Cinnamon is a good desktop environment, but not worth installing Linux Mint. Otherwise, KDE will probably be the easiest to pick up. XFCE/LXDE are fast and customizable
I'd like to clarify this, if I may: any desktop environment can be installed and used on just about any distro. For example, I install vanilla Ubuntu and then install my favorite "desktop" environment on it-- Awesome WM. You don't have to use Mint if you're interested in using Cinnamon-- you can install and use Cinnamon just fine on Ubuntu (or Fedora, or Debian etc).
Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation.
How is this different from real life? Camping out at a university is all it takes these days to become "the expert" on most things. In some cases it may take a long time, but if one is patient enough then there will nobody else still alive with more expertise on the subject and then it'll be your thoughts that reign supreme.
If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles.
Who will decide if someone is camping and what metric will they use to determine if the camping was inappropriate or harmful?
They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices.
Who will determine what is of substance and what has any real benefit? Who will do the banning and how will they make sure that bannings are always justified?
Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
If you figure out a solution to this then let the rest of us know because we sure could use it to improve government and just about every other human endeavor.
In fact there have been some studies that show stoned drivers slow down enough to fully compensate for their impairment, and so are no more likely than a sober driver to cause an accident (though they might be annoying to get stuck behind.
We'll see how long the self-righteous anti-trumpers keep calling him and everyone else racist bigots as their jobs go overseas.
Remember: neither the suits, nor the government, give a damn about your well being or a third-worlder's well being. You're just a cog to a g-man or to a suit. So don't act high-and-mighty about how poor third-worlders are being given a hand up. The Man doesn't care at all and they'll flush us all down the toilet the instant they can make a buck or grab more power for themselves.
The trick is to get yours before the suits outsource your job to someone who's hungry and has the living standards of a barn animal who has never known better. That doesn't mean you have to be a jerk, doesn't mean you have to climb over someone who might need a job. But if you got bills to pay and mouths to feed then you better do what you need to.
“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up, it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're the lion or a gazelle-when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.”
-- Christopher McDougall, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen
I agree with you, but you're wasting your breath./. is 90% ultra-left socialists and statists. That's why I'm so disgusted when a new article comes up about NSA spying, Hillary flouting the law and getting away with it, etc. There's always many comments of outrage, yet these same people keep voting to increase government power. You want more government?! By George you're going to get it!
Gee whiz, I'm so glad our lords and masters at the federal government have decided to allow us the privilege.
Y'know I'm so glad to live in the land of the free where we need the permission of the federal government to so much as flush our toilets, buy light bulbs, and fly drones that we paid for with our own money.
I am inclined to agree with you because much of reality does seem to be deterministic and yet (thanks to our exploration of quantum physics) much of it also appears to be completely independent of any such determinism.
I have argued this point with my coworker whom I respect.
My argument went thus:
1. Assume: the universe is deterministic.
2. Reality: we do not know what lies in the future.
3. Therefore any "choices" we make in the present have the same moral ramifications as true free will.
4. Such an interpretation, I feel, agrees with Biblical passages that appear to support determinism and also with passages that appear to support true free will.
He rejected my argument by insisting that (if I can recall correctly):
1. The illusion of free will is unsatisfactory. Also, God would not fall under the illusion and so any illusory free will does not solve any theological problems or answer any questions of our existence.
2. No matter what I said it didn't change the reality of everything being actually deterministic.
I still feel that he missed the critical part that from the point of view of morality our illusion of free will would still be valid.
He refined his position to take the hybrid approach that I outlined above:
A hybrid approach is to say that at least regarding our faith and our acceptance of God we have free will even if everything else about us is deterministic.
The problem with philosophy, as Descartes seemed to also think, is that it's very difficult to arrive at definite and incontrovertible truths about metaphysical things. But then, Christianity doesn't really care about that sort of thing anyway. Christianity is concerned with God, us, and our relationship to Him and to each other. Our freedom of will is sort of a fine point that doesn't really illuminate anything for much the same reasons as Descartes' rejection of substantial forms.
Considering the track record of any public policy with "social*" in the name, and the track records of socialist and communist countries... it seems to me that loathing them is the correct reaction.
Luke 23:39-43:
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence?
41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.d ”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Romans 3:21-26:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith inh Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
We're all equally guilty. What God cares about is repentance and faith.
