For something to be porn, it has to inspire me to touch myself... this does not.
That makes for a horrible definition of porn; there are many images of clothed women (or women in bikinis etc.) that would inspire normal men to 'touch themselves'.
If the government had just stayed out of it, there wouldn't be a problem.
Alternatively, if the companies had been less greedy and, y'know, invested some of their huge profits back into infrastructure...
Which they might have done if there was better free market competition, which there might have been if the government was better at staying out of things in the first place.
From the article: "The team had discovered much earlier that the virus is present in brains of many elderly people and that in those people with a specific genetic factor, there is a high risk of developing Alzheimer's disease."
Nobody is saying "elimate" swap - just only START using it when you actually start getting close to having filled up physical RAM, and don't use it for no particular reason at all (e.g. idle machine).
Google doesn't "block" anything, they can't prevent you from accessing a site, they can simply fail to point you to a site. Exactly what would make these people happy? If Google responded with a new search algorithm that did away with PageRank and displayed all results on a page in random order every time? That would make the Internet better, yay. Anything less would surely be called "censorship" by someone. Is Google obligated to point you to every single possible site? If Google, then why not have everyone who has a web page at all be required to link to every other site on the Internet? I suppose on my personal page by only linking to a few dozen sites I am "censoring" the rest of the Internet too.
Agreed - because the key is understanding the system. If something goes well, but you don't understand why, the bad thing is precisely that you don't understand what is happening. If you cannot understand a system that is running well, you probably won't be able to understand it when it fails. Any mismatch between the world, and your view of it, indicates a missing piece in your understanding that warrants solving.
As for the spam issue, I suspect the domain host has implemented a spam filter and they're not communicating that to you for some reason; something very similar happened to me.
Yes, the moderation system is clearly yet another manifestation of the oppression of the underclass by the elite bourgeois ruling classes. Who gets to say what is "good" and "bad" anyway? The suppression of alternate points of view is nothing less than the suppression of alternate non-mainstream modes of knowledge. All points of view are equally valid, therefore all posts should automatically be +5, always (including this one, *cough cough*).
And certainly, within an economic sphere, there is not much more liberty that you have
There are far more aspects to liberty than that even in the "economic sphere" [sic], even assuming you could split "economic" liberties from other essential liberties (in fact you can't, but you'll understand that eventually once you learn more about it). Private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of movement, etc.
And, yes, a communist country would increase liberty by opening more factories.
No, it wouldn't; liberty is in effect about the choices/freedoms available to PRODUCERS (where of course every person is a potential producer).
We're discussing economic liberty. There aren't that many dimensions, and extents in each one.
You can't compartmentalise bits and pieces of liberty like that. You seem to view everyone as consumers only, with the only activity in the system being the purchasing of end-products (produced magically in some invisible far-away system).
Precisely! This is an irony missed by those who decry white flight as "causing" the collapse of the communities of those left behind - they are implicitly and subconsciously pushing the age-old colonial "White Man's Burden" belief.
The racist and the anti-racist are unwittingly opposite sides of the same coin.
It's the height of stupidity to be proud of something which (1) you had nothing to do with
But I don't "have nothing to do with being white", I really am white, and thus everything I do (good or bad) is by definition contributing to the totality of what whites have done on the planet. It does make me 'part of something', but I feel only in the sense that I contribute to that.
I'm not proud of, say, inventing TV or the steam engine or airplanes, because I didn't do any of those things. But I am 'proud of what white people have achieved'.
I think we might be conflating two types of pride here - pride for oneself personally (which indeed wouldn't make sense if one is presuming credit inferred by mere skin color), and pride for a group (of which one may or may not be part). The latter does make sense, as it is an undeniable fact that white people on the whole have achieved a lot. But this is not inherently racism, it is merely recognition of achievement and credit where it is due - if the Japanese, say, embarked on a huge project to cure cancer and succeeded, or, say, a manned mission to Mars, I might also say I am 'proud of the Japanese' or even 'proud of the human race'.
I feel there's something here that's still not clear to me, and it's a crucial question, will think about it some more.
Where's the outrage against Russia's invasion of a sovereign country?
*Sigh*.. OK, if we must, let's get the requisite sanctimonious feigned "armchair outrage" out the way. Oh, this is so horrific!... OK, I've done my bit, is my conscience clear to continue doing nothing about it anyway now?
