It wasn't even all the scientists that were at fault. It was one particular scientist. Isaac Newton. Not only did he not do anything to warn us, he was completely ignorant of the imminent climate change that was to come, and did nothing to learn more about the problem that was to exist.
The mass (near) extinction of humans need not be noticeable. All that is required is that the environment become inhospitable enough to humans to cause the birth:death ratio to drop below 1. Given that currently everyone still dies, this simply means that people stop producing at least 1 child per parent (e.g. 2 kids per hetero-normative couple) that survives and produces more children.
This could mean people start dying of disease and famine due to global warming. Or it could just mean that people decide not to have as many children because it decreases their quality of life. When the earth had lots of easily accessible natural resources, making lots of children was a good strategy. Maybe when you can barely find enough food for yourself, you might choose to have only 1 kid instead of 2.
The "near extinction" (i.e. drastic lowering of human population), need not involve any significant amount of suffering (not more than we have today anyway), and it may not even need to be noticeable without statistical analysis. If this decline happens over thousands or tens of thousands of years, it will not be noticeable over the course of a human lifetime. Failing to notice a 0.1% drop in population over your lifetime will be like failing to notice a 0.1 degree increase in average temperature over your lifetime.
In fact, if you believe overpopulation is a big problem, this kind of gradual decrease in human population may even be considered a good thing until our survival as a species begins to be threatened by it.
I suspect something far more normal will happen. We will simply hit an equilibrium point, where the world is just hospitable enough to cause humans to have about a 1:1 birth:death ratio, with some fluctuations. Technology may even raise this equilibrium point well above the 7 billion people we have now.
I will start by saying I actually use windows 7 and various linux distros at home and work. My wife's laptop has windows 8 and I've built a few desktops for friends and family that have windows 8.
1. I actually think the search function completely removes the need for a start button. In fact the only time I ever use a start button in windows 7 is to get to the search, so I really could do without it.
2. Hot corners I find annoying, but I get the reason they exist and I think I could learn to appreciate them when I get used to them.
3. I don't really use standard windows apps to view any kind of files. The file associations usually get changed automatically when I install my preferred apps.
4. I have had no problems with ACPI. But even still I wouldn't consider this a UI problem but more of a traditional software/hardware engineering problem.
5. I definitely don't put in a lot of effort learning the foibles of any UI. I pretty much just stick to whatever is intuitive. I'm lazy.
The thing about Win8 is that the "extra UI choice" is not really a choice, it's something I had to dink with every time I touched the computer. It was a Bad User Experience, and frankly, it was easier to go back to Win7 than it was to twist Win8 into something I could work with comfortably.
Yeah I had to dink with it every time too. That's why I think it's worse. It slows me down, but only a little. That's why I think it's only a little worse. I prefer 7, but I can use 8 just fine, and I haven't spent a lot of time figuring it out. I certainly don't feel like it's time to hoard windows 7. I think if I had to use 8 a lot more, I'd probably just try to embrace the spirit of what the UI folks were trying to do and work out some new solutions for the parts I just couldn't learn to appreciate.
I think using so many different UI's has made adapting to new UIs really easy for me, and I don't want to get too comfortable anywhere if it means I lose some of that versatility.
I use windows because I play games and playing windows games on linux is still kind of hard, so I definitely feel the pain of being stuck on a less preferred platform because of app compatibility. I think the situation has gotten a lot better and the future of linux gaming seems to be pretty bright. I use steam on linux and look forward to trying steamos in the next couple weeks.
I definitely wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Adobe to support linux. Virtualization technology has come a pretty long way. I have never tried to run adobe software in a virtual machine specifically, but I've heard it works pretty well on modern machines.
Each application is still capped at 4GB of addressable space in PAE. So if you are hitting the 4GB cap because of lots of apps using a lot of memory rather than 1 app using all the memory, then PAE is a "good" solution. But upgrading to a 64 bit OS is probably a better solution.