You rather put your finger on an important issue among Christians.
On the one hand is the standard human arrogance of wanting to have a say in matters-- especially matters that involve our own existence/eternal existence/salvation. In other words: we want to be the ones who make the choice to accept God; we want to be in control.
On the other hand is basically Calvinism which acknowledges what you pointed out about God's omniscience.
There's also this:
Ephesians 2:6-10
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
In other words: God saves us, we do not save ourselves. But He saves us because we are contrite enough to accept Jesus as being the one who has paid for us-- that is, repentance requires humility. If your son/daughter disobeys you and then says "sorry" without actually meaning it then you're not going to be happy with them. If they say they're sorry with humbleness and sincerity then their apology is acceptable. But how do you know if they're being genuine? Having faith in Jesus is the Christian test of sincerity.
That's my interpretation so far anyway.
Anyway, back on topic. The question is this: if salvation requires faith then how can we have faith without free will?
Calvinists would say that the faith we have is predestined in the first place-- predestination all the way down.
Modern mainstream Christianity takes the view that we have free will in all matters and that's why we are ultimately judged. This is a standard answer to the problem of evil: evil exists because people can choose to do bad things. Choice is meaningless if there's only one choice. So, since God is playing for keeps, He gives our choices real meaning.
A humble interpretation of the Bible is to recognize that the matter of free will is unimportant because it's 100% God's prerogative to do with His creations as He sees fit.
A hybrid approach is to say that at least regarding our faith and our acceptance of God we have free will even if everything else about us is deterministic.
Am I making sense regarding why Christians are irritated by the idea of a lack of free will?
Then don't chase him away. It sounds like you're in a mutually beneficial relationship with the vendor who sets up in front of your house-- that's great!
Personally I'm ambivalent at the moment-- I don't even have a house.
But not everyone wants a fruit stand in front of their house.
But Gore was making it sound as though he was just parroting what "real climate scientists" told him.
So if Gore was wrong then that means that what the "real climate scientists" told him was wrong.
Also, what you're saying smacks of no-true-scotsman.
It's about America not being a computer program where all subroutines relate to each other by passing money as the only call parameter; it's a community of human beings that relate to each other on more complex levels than money most of the time.
OK... human beings that relate to each other on more complex levels than money, eh?
This is a news story not because he's an unpleasant neighbour and bad citizen, it's because he's a stupid CEO who just cost his company serious coin for no good reason at all.
The left is supposed to be the humanitarians and oh-so-compassionate but I've noticed that all they ever talk about is how much money someone else has.
I've heard of this thing called the Golden Rule... How would you like it if someone just set up a fruit stand right in front of your house?
And then if you complain about it at all you'll be demonized and your life threatened; would you like that?
Meanwhile the fruit stand proprietor isn't even supposed to be doing what he's doing in the first place; see, whitey, only you have to play by the rules.
How would you like it if you worked hard, started your own company, and became successful... and then were demonized as though you had done something heinous to all of humanity simply by having earned more money than most?
Bingo. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate or in any way meaningful, it just has to be bounced around on social media with a scary caption to the point where the FUD moves faster than the facts. Standard Greenpeace MO. Notice how they opted to use images of schools and nurseries too, gotta work in that nice 'think of the children!' bonus.
Personally I am an enemy of the left and of "greenies", but I recognize the following:
Greenpeace tarnishes the integrity and reputation of everything and everyone associated with "leftist" or "green" political opinions when they pull stunts like this. They may sway the sheep, but they're only making enemies of people who otherwise might be allies such as many of the posters on this story.
To go way out on a limb and burn karma:
It often seems that the left and the right don't care about the actual facts, only that they can make political gains. Then they're criticized for it-- and rightly so! But then everyone stops there. And instead of considering whether the ultimate goals of either faction had any merit in the first place such thinking is generally drowned in a sea of "OMG RADIATION BAD! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" or "OMG DEM TURRISTS IS KILLIN' FOLKS! WE MUST BOMB EVERYTHING AND SPY ON EVERYONE!"
Let's focus on truth and journalistic integrity. The state must never be allowed to hide any information from the people. Nor must journalists who lie go unpunished.
Let's focus on freedom both from political correctness and the state. Let's do this by reducing the scope of the government's involvement in our lives.