There is a pragmatic problem here - if one's "outrage" is truly genuine (rather than a show for others), then it would suggest you truly cared, and if you truly cared, you'd realise that it doesn't make sense to be selectively and opportunistically "outraged" only at the occasional news that stumbles in your path, but rather that you should keep up with all the horrors continuing in every corner of the world all the time - and then you'd realise that we'd all have to be outraged 24 hours a day, and also feeling guilty 24 hours a day for actually enjoying any moment of our lives. Not only is the world a horrific place, but never in human history has it been so easy to find so much information on every ongoing horror in every corner of the world at the click of a button from your armchair whenever you want.
I'm tired of phony pretentious displays of faux outrage intended to demonstrate one's personal moral superiority but lacking any intention to try do anything about the situation; by showing the requisite outrage for five seconds, you feel you've cleared your conscience.
What's inherently special or odd about that? The city of Johannesburg is 1700m above sea level for example, and other major surrounding cities are similarly elevated.
So-called 'white flight' is not just rational, it's noble.
(On a site note I hate the term "white flight" because it's inherently racist against whites --- every single race does the same thing (group by like, duh), but when whites do it it's somehow evil.)
"Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen."
No, liberty is not measured in terms of number of product choices. To take an extreme example, if I was a prison warder I could offer a very broad range of products in exchange for cigarettes; in that context, it would not mean my prisoners have attained liberty. Or a communist country could increase the "liberty" of its people simply by opening a few more factories to produce a broader range of stuff. This is not liberty. At all.
Cows have four legs. A table has for legs. Therefore a cow is a table.
Soldiers are supposed to "follow orders". Auschwitz soldiers did horrific things, by "following orders". Therefore all soldiers are doing horrific things, by "following orders".
Following orders can be good or bad you know, it depends what you're trying to achieve. If the objective is to keep law-abiding citizens from harm from an aggressive enemy I don't see the problem.
The free market will step in and provide research-site-research-sites to tell you which research-sites can be trusted:) But they too will eventually be compromised by vested interests... so then you will need research-site-research-site-research-sites...
Fortunately there are other ways to get info on products, e.g. by asking a friend who knows a lot about some subject area for advice.
I have to vehemently disagree. It certainly increases the ability of the consumer to do research, but it doesn't mean they will. One of the cultural distortions I have noticed is that many people feel dumb when faced with the raw data they are given. They will actually STOP researching things once they feel they are out of their element. If you look at how specialized we have become as a whole (regarding employed function), people feel ignorant more often than not regarding consumer research.
But this does NOT mean that consumers necessarily remain uninformed, it just means that information on products (the conclusion of research) gains an intrinsic value of its own. And there are solutions to that, some free market, some not. For example, I'm shopping for a motorbike, but am at that "feel dumb" point you describe. So I've simply asked some mechanic friends (that I TRUST), and other friends who have lots of experience with motorbikes, for advice, e.g. what are good brands, what kinds of bikes are good for this or that type of purpose etc. Generally you can get a pretty good "feel" on where you're likely to go wrong and where not.
The free market is working just fine. The only complaint seems to be by those who seem to think others are claiming it's perfect. "Perfect" decisions would be nice but "good enough" decisions usually work very well too.
Free markets also aren't intended to be perfect or efficient. They're intended to be free as in liberty. Once you realise the goal is NOT to artificially engineer a supposedly "optimal system", a lot of other cogs fall into place.
Why, oh sarcastic one, do you assume that the people that bought the app were successful in earning the money they used to pay for it?
He didn't make that assumption, he just (correctly) said that it's wrong to assume someone is an asshole just because they are rich. Sure they could be trust fund babies, but they could have also have worked damn hard and earned that money rightfully --- bottom line is, why make assumptions at all just because someone is rich?
I've met rich assholes and poor assholes and rich decent people and poor decent people, in fact I've never noticed any obvious correlation.
It's just an insult to those living on a pittance.
Who the hell are you to try insinuate that other people should feel guilty about how they spend THEIR money? It's none of your business anyway, and those people aren't responsible for eye disease in Africa.
There are a million ways the rich suck money out of the lower and middle classes.
There are? I'm not rich, but my money doesn't go anywhere unless I voluntarily decide to spend it. The only exceptions are when government has intervened to force me to spend my money, or where I don't feel like I'm getting value for money, it's usually also, when you dig deeper, due to government helping stifle competition in some way. I don't blame corporates for things for which government is responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
For something to be porn, it has to inspire me to touch myself... this does not.
That makes for a horrible definition of porn; there are many images of clothed women (or women in bikinis etc.) that would inspire normal men to 'touch themselves'.
You mean imagine if you could actually get goatse out of your head after you saw it.
That must've been the inspiration for the movie 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'.