...or it means that the UI is useable enough to where a simple 3rd party tool is all that's needed to give you what you want. Windows is an OS bundled with a UI. The whole point of an OS is to run 3rd party apps, including those that customize the UI.
Why not just complain that windows 7 is shit because MS paint is a crappy image editor.
What exactly about the windows 8 UI is so bad that you'd rather have a bunch of viruses (i.e. windows xp)? You'd have to do something truly horrible like make the cursor move randomly and random times, or make the display go black randomly to make me prefer windows xp and it's associated security problems. I find pop up ads telling me that I need to pay some russian guy $100 to get my mp3's back far more irritating than disabling metro.
The UI is not a *lot* worse than windows 7 because the UI is nearly the same as 7. You are not forced to use metro. You can consider it just one more of many features of windows you never need to use.
And since the UI is what the user touches more often than anything else in an OS, it is significant
The UI is the *only* thing the user touches. It's the user interface. It is significant. No one is arguing that it is insignificant.
I've used a lot of UIs. I grew up using dos5, dos6, windows 3.1, 95, 98, Nt4, 2000, xp, 7, and dabbled in 8. I have also used a lot of open source UIs, bash, gnome, KDE, LXDE, XFCE, as well as consoles, android, etc.
I think a lot of people grew up using windows and are really used to it (I know I was). That doesn't mean a start bar is the *best* way to do a UI. It's just the way most people of a certain age group are used to. I am not a huge fan of metro, luckily you are not forced to use it. In linux you can have tens (maybe hundreds) of different UIs for the same OS. In windows 8 you can have 2 (classic and metro). In macOS I think you just get 1.
You should definitely consider whether you continue using Microsoft products carefully. But I would suggest that a bad reason to quit using Microsoft OSes is that they added 1 extra UI choice that you don't like. If your going to quit, don't quit because there are 1 too many choices, quit because there aren't more choices.
For people that were only mildly used to the classic windows UI (e.g. XP), the transition to 8 was only mildly inconvenient. I think the more you stubbornly stick to the UI you are used to, it will not only make adjusting to new versions of windows harder, it makes adjusting to any kind of new UI harder. Before you know it, you'll be the old guy living in a future he doesn't understand because it's not running on windows 7 or windows XP, or DOS 5.2, or VMS, or whatever.
I'm not saying that windows 8 is the UI of the future. It's not. But you should still be able to use it, and it's not worth hording copies of windows 7 to avoid having to disable metro.
Wouldn't it just be easier to give all the passengers VR helmets?
Having the inside of the airplane be a giant TV screen has the obvious limitation that it can only look correct from one point of view. Every person in the airplane not looking at the screens from that position will get a distorted view, with the level of distortion proportional to the distance from this optimal position.
If I'm going to be barfing in an airplane for 14 hours looking at a computer screen, I'd rather it not be distorted.
Windows 8 is pretty much the same OS as 7 with a slightly worse UI. I would bet that if windows 7 never existed, you'd be using windows 8 calling the next worst windows utter shit.
you've got nothing but personal attacks and unfalsifiable claims to support your contentions
It's not my fault if you can't read.
none of your counterpoints attack my logic or offer a falsifiable counterpoint
Your original claim is unfalsifiable in that it is subjective.
everything you've typed here is just random rhetoric to support your ego
another unfalsifiable claim...
if you has a logical counter to my argument you would have used it by now...
Your skewed opinion of what is and is not logical is less than worthless.
Please don't pretend to be some kind of logic expert now. It will just make you look even dumber and feel the need to further project superiority complexes on everyone else.
It is not prohibited, and state governments can do whatever the hell they want as long as it isn't explicitly prohibited. The federal government can probably get away with it as well because of interstate commerce.
That's true it's pretty easy to get away with stuff.
Registered state militia does not have to mean government.
So I could start my own militia and have my friends join it, and then we have the right to own guns?