Let's focus on upholding individual property rights because why else would one bother to work for a living? Isn't it labor, innovation, and the accompanying rewards that are making the world a nicer place?
Let's focus on integrity of the law no matter if the offender is a political elite (i.e. Hillary) or a member of a group that it's politically unpopular to criticize (i.e. illegal immigrants).
Let's focus on the financial well being of the country even if that means that government benefits, programs, and military activity must be reduced.
Because the whole point of having a country is stability, law, and safeguarding of freedom, property, and well being. We must come together around these common causes and not allow self-righteous, short-sighted, stupid, and dishonest special interests like Greenpeace or $RightWingImbecileGroup to divide us.
Oh fuck no, why should those unlucky little parasites get a dime of my precious money? Just because they're orphans? Tough shit on them, let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else. Why should orphans get a break?
Outright mocking a position that I do not hold... Slashdotters are smart enough to see through this so it just makes you look bad.
See, you have your favorite little exceptions for things that you think are "worthy"
My argument has never been that the government should do absolutely nothing and spend no money. Straw man.
but how dare anyone else have a longer list, eh?
Yes, I do object to immoral, ineffective and/or grossly inefficient wastes of money and resources. And that's what I attempted to put on my list: things that are either immoral/unethical for the government to be involved in, are ineffective programs, or are gross wastes of money compared to alternatives.
If you believe what you just wrote, why not move to Somalia or Nigeria? It would be your paradise on Earth. But you don't really believe a word of what you wrote, do you?
Somalia and Nigeria are not libertarian nor even "free" in any sense. You knew that, but you're too busy hurling invective and getting yourself worked up into a proper self-righteous tirade to bother actually coming up with a real argument.
The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting fucked.
I'm not a libertarian, nor did I say that I was, nor did I imply that I was.
It's never YOUR wife or YOUR child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance. It'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so you'll be safe, right?
1. If you check the things I listed you'd see that I did not list the FDA as being an entity that I would de-fund.
2. You just made it personal. Spare me the hysterics and emotional bullshit. The government won't save you from bad things happening to you or to the people you care about-- but you obviously don't give two shits about anyone who merely disagrees with you on the internet so I doubt that the list of people you care about besides yourself is very long. It also gives me reason to doubt that you are arguing out of anything other than selfish "gimme more gubmint money" motivations.
3. Yes, it's in the company's best interests to not kill their customers.
4. Let's say that your worst nightmares come true and the corps start filling up pills with rat poison: murder and poisoning are already illegal and I did not list the judicial branch as an item to de-fund.
5. Since you like hyperbole let me just trot out the good ole nazis, stalinists, and maoists and the Khmer Rouge and all the other bald-faced mass murders just of the last century that were carried out by "big gubmint"
Fuck you, I like the EPA and the FDA.
1. Keep up the name calling. It's a really great argument.
2. I don't like the EPA.
3. I did not list the FDA for a de-funding target. Nice straw man.
I like public education and parks and recreation services.
1. Education doesn't need to be publicly funded. But even if we did have public funding for schools I see no reason why those who have no kids that go to a school should be taxed to pay for it.
2. Parks and recreation don't require government funding. They could be paid for by those who visit them. Really, what's the overhead of keeping a forest running?
I like the idea of a School Breakfast Program for kids. I like all the things that make this a great country to live in. It's why people want to come here, fool. How many people in the US want to emigrate to Nigeria or Laos or Namibia or Somalia? NONE, that's how many.
1. The thing that makes this a great country is the freedom of individuals to live and improve their lives without someone robbing them of half of it. When the government starts mandating what my kids eat then they're less free. When the government starts taxing (confiscating / stealing) huge portions of my income and spending it without my consent on projects and priorities that I don't benefit from or want then what's the real difference between that and living under some asshole dictator? At least the asshole dictator doesn't lie about what he's doing. Meanwhile in the USA we've got self-righteous ideologues-- like you-- who force others to pay for stuff that they want.
2. The fact that you think stuff is what is so great about a country really just shows how materialistic and shallow you are.
3. Nigeria, Laos, Namibia, and Somalia are nothing like free countries. And you knew that. So the fact that you list them
If you don't like taxes, from the list of things above, which one(s) should be cut or eliminated? Seriously, which ones would you do away with?
