Their culture is such that if you let them screw you it's your own fault and you should be mad at yourself, not the person who cheated you.
So their culture lauds psychopathic and extremely selfish behavior?
I guess complaining about them being psychopathic selfish assholes won't fix the problem will it?
But I bet they'd get the message if we dropped a couple nukes on them, or blockaded all trade in and out for them, or sabotaged their computer systems in their entire country, or maybe if we started assassinating their top leaders, or destabilizing their country... Whatever it takes for us to get ahead, y'know? It would be their fault for pissing us off.
There's no excuse for that kind of behavior. Not for our CEOs or theirs. Not for our politicians or theirs. Not for our engineers or students or lawyers or laymen or theirs.
I guess just telling everyone to stop being assholes and just be nice won't fix the problem will it? If that was all it took then Jesus would've solved the problem two thousand years ago... but people just won't listen.
But the very role of government and public policy is to have a rational and objective view on what is reasonable for citizens to do and not do as part of civil society.
Who decides whether the government's public policy is rational and objective?
It's like US politicians puffing out their chests and bragging about cutting the deficit by a couple billion dollars when we're over seventeen trillion dollars in debt and still growing by almost a trillion dollars per year.
Keep that in mind during this election cycle, please, so that we don't wind up like Greece.
Considering that TFA is about a pair of violent thugs showing up to a peaceful (non-violent) event it's amazing to me that you're scoffing at the notion that violent thugs suddenly intrude into peaceful folks' lives without notifying them ahead of time.
Have you considered the concept of having everyone consume their own productivity? It's literally the workers owning the means of production.
If they want more then they can produce more. If they don't care then let them produce less. All it requires is that we stand by the principle that "if you don't work then you don't eat".
You should re-read Mark 12:14: They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
Jesus had a reputation for being precisely the opposite of what you insinuate. He wasn't the least bit interested in making political points against the Romans. Furthermore, re-read Mark 12:15-17.
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," is actually a direct challenge to throw the Romans out of Judea, a statement made within the Court of the Gentiles on the temple grounds.
Here's the actual text:
Matthew 22:15-22King James Version (KJV)
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
The people who were listening to Jesus at the time apparently disagree with you and with Reza Aslan: they took the statement to mean that they should pay their taxes.
So either you're malicious or you should consider reading a little bit before tipping your fedora.
Nobody is saying you have to celebrate same-sex marriage
They're being forced to participate in the celebration of something they deem deeply abhorrent.
Rather than forcing someone to do something how about we consider this little concept called liberty and NOT force them to do anything. There are, no doubt, other cake shops in the area where the offended gay couple can go to get a cake.
This is why all of civilization depends on having a strong and objective morality; from the loftiest politician to the lowliest bus driver (or pilot). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And this is also why moral relativism is a societal cancer.
Auto is the most braindead addition in history, it causes bugs, loses all the advantages of a typed language, and only needs to exist because they fucked up the STL by not using proper inheritance.
The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct
Reproducible / empirical experiments exist or are possible:
- vaccines
- GMOs
Reproducible/empirical experiments do not exist or are not currently feasible:
- the big bang
- evolution (not the same as adaptation or micro evolution)
- the age of the universe / earth
- global warming (that is, whether it's actually a problem not whether it's occurring or not)
So you see, dywolf, it seems like conservatives/libertarians/anyone-else-who-disagrees-with-you-on-these-points is more pro-science than you are. Perhaps, in the future you should beg the question a little less when trying to make yourself sound intelligent.
Police have been informed that a local gang had plans to murder and rape 's wife and family but decided to do something else instead... for now... no word on what the "something else" is.
You wouldn't feel even the slightest bit angry, apprehensive, or afraid? Come on, what's the problem? The gang never actually carried out the plans; it simply had the plans to do so at one point.
How is it any different if our government plans to abuse us but then doesn't... for now?
Sure, because Rumsfeld would allow free people to defend themselves.
His point was that if Iraq was to be truly free then we would have to take our hands off and let them pedal their own bike without our hands holding them up. Anyone who grows up and moves out of mommy's basement is tacitly agreeing with what Rumsfeld said.
Everyone is biased. In fact, even your idea that someone shouldn't have preconceived notions is a preconceived (biased) notion.
What is important is whether his bias is correct or not. Then the questions which remain are:
1. How do we determine if his bias is correct or not?
2. Who gets to determine if his bias is correct or not?
3. Who gets to hold him accountable for what has been determined to be the correct bias?
4. What will those who're responsible for holding him accountable do if he decides to renege or otherwise fail in upholding what has been determined to be the correct bias?
Tell that to the Syrians, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Russians, the French ("le muskets are useless against le mighty warships of Le Rois! C'est madness to resist!").
You have no idea how a war is fought or even what the term "Guerrilla warfare" is let alone the fact that at least half the current military would be fighting against the feds.
"The question whether a machine can think is about as interesting as the question whether a submarine can swim". -- Edsger D. Dijkstra
I think anthropomorphism is worst of all. I have now seen programs "trying to do things", "wanting to do things", "believing things to be true", "knowing things" etc. Don't be so naive as to believe that this use of language is harmless. It invites the programmer to identify himself with the execution of the program and almost forces upon him the use of operational semantics. -- Edsger D. Dijkstra
The rhapsodizing and daydreaming on this subject really should embarrass the hell out of a lot of people in this thread. Aren't you all the same ones scoffing and raging over pseudoscience, creationism, and climate change denial? Then you all get hot and bothered as soon as someone mentions AI?! You're doing EXACTLY the same thing you accuse religions and those who are religious of doing.