I think that everything I have said is consistent with the United States government having meaningful restrictions on how it can infringe upon the right to bear arms and the right to free expression.
I would agree that this would still be a meaningful restriction, as long as the government does not get to prohibit people from starting their own militias.
I don't think your reading of the 2nd amendment is definitely correct. I interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the right to bear arms helps to foster well regulated militias, without the implication that this right can be taken away when it is not used in service of a militia. It doesn't seem so unreasonable that people would possess guns for protection, and join a militia (with their gun) when the situation called for it.
Unlike many "pro 2nd amendment people", I don't think the founding fathers were infallible. I don't have a problem changing the constitution to fit the times. But I do think we need to actually follow it to preserve the principle of rule of law. I don't think the founding fathers could have anticipated weapons that could kill hundreds or thousands of people that could be used by one crazy person. But to me this fact means it is our responsibility set actual limits in the constitution rather than simply reinterpreting it to mean what ever is convenient.
I would rather see the 2nd amendment repealed, than be mired in all these militia technicalities. I think adding our own restrictions to the constitution without going through the ratification process undermines the rule of law.
And what is it you think I want to do? The 2nd amendment does not promise every individual to obtain any gun for any purpose. It is within the bounds of the constitution to, as happens in most states, ban the sale of guns to convicted felons or the mentally unstable.
I actually don't think convicted felons should be prohibited from buying guns, especially when the felony they were convicted for had nothing to do with guns. As far as I'm concerned, you should have your freedoms restored when you have served your sentence. I also think people in jail should be allowed to vote, because I don;t see a need to remove that freedom, as it does not endanger anyone.
It is within the bounds of the constitution to collect forensic data of every gun sold and connect that data to an ID number printed on the gun (and by extension, make unlawful the removal of those numbers). It would also be constitutional to register those guns to their owners in a national database (and guess who has such a database? Our "friends" the NRA!).
Which part of the constitution provides the federal government with this ability?
If we were to take it even farther, it would still be constitutional to restrict the sale of all firearms to registered state militia only, placing safety and security restrictions on those militia.
And by denying membership to the state militia to only people you want to have guns, you basically remove any affect the 2nd amendment might have had in restricting what the government could do.
Which I am not advocating; I would only like to see military arms (including anything with an automatic or semi-automatic feature) fall under such a restriction.
I would like to see super deadly weapons restricted as well. Which is why I would like to see the 2nd amendment changed. But what I think is pretty obvious is that the founding fathers did not want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted in such a way that it places no meaningful restrictions on what the government can do in terms of prohibiting weapons.
In the same way that the 1st amendment was probably not meant to be interpreted as allowing the government to decide when speech could be criminalized, and as long as some speech is allowed (e.g. speech that praises the president), then it is not a violation of the 1st amendment, because you are still free to say whatever you want except the things that are illegal.
There would be mass looting. Do you really want guns in the hands of non-militia members when the time comes to bear our arms?
Yes, because I am not in the national guard, and for all I know, it may be the national guard that we are fighting if that time actually comes.
You are indeed yourself a person. Not everyone appreciates their own work (i.e. for example, some of the dbags that constructed my house in 1973). And if you believe in a personal God, then God is also a person who may or may not appreciate your work.
I guess it could be a saying like "God only knows", but I think it depends on whether the person really thinks that God will see his work or whether "God will see it" just means "Nobody will see it". I understand the idea of taking pride in your work, and I think that's a good thing. If you want to be proud of your work in front of other people, I think that's fine too.
I have been renovating my house for several years. I constantly find evidence of shoddy work as I am doing demo, and fixing it along the way as best as I can. I find peach pits in the walls from workers who were to lazy to throw their garbage in the trash and who probably figured nobody (or only God) would see it.
I think a good case can be made for not wasting your time doing work that literally no one will appreciate (including yourself), but you still shouldn't throw peach pits into the walls of a new house, because someone really might actually some day find it, and it will matter to them.