If the government had just stayed out of it, there wouldn't be a problem.
Alternatively, if the companies had been less greedy and, y'know, invested some of their huge profits back into infrastructure...
Which they might have done if there was better free market competition, which there might have been if the government was better at staying out of things in the first place.
From the article: "The team had discovered much earlier that the virus is present in brains of many elderly people and that in those people with a specific genetic factor, there is a high risk of developing Alzheimer's disease."
Nobody is saying "elimate" swap - just only START using it when you actually start getting close to having filled up physical RAM, and don't use it for no particular reason at all (e.g. idle machine).
Google doesn't "block" anything, they can't prevent you from accessing a site, they can simply fail to point you to a site. Exactly what would make these people happy? If Google responded with a new search algorithm that did away with PageRank and displayed all results on a page in random order every time? That would make the Internet better, yay. Anything less would surely be called "censorship" by someone. Is Google obligated to point you to every single possible site? If Google, then why not have everyone who has a web page at all be required to link to every other site on the Internet? I suppose on my personal page by only linking to a few dozen sites I am "censoring" the rest of the Internet too.
But by distilling things down to their common generic core you can imply any manner of false equivalency ...
1. How dare some-people do-stuff? Oh noes!
2. How dare some-people do-stuff? Not oh noes!
Choose one, hypocrites! I mean these are so obviously the same.
Agreed - because the key is understanding the system. If something goes well, but you don't understand why, the bad thing is precisely that you don't understand what is happening. If you cannot understand a system that is running well, you probably won't be able to understand it when it fails. Any mismatch between the world, and your view of it, indicates a missing piece in your understanding that warrants solving.
As for the spam issue, I suspect the domain host has implemented a spam filter and they're not communicating that to you for some reason; something very similar happened to me.
Yes, the moderation system is clearly yet another manifestation of the oppression of the underclass by the elite bourgeois ruling classes. Who gets to say what is "good" and "bad" anyway? The suppression of alternate points of view is nothing less than the suppression of alternate non-mainstream modes of knowledge. All points of view are equally valid, therefore all posts should automatically be +5, always (including this one, *cough cough*).
And certainly, within an economic sphere, there is not much more liberty that you have
There are far more aspects to liberty than that even in the "economic sphere" [sic], even assuming you could split "economic" liberties from other essential liberties (in fact you can't, but you'll understand that eventually once you learn more about it). Private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of movement, etc.
And, yes, a communist country would increase liberty by opening more factories.
No, it wouldn't; liberty is in effect about the choices/freedoms available to PRODUCERS (where of course every person is a potential producer).
We're discussing economic liberty. There aren't that many dimensions, and extents in each one.
You can't compartmentalise bits and pieces of liberty like that. You seem to view everyone as consumers only, with the only activity in the system being the purchasing of end-products (produced magically in some invisible far-away system).
Precisely! This is an irony missed by those who decry white flight as "causing" the collapse of the communities of those left behind - they are implicitly and subconsciously pushing the age-old colonial "White Man's Burden" belief.
The racist and the anti-racist are unwittingly opposite sides of the same coin.
It's the height of stupidity to be proud of something which (1) you had nothing to do with
But I don't "have nothing to do with being white", I really am white, and thus everything I do (good or bad) is by definition contributing to the totality of what whites have done on the planet. It does make me 'part of something', but I feel only in the sense that I contribute to that.
I'm not proud of, say, inventing TV or the steam engine or airplanes, because I didn't do any of those things. But I am 'proud of what white people have achieved'.
I think we might be conflating two types of pride here - pride for oneself personally (which indeed wouldn't make sense if one is presuming credit inferred by mere skin color), and pride for a group (of which one may or may not be part). The latter does make sense, as it is an undeniable fact that white people on the whole have achieved a lot. But this is not inherently racism, it is merely recognition of achievement and credit where it is due - if the Japanese, say, embarked on a huge project to cure cancer and succeeded, or, say, a manned mission to Mars, I might also say I am 'proud of the Japanese' or even 'proud of the human race'.
I feel there's something here that's still not clear to me, and it's a crucial question, will think about it some more.
Where's the outrage against Russia's invasion of a sovereign country?
*Sigh* .. OK, if we must, let's get the requisite sanctimonious feigned "armchair outrage" out the way. Oh, this is so horrific! ... OK, I've done my bit, is my conscience clear to continue doing nothing about it anyway now?