1. the EPA
2. 12 years of public education -- have the parents pay for their own kids. Don't use property taxes from folks who don't even have kids.
3. child-abuse investigators -- assault is already illegal. The normal police can do this, no need for a separate bureau
4. social services
5. drug treatment centers
6. Medicaid and Medicare -- pay for your own healthcare. You're not going to live forever no matter what you do. Dragging everyone else down with you won't save you.
7. Social Security -- come on, this is too easy.
8. community colleges -- I worked my way through school. TANSTAAFL
9. public schools -- this is a duplicate of #2
10. parks and recreation services
11. electrical utilities -- pay for it yourself, stop making others subsidize you
12. gas service -- pay for it yourself
13. a National School Lunch Program
14. Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program -- IT'S CALLED MARRIAGE If you shit on the bed of your life it's still your bed to sleep in
15. School Breakfast Programs -- duplicate of #13?
16. State Children's Insurance Programs
17. Unemployment insurance -- durrrr, what's a bank account? You mean people actually save money for a rainy day?????
18. Worker's comp -- the corp should do this, not the government. If you want some kind of compensation in case you get injured then don't work for a company that doesn't offer it or form a union.
19. Senior Community Service Employment Programs -- you are supposed to have figured out how to take care of yourself and keep a job by the time you left your parent's house
20. housing and development programs -- pay for your own house. Even savages living in the stone age can do this; why can't you?
21. the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- you mean the Fun Police? Gee, I thought I was an adult living in a free country but now I see how mistaken I was. If you're one of the pro-legal-weed people then you must agree on this one.
22. drug treatment centers -- duplicate of #5. It's your life. Live with the consequences of your actions and deal with them as I must with mine.
23. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
24. and on and on
Slashdot Mirror
Cinnamon is a good desktop environment, but not worth installing Linux Mint. Otherwise, KDE will probably be the easiest to pick up. XFCE/LXDE are fast and customizable
I'd like to clarify this, if I may: any desktop environment can be installed and used on just about any distro. For example, I install vanilla Ubuntu and then install my favorite "desktop" environment on it-- Awesome WM. You don't have to use Mint if you're interested in using Cinnamon-- you can install and use Cinnamon just fine on Ubuntu (or Fedora, or Debian etc).
Because people keep complaining about a problem they refuse to fix.
I don't mean this to troll; I am simply curious: why not use Linux?
Phisher adds: "Unfortunately, our world is backwards. You get rich by doing bad things and go to jail for doing good."
No, you get no brownie points for having done wrong to do right. Reminds me of a passage from the Bible-- Romans 3:1-31
Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation.
How is this different from real life? Camping out at a university is all it takes these days to become "the expert" on most things. In some cases it may take a long time, but if one is patient enough then there will nobody else still alive with more expertise on the subject and then it'll be your thoughts that reign supreme.
If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles.
Who will decide if someone is camping and what metric will they use to determine if the camping was inappropriate or harmful?
They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices.
Who will determine what is of substance and what has any real benefit? Who will do the banning and how will they make sure that bannings are always justified?
Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
If you figure out a solution to this then let the rest of us know because we sure could use it to improve government and just about every other human endeavor.
Simple: go work for a Linux company. For example, DreamHost or RedHat, or many many others.
In fact there have been some studies that show stoned drivers slow down enough to fully compensate for their impairment, and so are no more likely than a sober driver to cause an accident (though they might be annoying to get stuck behind.
[citation needed]
Who are we to side with more?
We'll see how long the self-righteous anti-trumpers keep calling him and everyone else racist bigots as their jobs go overseas.
Remember: neither the suits, nor the government, give a damn about your well being or a third-worlder's well being. You're just a cog to a g-man or to a suit. So don't act high-and-mighty about how poor third-worlders are being given a hand up. The Man doesn't care at all and they'll flush us all down the toilet the instant they can make a buck or grab more power for themselves.
The trick is to get yours before the suits outsource your job to someone who's hungry and has the living standards of a barn animal who has never known better. That doesn't mean you have to be a jerk, doesn't mean you have to climb over someone who might need a job. But if you got bills to pay and mouths to feed then you better do what you need to.
“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up, it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're the lion or a gazelle-when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.”