I never said the 2nd amendment was for fun. I said that entertainment was a legitimate purpose of guns. Defending yourself against tyranny is another. The 2nd amendment is the legal roadblock to doing the things you want to do (which would keep guns safe and fun, but not so good for stopping tyranny).
You understand you are confirming my theory right? (i.e. the one where you acting like an asshole to everyone elicits the same response?)
You already should have known this was true.
And in regards to the superiority complex. It may seem that everyone is acting trying to superior to you, but when you actively try to remain ignorant, it's just that you are ensuring that most everyone will actually know more than you.
I didn't try to "mystify" anything. Are you really that mystified by the idea that learning about a topic rather than just assuming you already know is a sure fire way to look like an idiot? Are you really that mystified that being an asshole will not make people want to treat you with any kind of respect?
Maybe you should work on being a better person, because the problem is clearly you.
the people should WANT suggestions for improvement, and the response TFA author got indicates a "superiority complex" mentality
Even if we assume that the few people that Bennett talked to actually had a superiority complex and didn't care at all to improve things (which I think is a crazy assumption to make without more evidence), it really doesn't do anything to prove that this is a mentality that permeates and is perpetuated by the burning man event as a whole.
this is correct, and no matter what your experience you cannot contradict it, given what you have indicated
I never claimed that *all* of burning man is good or bad. You are the one claiming that burning man as a whole has a superiority complex and doesn't care about improving anything, is perfectly contradicted by my experiences. Because when you make sweeping generalizations, all it takes are individual examples to disprove them.
they should welcome suggestions, TFA author was not welcomed and was instead give a line of BS
By one or possibly 2 people, who may themselves have been misinformed. I think it's great that he tried to get to the bottom of it. Maybe it will turn out to be some misunderstanding at bruning man org that Bennett has just uncovered. Maybe it will turn out that someone working in the government misinformed burning man about the rules.
the fact that you think that b/c you were in the ice line once makes any of the above not correct **shows that Burners and Burning Man is about demonstrating abstract superiority**
I was in several ice lines over several years. I've been in long ice lines. short ice lines. I've been in ice lines where the volunteers were working very efficiently, and in ice lines where they were not so efficient. I don;t have a superiority "complex". My knowledge about the reality of the subject is objectively superior to yours.
What you don't seem to understand is that it is not rational to apply the traits of one individual to an entire group. You meet one burner with a superiority complex, and you assume every burner has a superiority complex. You read one story about a person X who tried to improve the ice line at burning man and was maybe given a bit of a run around by person Y, and you assume that everyone at burning man is just like the person Y you imagined. Not only is your perception of person Y probably wrong, even if it was right, that application of his/her traits to all of burning man is *definitely* wrong.
they should welcome suggestions, TFA author instead was treated insultingly and rudely....ACCEPT THIS FACT
People at burning man do welcome suggestions. Not everyone welcomes suggestions, but most do. Even I welcomed his suggestion, and offered a few of my own. The author may have been treated rudely.
The fact that one person was insulting and rude at burning man does not mean that rudeness and insulting people are encouraged at burning man, regardless of whether Bennett was actually insulted or treated rudely.
You are treating all of burning man with rudeness. Should I assume that your whole family, or that all your friends would also be prejudiced assholes too?
I didn't miss the point. I fully get that that is what the point is supposed to be. My comment was that the example given is not IMO a very good example of that point.
An atheist doing what's right is a better (albeit still imperfect) example than a believing Christian doing what's right. Maybe it's possible that a Christian can still do good deeds without considering the expected rewards for being a good Christian, but I don't think a believing Christian ever really encounters the scenario of "no one is looking", so it's hard to know what a believing Christian would do if no one (i.e. not even God) was looking.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't even all the scientists that were at fault. It was one particular scientist. Isaac Newton. Not only did he not do anything to warn us, he was completely ignorant of the imminent climate change that was to come, and did nothing to learn more about the problem that was to exist.
