having a life and being able to understand who you are as an existing individual with choices to make before you meet your end.
And this is to say nothing, by the way of the eventual review you will have someday before the judge. I hope you find Jesus before that day.
Whatever your meta-narrative, I can tell you that you will not have a fulfilling life unless you own up to your choices and the things that bother you *deep down inside*. That is not an explicitly religious thing to say. Even Nietzsche would agree.
That person, deep down underneath your comments here is the real you, the you I believe in. Whoever else you summon to respond is a murderer, and I will expose them as such.
"if it isn't strong and healthy, throw it out and pump out a new one."
Hypocrite! How would you feel about someone throwing you out and replacing you?
My cousin was left to die by a doctor because he had a cleft palate. It cost very little (largely from private funds!) to correct this mostly esthetic problem, but the "professionals" (i.e. murderers on slashdot) don't care because of their contempt for human life.
Every time I see some new medical breakthrough here on/. I see a HERD of people racing to say those who suffer with the condition just need to be eliminated somehow. Humanity got along JUST FINE for thousands of years without all these elitest programmers fouling up the web.
Every day it seems like I grow more and more ashamed of my BS and MS in CS.
I'll give you the diesel engine, but I consider this a win of the Industrial Revolution that Europe couldn't prevent as it lurched toward post-industrialization. Can you name someone you know whose life is better because of the discovery of general relativity? Remember: Einstein didn't die a European and a lot of his stuff was overturned by quantum mechanics. I credit rocketry to a toss up between Van Braun and Goddard (American). You didn't mention it, but I'll give you the hamburger as well. The near certain discovery of the HB is near doubtful to do anything for humanity (which is why the US didn't dump the same amount of funding on it). Also the peace prize from a political organization to Gorbachev belies the conventional view that Reagan defeated the USSR. I'll give Gorbachev some credit for owning up to the fact that Communism is a loss for humanity (a spectacular disaster is more like it). I didn't know about penicillin, which is interesting. The laser was first developed by Bell labs with some Europeans (who would later move to the US) who did some theoretical work preceding it.
Yes, I don't think there is a right/wrong between SP and LLC's. There should be some amount of freedom.
On the other hand, back in the early 20th century -when people were forming the big name sole proprietorships- juries were not giving away millions of dollars of someone else's money because they felt bad for somebody. A lot of the big name SP's have moved to corps for just this reason. You just can't make a business work when its getting shakedowns from greedy lawyers all the time.
Thought about Texas myself. I moved to Raleigh with my kids (1, 3 yrs resp) at 31 yrs. Increased my home living space by 2.5x (from a place very similar in price to Silicon Valley) and dropped my mortgage by $50k. It was a great move! The only downside was I couldn't get a C++ job since it is on the decline, but within a year of learning C# I had a C# job that was 20% less than my C++ salary. After 2 years my salary is what it once was.
I can't tell whether or not you're saying the example where your personal assets are protected (even if you lose your business) is good or bad.
If you view it as bad people are not going to want to run businesses. They will cash out on the cheap, customers will lose confidence in the service/product, and a misery cycle ensues. Certainly businesses will not open themselves up to new markets (new liabilities) because coming out even (not making a profit) is not acceptable to anyone and certainly losing money (or a marginal probability of losing money) is going to dry up the interest of anyone thinking about providing a new product or service.
If you view the limited liability model as good then we agree.
Sarbanes-Oxley means they can sue Donald Thomson (the CEO), and yet you propose liability is too limited?
Liability is ludicrously out of control. Corporations should not be liable because of spilt coffee, let alone their CEO's or their investors. The Enron investors should be punished by the fact that the free market determined their shares in Enron are worthless.
The word "objectively" is like trying to talk over someone. You're saying they have no right to their opinion because you're talking the loudest and disguising the fact that it is your opinion the most. If anything it should serve to disregard your claim.
What? The US is drowning in liability. People are suing each other for spilling coffee! Both political parties are run by lawyers for lawyers, and the more lawyers run things the more liability they want everyone to have because they collect more money. Liability prevents entrepreneurs from releasing better products, tv shows, video games, etc and investors from funding these nice things. The Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron further extended liability.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure are a lot of pro-eugenics people on slashdot.
Thankfully they tend to not reproduce or raise kids.
You say the idea of being aborted doesn't bother you. On some level you are speaking truthfully, but let us be more specific. That level is, to be exact, the surface level.
When I hear the phrase "surface level" I think of: resume word-smithing, fantasy novels, campaign promises, risquee attire, marketing research, pillow talk, etc. Sure, everyone engages in some of that, and (when it's not driving your life) this is even morally acceptable. It is an entirely different matter when you propose murdering people in the name of some lofty future narrative built largely on speculation.
Here is where the rubber meets the road:
Suppose that when you are typing your response you are interrupted mid-way by a surgeon with a scalpel tapping you on the shoulder. I won't go into the details about what he is fixing to vacuum out of your skull, other than to say that is his intent.
Let's say you disagree with this plan (I wonder, would it be nonchalantly or vigorously?) and he patiently explains at great length his plan to extend the lifespan of "society" and the world historical significance of his work, how people can all have a similar genetic makeup, and how they "won't have to take aspirin when they have headaches", etc.
How close are you to being bothered? This surgeon has reduced your life to the value of sparing someone -not from the pain of having headaches, but from the pain of having to get off the couch to take some aspirin. There is a fantastic inequality here.
If you claim none of this bothers you, well, I call shenanigans. In that case you are just too sophisticated to understand who you really are and too refined in your pursuit of approval from a blurred assortment of individuals (the deceit of which is called "society").
Truth on the surface level is -for all intents and purposes- a lie. Or worse since it doesn't bother to stake out a committed opinion about things but contents itself to making observations about appearances, etc.