-- Christopher McDougall, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen
I agree with you, but you're wasting your breath. /. is 90% ultra-left socialists and statists. That's why I'm so disgusted when a new article comes up about NSA spying, Hillary flouting the law and getting away with it, etc. There's always many comments of outrage, yet these same people keep voting to increase government power. You want more government?! By George you're going to get it!
Gee whiz, I'm so glad our lords and masters at the federal government have decided to allow us the privilege.
Y'know I'm so glad to live in the land of the free where we need the permission of the federal government to so much as flush our toilets, buy light bulbs, and fly drones that we paid for with our own money.
I have argued this point with my coworker whom I respect.
My argument went thus:
1. Assume: the universe is deterministic.
2. Reality: we do not know what lies in the future.
3. Therefore any "choices" we make in the present have the same moral ramifications as true free will.
4. Such an interpretation, I feel, agrees with Biblical passages that appear to support determinism and also with passages that appear to support true free will.
He rejected my argument by insisting that (if I can recall correctly):
1. The illusion of free will is unsatisfactory. Also, God would not fall under the illusion and so any illusory free will does not solve any theological problems or answer any questions of our existence.
2. No matter what I said it didn't change the reality of everything being actually deterministic.
I still feel that he missed the critical part that from the point of view of morality our illusion of free will would still be valid.
He refined his position to take the hybrid approach that I outlined above:
A hybrid approach is to say that at least regarding our faith and our acceptance of God we have free will even if everything else about us is deterministic.
The problem with philosophy, as Descartes seemed to also think, is that it's very difficult to arrive at definite and incontrovertible truths about metaphysical things. But then, Christianity doesn't really care about that sort of thing anyway. Christianity is concerned with God, us, and our relationship to Him and to each other. Our freedom of will is sort of a fine point that doesn't really illuminate anything for much the same reasons as Descartes' rejection of substantial forms.
Considering the track record of any public policy with "social*" in the name, and the track records of socialist and communist countries... it seems to me that loathing them is the correct reaction.
Luke 23:39-43:
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence?
41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.d ”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Romans 3:21-26:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith inh Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
We're all equally guilty. What God cares about is repentance and faith.
On the one hand is the standard human arrogance of wanting to have a say in matters-- especially matters that involve our own existence/eternal existence/salvation. In other words: we want to be the ones who make the choice to accept God; we want to be in control.
On the other hand is basically Calvinism which acknowledges what you pointed out about God's omniscience.
There's also this:
Ephesians 2:6-10
6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
In other words: God saves us, we do not save ourselves. But He saves us because we are contrite enough to accept Jesus as being the one who has paid for us-- that is, repentance requires humility. If your son/daughter disobeys you and then says "sorry" without actually meaning it then you're not going to be happy with them. If they say they're sorry with humbleness and sincerity then their apology is acceptable. But how do you know if they're being genuine? Having faith in Jesus is the Christian test of sincerity.
That's my interpretation so far anyway.
Anyway, back on topic. The question is this: if salvation requires faith then how can we have faith without free will?
Calvinists would say that the faith we have is predestined in the first place-- predestination all the way down.
Modern mainstream Christianity takes the view that we have free will in all matters and that's why we are ultimately judged. This is a standard answer to the problem of evil: evil exists because people can choose to do bad things. Choice is meaningless if there's only one choice. So, since God is playing for keeps, He gives our choices real meaning.
A humble interpretation of the Bible is to recognize that the matter of free will is unimportant because it's 100% God's prerogative to do with His creations as He sees fit.
A hybrid approach is to say that at least regarding our faith and our acceptance of God we have free will even if everything else about us is deterministic.
Am I making sense regarding why Christians are irritated by the idea of a lack of free will?
In the same sense that Dijkstra pointed out our misuse of anthropomorphizing language regarding computers it is also incorrect to assume determinism (lack of free will) and use just about any part of the English language. Think about it. Almost every single word that has to do with an actor implies or requires intention which requires free will.
Then don't chase him away. It sounds like you're in a mutually beneficial relationship with the vendor who sets up in front of your house-- that's great!
Personally I'm ambivalent at the moment-- I don't even have a house.
But not everyone wants a fruit stand in front of their house.
You think you're the only one who can do some math?
Show us your numbers.