I'm not sure there exists a scientific solution to get dumb people to stop voting for dumb politicians. At least not a "political" one.
See awareness worked...
The mass (near) extinction of humans need not be noticeable. All that is required is that the environment become inhospitable enough to humans to cause the birth:death ratio to drop below 1. Given that currently everyone still dies, this simply means that people stop producing at least 1 child per parent (e.g. 2 kids per hetero-normative couple) that survives and produces more children.
This could mean people start dying of disease and famine due to global warming. Or it could just mean that people decide not to have as many children because it decreases their quality of life. When the earth had lots of easily accessible natural resources, making lots of children was a good strategy. Maybe when you can barely find enough food for yourself, you might choose to have only 1 kid instead of 2.
The "near extinction" (i.e. drastic lowering of human population), need not involve any significant amount of suffering (not more than we have today anyway), and it may not even need to be noticeable without statistical analysis. If this decline happens over thousands or tens of thousands of years, it will not be noticeable over the course of a human lifetime. Failing to notice a 0.1% drop in population over your lifetime will be like failing to notice a 0.1 degree increase in average temperature over your lifetime.
In fact, if you believe overpopulation is a big problem, this kind of gradual decrease in human population may even be considered a good thing until our survival as a species begins to be threatened by it.
I suspect something far more normal will happen. We will simply hit an equilibrium point, where the world is just hospitable enough to cause humans to have about a 1:1 birth:death ratio, with some fluctuations. Technology may even raise this equilibrium point well above the 7 billion people we have now.
Good point.
I will start by saying I actually use windows 7 and various linux distros at home and work. My wife's laptop has windows 8 and I've built a few desktops for friends and family that have windows 8.
1. I actually think the search function completely removes the need for a start button. In fact the only time I ever use a start button in windows 7 is to get to the search, so I really could do without it.
2. Hot corners I find annoying, but I get the reason they exist and I think I could learn to appreciate them when I get used to them.
3. I don't really use standard windows apps to view any kind of files. The file associations usually get changed automatically when I install my preferred apps.
4. I have had no problems with ACPI. But even still I wouldn't consider this a UI problem but more of a traditional software/hardware engineering problem.
5. I definitely don't put in a lot of effort learning the foibles of any UI. I pretty much just stick to whatever is intuitive. I'm lazy.
The thing about Win8 is that the "extra UI choice" is not really a choice, it's something I had to dink with every time I touched the computer. It was a Bad User Experience, and frankly, it was easier to go back to Win7 than it was to twist Win8 into something I could work with comfortably.
Yeah I had to dink with it every time too. That's why I think it's worse. It slows me down, but only a little. That's why I think it's only a little worse. I prefer 7, but I can use 8 just fine, and I haven't spent a lot of time figuring it out. I certainly don't feel like it's time to hoard windows 7. I think if I had to use 8 a lot more, I'd probably just try to embrace the spirit of what the UI folks were trying to do and work out some new solutions for the parts I just couldn't learn to appreciate.
I think using so many different UI's has made adapting to new UIs really easy for me, and I don't want to get too comfortable anywhere if it means I lose some of that versatility.
I use windows because I play games and playing windows games on linux is still kind of hard, so I definitely feel the pain of being stuck on a less preferred platform because of app compatibility. I think the situation has gotten a lot better and the future of linux gaming seems to be pretty bright. I use steam on linux and look forward to trying steamos in the next couple weeks.
I definitely wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Adobe to support linux. Virtualization technology has come a pretty long way. I have never tried to run adobe software in a virtual machine specifically, but I've heard it works pretty well on modern machines.
Each application is still capped at 4GB of addressable space in PAE. So if you are hitting the 4GB cap because of lots of apps using a lot of memory rather than 1 app using all the memory, then PAE is a "good" solution. But upgrading to a 64 bit OS is probably a better solution.
Why not just run dos? Then you don't need any emulation at all.