When you typed on the keyboard thoughts were going through your head, you were breathing, and probably digesting something in your entrails. This is a different thing from having a life and being able to understand who you are as an existing individual with choices to make before you meet your end.
And this is to say nothing, by the way of the eventual review you will have someday before the judge. I hope you find Jesus before that day.
Whatever your meta-narrative, I can tell you that you will not have a fulfilling life unless you own up to your choices and the things that bother you *deep down inside*. That is not an explicitly religious thing to say. Even Nietzsche would agree.
That person, deep down underneath your comments here is the real you, the you I believe in. Whoever else you summon to respond is a murderer, and I will expose them as such.
"if it isn't strong and healthy, throw it out and pump out a new one."
/. I see a HERD of people racing to say those who suffer with the condition just need to be eliminated somehow. Humanity got along JUST FINE for thousands of years without all these elitest programmers fouling up the web.
Hypocrite! How would you feel about someone throwing you out and replacing you?
My cousin was left to die by a doctor because he had a cleft palate. It cost very little (largely from private funds!) to correct this mostly esthetic problem, but the "professionals" (i.e. murderers on slashdot) don't care because of their contempt for human life.
Every time I see some new medical breakthrough here on
Every day it seems like I grow more and more ashamed of my BS and MS in CS.
I'll give you the diesel engine, but I consider this a win of the Industrial Revolution that Europe couldn't prevent as it lurched toward post-industrialization. Can you name someone you know whose life is better because of the discovery of general relativity? Remember: Einstein didn't die a European and a lot of his stuff was overturned by quantum mechanics. I credit rocketry to a toss up between Van Braun and Goddard (American). You didn't mention it, but I'll give you the hamburger as well. The near certain discovery of the HB is near doubtful to do anything for humanity (which is why the US didn't dump the same amount of funding on it). Also the peace prize from a political organization to Gorbachev belies the conventional view that Reagan defeated the USSR. I'll give Gorbachev some credit for owning up to the fact that Communism is a loss for humanity (a spectacular disaster is more like it). I didn't know about penicillin, which is interesting. The laser was first developed by Bell labs with some Europeans (who would later move to the US) who did some theoretical work preceding it.
I used to use Qt Creator all the time. Worked great.
Problematically it has "abandoned" written all over it, so devs have trust issues.
Also, there are not a lot of jobs that require Qt Creator experience. The ones that do are government jobs!!
You mean Lisp without the performance overhead?
That's an expensive formality, son!
The last time Europe contributed to the greater good was during the Industrial Revolution.
Only on slashdot could you get away with making claims like this ...
Do you hold it against Obama for claiming homosexuality is wrong during the 2008 campaign?
I guess political bias wins over science fiction bias.
The Fed was created by democrats, btw. Some republicans were okay with it and had ideas, but they were shot down.
Yes, I don't think there is a right/wrong between SP and LLC's. There should be some amount of freedom.
On the other hand, back in the early 20th century -when people were forming the big name sole proprietorships- juries were not giving away millions of dollars of someone else's money because they felt bad for somebody. A lot of the big name SP's have moved to corps for just this reason. You just can't make a business work when its getting shakedowns from greedy lawyers all the time.
Thought about Texas myself. I moved to Raleigh with my kids (1, 3 yrs resp) at 31 yrs. Increased my home living space by 2.5x (from a place very similar in price to Silicon Valley) and dropped my mortgage by $50k. It was a great move! The only downside was I couldn't get a C++ job since it is on the decline, but within a year of learning C# I had a C# job that was 20% less than my C++ salary. After 2 years my salary is what it once was.
I hate it when people try to excuse their bad behavior with the label of objectivity.
Own your opinion as such.
I can't tell whether or not you're saying the example where your personal assets are protected (even if you lose your business) is good or bad.
If you view it as bad people are not going to want to run businesses. They will cash out on the cheap, customers will lose confidence in the service/product, and a misery cycle ensues. Certainly businesses will not open themselves up to new markets (new liabilities) because coming out even (not making a profit) is not acceptable to anyone and certainly losing money (or a marginal probability of losing money) is going to dry up the interest of anyone thinking about providing a new product or service.
If you view the limited liability model as good then we agree.
*ahem* strings *ahem*
Sarbanes-Oxley means they can sue Donald Thomson (the CEO), and yet you propose liability is too limited?
Liability is ludicrously out of control. Corporations should not be liable because of spilt coffee, let alone their CEO's or their investors. The Enron investors should be punished by the fact that the free market determined their shares in Enron are worthless.
"Earn" trumps "Need".
The word "objectively" is like trying to talk over someone. You're saying they have no right to their opinion because you're talking the loudest and disguising the fact that it is your opinion the most. If anything it should serve to disregard your claim.
What? The US is drowning in liability. People are suing each other for spilling coffee! Both political parties are run by lawyers for lawyers, and the more lawyers run things the more liability they want everyone to have because they collect more money. Liability prevents entrepreneurs from releasing better products, tv shows, video games, etc and investors from funding these nice things. The Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron further extended liability.
"Fuel will run out, and a transition must be starting now in any case."
Huh? We haven't even hit peak yet. Why reach for the expensive stuff now?
Seen from the US, Europe's economy is 20+ years behind
When a republican is in the white house, it's the republican who is lying.
When a democrat is in the white house, it's the "US government" who is lying.
Double standard, no?
What kind of food chain is that? I thought law was the highest?
"All scientific models are based on causality"
Which is sort of funny because there is no scientific basis for causality.
An entangled particle's partner doesn't get anything *before* the particle does. It happens at the same time.
There's nothing (even theoretical) that could violate causality there.
I'm glad you didn't try to be generous with someone else's money.
People here don't seem to understand that.