But Gore was making it sound as though he was just parroting what "real climate scientists" told him.
So if Gore was wrong then that means that what the "real climate scientists" told him was wrong.
Also, what you're saying smacks of no-true-scotsman.
Are you beginning to see how the propaganda machine works?
Or maybe it's just me and you've been fully aware for a long time...
Small hands?
It's about America not being a computer program where all subroutines relate to each other by passing money as the only call parameter; it's a community of human beings that relate to each other on more complex levels than money most of the time.
OK... human beings that relate to each other on more complex levels than money, eh?
This is a news story not because he's an unpleasant neighbour and bad citizen, it's because he's a stupid CEO who just cost his company serious coin for no good reason at all.
The left is supposed to be the humanitarians and oh-so-compassionate but I've noticed that all they ever talk about is how much money someone else has.
I've heard of this thing called the Golden Rule... How would you like it if someone just set up a fruit stand right in front of your house?
And then if you complain about it at all you'll be demonized and your life threatened; would you like that?
Meanwhile the fruit stand proprietor isn't even supposed to be doing what he's doing in the first place; see, whitey, only you have to play by the rules.
How would you like it if you worked hard, started your own company, and became successful... and then were demonized as though you had done something heinous to all of humanity simply by having earned more money than most?
Bingo. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate or in any way meaningful, it just has to be bounced around on social media with a scary caption to the point where the FUD moves faster than the facts. Standard Greenpeace MO. Notice how they opted to use images of schools and nurseries too, gotta work in that nice 'think of the children!' bonus.
Personally I am an enemy of the left and of "greenies", but I recognize the following:
Greenpeace tarnishes the integrity and reputation of everything and everyone associated with "leftist" or "green" political opinions when they pull stunts like this. They may sway the sheep, but they're only making enemies of people who otherwise might be allies such as many of the posters on this story.
To go way out on a limb and burn karma:
It often seems that the left and the right don't care about the actual facts, only that they can make political gains. Then they're criticized for it-- and rightly so! But then everyone stops there. And instead of considering whether the ultimate goals of either faction had any merit in the first place such thinking is generally drowned in a sea of "OMG RADIATION BAD! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" or "OMG DEM TURRISTS IS KILLIN' FOLKS! WE MUST BOMB EVERYTHING AND SPY ON EVERYONE!"
Let's focus on truth and journalistic integrity. The state must never be allowed to hide any information from the people. Nor must journalists who lie go unpunished.
Let's focus on freedom both from political correctness and the state. Let's do this by reducing the scope of the government's involvement in our lives.
Let's focus on upholding individual property rights because why else would one bother to work for a living? Isn't it labor, innovation, and the accompanying rewards that are making the world a nicer place?
Let's focus on integrity of the law no matter if the offender is a political elite (i.e. Hillary) or a member of a group that it's politically unpopular to criticize (i.e. illegal immigrants).
Let's focus on the financial well being of the country even if that means that government benefits, programs, and military activity must be reduced.
Because the whole point of having a country is stability, law, and safeguarding of freedom, property, and well being. We must come together around these common causes and not allow self-righteous, short-sighted, stupid, and dishonest special interests like Greenpeace or $RightWingImbecileGroup to divide us.
Oh fuck no, why should those unlucky little parasites get a dime of my precious money? Just because they're orphans? Tough shit on them, let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else. Why should orphans get a break?
Outright mocking a position that I do not hold... Slashdotters are smart enough to see through this so it just makes you look bad.
See, you have your favorite little exceptions for things that you think are "worthy"
My argument has never been that the government should do absolutely nothing and spend no money. Straw man.
but how dare anyone else have a longer list, eh?
Yes, I do object to immoral, ineffective and/or grossly inefficient wastes of money and resources. And that's what I attempted to put on my list: things that are either immoral/unethical for the government to be involved in, are ineffective programs, or are gross wastes of money compared to alternatives.
If you believe what you just wrote, why not move to Somalia or Nigeria? It would be your paradise on Earth. But you don't really believe a word of what you wrote, do you?
Somalia and Nigeria are not libertarian nor even "free" in any sense. You knew that, but you're too busy hurling invective and getting yourself worked up into a proper self-righteous tirade to bother actually coming up with a real argument.
The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting fucked.