...or it means that the UI is useable enough to where a simple 3rd party tool is all that's needed to give you what you want. Windows is an OS bundled with a UI. The whole point of an OS is to run 3rd party apps, including those that customize the UI.
Why not just complain that windows 7 is shit because MS paint is a crappy image editor.
What exactly about the windows 8 UI is so bad that you'd rather have a bunch of viruses (i.e. windows xp)? You'd have to do something truly horrible like make the cursor move randomly and random times, or make the display go black randomly to make me prefer windows xp and it's associated security problems. I find pop up ads telling me that I need to pay some russian guy $100 to get my mp3's back far more irritating than disabling metro.
A *lot* worse UI.
The UI is not a *lot* worse than windows 7 because the UI is nearly the same as 7. You are not forced to use metro. You can consider it just one more of many features of windows you never need to use.
And since the UI is what the user touches more often than anything else in an OS, it is significant
The UI is the *only* thing the user touches. It's the user interface. It is significant. No one is arguing that it is insignificant.
I've used a lot of UIs. I grew up using dos5, dos6, windows 3.1, 95, 98, Nt4, 2000, xp, 7, and dabbled in 8. I have also used a lot of open source UIs, bash, gnome, KDE, LXDE, XFCE, as well as consoles, android, etc.
I think a lot of people grew up using windows and are really used to it (I know I was). That doesn't mean a start bar is the *best* way to do a UI. It's just the way most people of a certain age group are used to. I am not a huge fan of metro, luckily you are not forced to use it. In linux you can have tens (maybe hundreds) of different UIs for the same OS. In windows 8 you can have 2 (classic and metro). In macOS I think you just get 1.
You should definitely consider whether you continue using Microsoft products carefully. But I would suggest that a bad reason to quit using Microsoft OSes is that they added 1 extra UI choice that you don't like. If your going to quit, don't quit because there are 1 too many choices, quit because there aren't more choices.
For people that were only mildly used to the classic windows UI (e.g. XP), the transition to 8 was only mildly inconvenient. I think the more you stubbornly stick to the UI you are used to, it will not only make adjusting to new versions of windows harder, it makes adjusting to any kind of new UI harder. Before you know it, you'll be the old guy living in a future he doesn't understand because it's not running on windows 7 or windows XP, or DOS 5.2, or VMS, or whatever.
I'm not saying that windows 8 is the UI of the future. It's not. But you should still be able to use it, and it's not worth hording copies of windows 7 to avoid having to disable metro.
The need to disable metro is basically what I meant by the UI being slightly worse. I agree that it is perfectly useable.
Wouldn't it just be easier to give all the passengers VR helmets?
Having the inside of the airplane be a giant TV screen has the obvious limitation that it can only look correct from one point of view. Every person in the airplane not looking at the screens from that position will get a distorted view, with the level of distortion proportional to the distance from this optimal position.
If I'm going to be barfing in an airplane for 14 hours looking at a computer screen, I'd rather it not be distorted.
Windows 8 is pretty much the same OS as 7 with a slightly worse UI. I would bet that if windows 7 never existed, you'd be using windows 8 calling the next worst windows utter shit.
you've got nothing but personal attacks and unfalsifiable claims to support your contentions
It's not my fault if you can't read.
none of your counterpoints attack my logic or offer a falsifiable counterpoint
Your original claim is unfalsifiable in that it is subjective.
everything you've typed here is just random rhetoric to support your ego
another unfalsifiable claim...
if you has a logical counter to my argument you would have used it by now...
Your skewed opinion of what is and is not logical is less than worthless.
Please don't pretend to be some kind of logic expert now. It will just make you look even dumber and feel the need to further project superiority complexes on everyone else.
It is not prohibited, and state governments can do whatever the hell they want as long as it isn't explicitly prohibited. The federal government can probably get away with it as well because of interstate commerce.
That's true it's pretty easy to get away with stuff.
Registered state militia does not have to mean government.
So I could start my own militia and have my friends join it, and then we have the right to own guns?