There is a pragmatic problem here - if one's "outrage" is truly genuine (rather than a show for others), then it would suggest you truly cared, and if you truly cared, you'd realise that it doesn't make sense to be selectively and opportunistically "outraged" only at the occasional news that stumbles in your path, but rather that you should keep up with all the horrors continuing in every corner of the world all the time - and then you'd realise that we'd all have to be outraged 24 hours a day, and also feeling guilty 24 hours a day for actually enjoying any moment of our lives. Not only is the world a horrific place, but never in human history has it been so easy to find so much information on every ongoing horror in every corner of the world at the click of a button from your armchair whenever you want.
I'm tired of phony pretentious displays of faux outrage intended to demonstrate one's personal moral superiority but lacking any intention to try do anything about the situation; by showing the requisite outrage for five seconds, you feel you've cleared your conscience.
Most of it lies above 1000m
What's inherently special or odd about that? The city of Johannesburg is 1700m above sea level for example, and other major surrounding cities are similarly elevated.
So-called 'white flight' is not just rational, it's noble.
(On a site note I hate the term "white flight" because it's inherently racist against whites --- every single race does the same thing (group by like, duh), but when whites do it it's somehow evil.)
Yeah ... reminds me of some Richard Mitchell:
"Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen."
No, liberty is not measured in terms of number of product choices. To take an extreme example, if I was a prison warder I could offer a very broad range of products in exchange for cigarettes; in that context, it would not mean my prisoners have attained liberty. Or a communist country could increase the "liberty" of its people simply by opening a few more factories to produce a broader range of stuff. This is not liberty. At all.
Cows have four legs.
A table has for legs.
Therefore a cow is a table.
Soldiers are supposed to "follow orders".
Auschwitz soldiers did horrific things, by "following orders".
Therefore all soldiers are doing horrific things, by "following orders".
Following orders can be good or bad you know, it depends what you're trying to achieve. If the objective is to keep law-abiding citizens from harm from an aggressive enemy I don't see the problem.
The free market will step in and provide research-site-research-sites to tell you which research-sites can be trusted :) But they too will eventually be compromised by vested interests ... so then you will need research-site-research-site-research-sites ...
Fortunately there are other ways to get info on products, e.g. by asking a friend who knows a lot about some subject area for advice.
I have to vehemently disagree. It certainly increases the ability of the consumer to do research, but it doesn't mean they will. One of the cultural distortions I have noticed is that many people feel dumb when faced with the raw data they are given. They will actually STOP researching things once they feel they are out of their element. If you look at how specialized we have become as a whole (regarding employed function), people feel ignorant more often than not regarding consumer research.
But this does NOT mean that consumers necessarily remain uninformed, it just means that information on products (the conclusion of research) gains an intrinsic value of its own. And there are solutions to that, some free market, some not. For example, I'm shopping for a motorbike, but am at that "feel dumb" point you describe. So I've simply asked some mechanic friends (that I TRUST), and other friends who have lots of experience with motorbikes, for advice, e.g. what are good brands, what kinds of bikes are good for this or that type of purpose etc. Generally you can get a pretty good "feel" on where you're likely to go wrong and where not.
The free market is working just fine. The only complaint seems to be by those who seem to think others are claiming it's perfect. "Perfect" decisions would be nice but "good enough" decisions usually work very well too.
Free markets also aren't intended to be perfect or efficient. They're intended to be free as in liberty. Once you realise the goal is NOT to artificially engineer a supposedly "optimal system", a lot of other cogs fall into place.
Technically yea, but somehow we knew what he meant :)
while (Alive){this->subsist();this->copy();}
"this->" is completely redundant ...
Why, oh sarcastic one, do you assume that the people that bought the app were successful in earning the money they used to pay for it?
He didn't make that assumption, he just (correctly) said that it's wrong to assume someone is an asshole just because they are rich. Sure they could be trust fund babies, but they could have also have worked damn hard and earned that money rightfully --- bottom line is, why make assumptions at all just because someone is rich?
I've met rich assholes and poor assholes and rich decent people and poor decent people, in fact I've never noticed any obvious correlation.
It's just an insult to those living on a pittance.
Who the hell are you to try insinuate that other people should feel guilty about how they spend THEIR money? It's none of your business anyway, and those people aren't responsible for eye disease in Africa.
There are a million ways the rich suck money out of the lower and middle classes.
There are? I'm not rich, but my money doesn't go anywhere unless I voluntarily decide to spend it. The only exceptions are when government has intervened to force me to spend my money, or where I don't feel like I'm getting value for money, it's usually also, when you dig deeper, due to government helping stifle competition in some way. I don't blame corporates for things for which government is responsible.