I'm not a libertarian, nor did I say that I was, nor did I imply that I was.
It's never YOUR wife or YOUR child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance. It'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so you'll be safe, right?
1. If you check the things I listed you'd see that I did not list the FDA as being an entity that I would de-fund.
2. You just made it personal. Spare me the hysterics and emotional bullshit. The government won't save you from bad things happening to you or to the people you care about-- but you obviously don't give two shits about anyone who merely disagrees with you on the internet so I doubt that the list of people you care about besides yourself is very long. It also gives me reason to doubt that you are arguing out of anything other than selfish "gimme more gubmint money" motivations.
3. Yes, it's in the company's best interests to not kill their customers.
4. Let's say that your worst nightmares come true and the corps start filling up pills with rat poison: murder and poisoning are already illegal and I did not list the judicial branch as an item to de-fund.
5. Since you like hyperbole let me just trot out the good ole nazis, stalinists, and maoists and the Khmer Rouge and all the other bald-faced mass murders just of the last century that were carried out by "big gubmint"
Fuck you, I like the EPA and the FDA.
1. Keep up the name calling. It's a really great argument.
2. I don't like the EPA.
3. I did not list the FDA for a de-funding target. Nice straw man.
I like public education and parks and recreation services.
1. Education doesn't need to be publicly funded. But even if we did have public funding for schools I see no reason why those who have no kids that go to a school should be taxed to pay for it.
2. Parks and recreation don't require government funding. They could be paid for by those who visit them. Really, what's the overhead of keeping a forest running?
I like the idea of a School Breakfast Program for kids. I like all the things that make this a great country to live in. It's why people want to come here, fool. How many people in the US want to emigrate to Nigeria or Laos or Namibia or Somalia? NONE, that's how many.
1. The thing that makes this a great country is the freedom of individuals to live and improve their lives without someone robbing them of half of it. When the government starts mandating what my kids eat then they're less free. When the government starts taxing (confiscating / stealing) huge portions of my income and spending it without my consent on projects and priorities that I don't benefit from or want then what's the real difference between that and living under some asshole dictator? At least the asshole dictator doesn't lie about what he's doing. Meanwhile in the USA we've got self-righteous ideologues-- like you-- who force others to pay for stuff that they want.
2. The fact that you think stuff is what is so great about a country really just shows how materialistic and shallow you are.
3. Nigeria, Laos, Namibia, and Somalia are nothing like free countries. And you knew that. So the fact that you list them
If you don't like taxes, from the list of things above, which one(s) should be cut or eliminated? Seriously, which ones would you do away with?
1. the EPA
2. 12 years of public education -- have the parents pay for their own kids. Don't use property taxes from folks who don't even have kids.
3. child-abuse investigators -- assault is already illegal. The normal police can do this, no need for a separate bureau
4. social services
5. drug treatment centers
6. Medicaid and Medicare -- pay for your own healthcare. You're not going to live forever no matter what you do. Dragging everyone else down with you won't save you.
7. Social Security -- come on, this is too easy.
8. community colleges -- I worked my way through school. TANSTAAFL
9. public schools -- this is a duplicate of #2
10. parks and recreation services
11. electrical utilities -- pay for it yourself, stop making others subsidize you
12. gas service -- pay for it yourself
13. a National School Lunch Program
14. Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program -- IT'S CALLED MARRIAGE If you shit on the bed of your life it's still your bed to sleep in
15. School Breakfast Programs -- duplicate of #13?
16. State Children's Insurance Programs
17. Unemployment insurance -- durrrr, what's a bank account? You mean people actually save money for a rainy day?????
18. Worker's comp -- the corp should do this, not the government. If you want some kind of compensation in case you get injured then don't work for a company that doesn't offer it or form a union.
19. Senior Community Service Employment Programs -- you are supposed to have figured out how to take care of yourself and keep a job by the time you left your parent's house
20. housing and development programs -- pay for your own house. Even savages living in the stone age can do this; why can't you?
21. the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- you mean the Fun Police? Gee, I thought I was an adult living in a free country but now I see how mistaken I was. If you're one of the pro-legal-weed people then you must agree on this one.
22. drug treatment centers -- duplicate of #5. It's your life. Live with the consequences of your actions and deal with them as I must with mine.
23. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
24. and on and on