I think that everything I have said is consistent with the United States government having meaningful restrictions on how it can infringe upon the right to bear arms and the right to free expression.
I would agree that this would still be a meaningful restriction, as long as the government does not get to prohibit people from starting their own militias.
I don't think your reading of the 2nd amendment is definitely correct. I interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the right to bear arms helps to foster well regulated militias, without the implication that this right can be taken away when it is not used in service of a militia. It doesn't seem so unreasonable that people would possess guns for protection, and join a militia (with their gun) when the situation called for it.
Unlike many "pro 2nd amendment people", I don't think the founding fathers were infallible. I don't have a problem changing the constitution to fit the times. But I do think we need to actually follow it to preserve the principle of rule of law. I don't think the founding fathers could have anticipated weapons that could kill hundreds or thousands of people that could be used by one crazy person. But to me this fact means it is our responsibility set actual limits in the constitution rather than simply reinterpreting it to mean what ever is convenient.
I would rather see the 2nd amendment repealed, than be mired in all these militia technicalities. I think adding our own restrictions to the constitution without going through the ratification process undermines the rule of law.
And what is it you think I want to do? The 2nd amendment does not promise every individual to obtain any gun for any purpose. It is within the bounds of the constitution to, as happens in most states, ban the sale of guns to convicted felons or the mentally unstable.
I actually don't think convicted felons should be prohibited from buying guns, especially when the felony they were convicted for had nothing to do with guns. As far as I'm concerned, you should have your freedoms restored when you have served your sentence. I also think people in jail should be allowed to vote, because I don;t see a need to remove that freedom, as it does not endanger anyone.
It is within the bounds of the constitution to collect forensic data of every gun sold and connect that data to an ID number printed on the gun (and by extension, make unlawful the removal of those numbers). It would also be constitutional to register those guns to their owners in a national database (and guess who has such a database? Our "friends" the NRA!).
Which part of the constitution provides the federal government with this ability?
If we were to take it even farther, it would still be constitutional to restrict the sale of all firearms to registered state militia only, placing safety and security restrictions on those militia.
And by denying membership to the state militia to only people you want to have guns, you basically remove any affect the 2nd amendment might have had in restricting what the government could do.
Which I am not advocating; I would only like to see military arms (including anything with an automatic or semi-automatic feature) fall under such a restriction.
I would like to see super deadly weapons restricted as well. Which is why I would like to see the 2nd amendment changed. But what I think is pretty obvious is that the founding fathers did not want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted in such a way that it places no meaningful restrictions on what the government can do in terms of prohibiting weapons.
In the same way that the 1st amendment was probably not meant to be interpreted as allowing the government to decide when speech could be criminalized, and as long as some speech is allowed (e.g. speech that praises the president), then it is not a violation of the 1st amendment, because you are still free to say whatever you want except the things that are illegal.
There would be mass looting. Do you really want guns in the hands of non-militia members when the time comes to bear our arms?
Yes, because I am not in the national guard, and for all I know, it may be the national guard that we are fighting if that time actually comes.
You are indeed yourself a person. Not everyone appreciates their own work (i.e. for example, some of the dbags that constructed my house in 1973). And if you believe in a personal God, then God is also a person who may or may not appreciate your work.
I guess it could be a saying like "God only knows", but I think it depends on whether the person really thinks that God will see his work or whether "God will see it" just means "Nobody will see it". I understand the idea of taking pride in your work, and I think that's a good thing. If you want to be proud of your work in front of other people, I think that's fine too.
I have been renovating my house for several years. I constantly find evidence of shoddy work as I am doing demo, and fixing it along the way as best as I can. I find peach pits in the walls from workers who were to lazy to throw their garbage in the trash and who probably figured nobody (or only God) would see it.
I think a good case can be made for not wasting your time doing work that literally no one will appreciate (including yourself), but you still shouldn't throw peach pits into the walls of a new house, because someone really might actually some day find it, and it will matter to them.
I never said the 2nd amendment was for fun. I said that entertainment was a legitimate purpose of guns. Defending yourself against tyranny is another. The 2nd amendment is the legal roadblock to doing the things you want to do (which would keep guns safe and fun, but not so good for stopping tyranny).
You understand you are confirming my theory right? (i.e. the one where you acting like an asshole to everyone elicits the same response?)
You already should have known this was true.
And in regards to the superiority complex. It may seem that everyone is acting trying to superior to you, but when you actively try to remain ignorant, it's just that you are ensuring that most everyone will actually know more than you.
I didn't try to "mystify" anything. Are you really that mystified by the idea that learning about a topic rather than just assuming you already know is a sure fire way to look like an idiot? Are you really that mystified that being an asshole will not make people want to treat you with any kind of respect?
Maybe you should work on being a better person, because the problem is clearly you.
The only thing left to do is to repeal the 2nd amendment, and we can start doing all that stuff legitimately.
Welcome to planet earth, where people will not think about you the way you want them to, regardless of what it is.
the people should WANT suggestions for improvement, and the response TFA author got indicates a "superiority complex" mentality
Even if we assume that the few people that Bennett talked to actually had a superiority complex and didn't care at all to improve things (which I think is a crazy assumption to make without more evidence), it really doesn't do anything to prove that this is a mentality that permeates and is perpetuated by the burning man event as a whole.
this is correct, and no matter what your experience you cannot contradict it, given what you have indicated
I never claimed that *all* of burning man is good or bad. You are the one claiming that burning man as a whole has a superiority complex and doesn't care about improving anything, is perfectly contradicted by my experiences. Because when you make sweeping generalizations, all it takes are individual examples to disprove them.
they should welcome suggestions, TFA author was not welcomed and was instead give a line of BS
By one or possibly 2 people, who may themselves have been misinformed. I think it's great that he tried to get to the bottom of it. Maybe it will turn out to be some misunderstanding at bruning man org that Bennett has just uncovered. Maybe it will turn out that someone working in the government misinformed burning man about the rules.
the fact that you think that b/c you were in the ice line once makes any of the above not correct **shows that Burners and Burning Man is about demonstrating abstract superiority**
I was in several ice lines over several years. I've been in long ice lines. short ice lines. I've been in ice lines where the volunteers were working very efficiently, and in ice lines where they were not so efficient. I don;t have a superiority "complex". My knowledge about the reality of the subject is objectively superior to yours.
What you don't seem to understand is that it is not rational to apply the traits of one individual to an entire group. You meet one burner with a superiority complex, and you assume every burner has a superiority complex. You read one story about a person X who tried to improve the ice line at burning man and was maybe given a bit of a run around by person Y, and you assume that everyone at burning man is just like the person Y you imagined. Not only is your perception of person Y probably wrong, even if it was right, that application of his/her traits to all of burning man is *definitely* wrong.
they should welcome suggestions, TFA author instead was treated insultingly and rudely....ACCEPT THIS FACT
People at burning man do welcome suggestions. Not everyone welcomes suggestions, but most do. Even I welcomed his suggestion, and offered a few of my own. The author may have been treated rudely.
The fact that one person was insulting and rude at burning man does not mean that rudeness and insulting people are encouraged at burning man, regardless of whether Bennett was actually insulted or treated rudely.
You are treating all of burning man with rudeness. Should I assume that your whole family, or that all your friends would also be prejudiced assholes too?
I didn't miss the point. I fully get that that is what the point is supposed to be. My comment was that the example given is not IMO a very good example of that point.
An atheist doing what's right is a better (albeit still imperfect) example than a believing Christian doing what's right. Maybe it's possible that a Christian can still do good deeds without considering the expected rewards for being a good Christian, but I don't think a believing Christian ever really encounters the scenario of "no one is looking", so it's hard to know what a believing Christian would do if no one (i.e. not even God) was looking.