Oh, and just to prove my point let's see how many down votes I get as soon as the trans-humanists and science worshipers read this post which disagrees with them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good thing, anything that brings the price of the OS down for the average joe is a good thing.
Linux has been free for over twenty years.
And it already runs just fine on the RPi and RPi2 and lots of other computers.
Whatever benefits me is what I will do and screw everyone else.
isn't much different from
Whatever benefits me is what I will do and if others get screwed then that's a shame.
which isn't much different from
Whatever benefits me is what I will do, but I'll put the "screw them" option in last... but it's still an option.
How about just do the right thing?
Their culture is such that if you let them screw you it's your own fault and you should be mad at yourself, not the person who cheated you.
So their culture lauds psychopathic and extremely selfish behavior?
I guess complaining about them being psychopathic selfish assholes won't fix the problem will it?
But I bet they'd get the message if we dropped a couple nukes on them, or blockaded all trade in and out for them, or sabotaged their computer systems in their entire country, or maybe if we started assassinating their top leaders, or destabilizing their country... Whatever it takes for us to get ahead, y'know? It would be their fault for pissing us off.
There's no excuse for that kind of behavior. Not for our CEOs or theirs. Not for our politicians or theirs. Not for our engineers or students or lawyers or laymen or theirs.
I guess just telling everyone to stop being assholes and just be nice won't fix the problem will it? If that was all it took then Jesus would've solved the problem two thousand years ago... but people just won't listen.
Could you please explain the difference to me?
But the very role of government and public policy is to have a rational and objective view on what is reasonable for citizens to do and not do as part of civil society.
Who decides whether the government's public policy is rational and objective?
The Founders appear to have addressed this issue explicitly.
http://www.thefederalistpapers...
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/ar...
Except that there's about 1.3 billion Chinese and only about 142 million Russians.
quick google search yields:
China:
total: 1,341,335,152
men: 696,340,752
women: 644,994,400
ratio: 108
difference: 51,346,352 unattached males
Russian Federation:
total: 142,958,164
men: 66,134,540
women: 76,823,624
ratio: 86
difference: 10,689,084 unattached females
It's like US politicians puffing out their chests and bragging about cutting the deficit by a couple billion dollars when we're over seventeen trillion dollars in debt and still growing by almost a trillion dollars per year.
Keep that in mind during this election cycle, please, so that we don't wind up like Greece.
Considering that TFA is about a pair of violent thugs showing up to a peaceful (non-violent) event it's amazing to me that you're scoffing at the notion that violent thugs suddenly intrude into peaceful folks' lives without notifying them ahead of time.
Have you considered the concept of having everyone consume their own productivity? It's literally the workers owning the means of production.
If they want more then they can produce more. If they don't care then let them produce less. All it requires is that we stand by the principle that "if you don't work then you don't eat".
Wait... isn't there a name for this already?
You should re-read Mark 12:14: They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
Jesus had a reputation for being precisely the opposite of what you insinuate. He wasn't the least bit interested in making political points against the Romans. Furthermore, re-read Mark 12:15-17.
1 Corinthians 6:7 (NIV)
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," is actually a direct challenge to throw the Romans out of Judea, a statement made within the Court of the Gentiles on the temple grounds.
Here's the actual text:
Matthew 22:15-22King James Version (KJV)
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
The people who were listening to Jesus at the time apparently disagree with you and with Reza Aslan: they took the statement to mean that they should pay their taxes.
So either you're malicious or you should consider reading a little bit before tipping your fedora.
Nobody is saying you have to celebrate same-sex marriage
They're being forced to participate in the celebration of something they deem deeply abhorrent.
Rather than forcing someone to do something how about we consider this little concept called liberty and NOT force them to do anything. There are, no doubt, other cake shops in the area where the offended gay couple can go to get a cake.
This is why all of civilization depends on having a strong and objective morality; from the loftiest politician to the lowliest bus driver (or pilot). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And this is also why moral relativism is a societal cancer.
Kojima? Kojima?! Kojimaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
Auto is the most braindead addition in history, it causes bugs, loses all the advantages of a typed language, and only needs to exist because they fucked up the STL by not using proper inheritance.
You. Are. Talking. Out. Your. Ignorant. Ass.
Auto SOLVES every single one of those things you're complaining about.
Shut up. Now.
Sure, because physical violence is totally the same as deserved verbal castigation, right?
The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct
Reproducible / empirical experiments exist or are possible:
Reproducible/empirical experiments do not exist or are not currently feasible:
So you see, dywolf, it seems like conservatives/libertarians/anyone-else-who-disagrees-with-you-on-these-points is more pro-science than you are. Perhaps, in the future you should beg the question a little less when trying to make yourself sound intelligent.
Police have been informed that a local gang had plans to murder and rape 's wife and family but decided to do something else instead... for now... no word on what the "something else" is.
You wouldn't feel even the slightest bit angry, apprehensive, or afraid? Come on, what's the problem? The gang never actually carried out the plans; it simply had the plans to do so at one point.
How is it any different if our government plans to abuse us but then doesn't... for now?
Sure, because Rumsfeld would allow free people to defend themselves.
His point was that if Iraq was to be truly free then we would have to take our hands off and let them pedal their own bike without our hands holding them up. Anyone who grows up and moves out of mommy's basement is tacitly agreeing with what Rumsfeld said.
I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
You mean that you wish they were always biased in your favor?
Everyone is biased. In fact, even your idea that someone shouldn't have preconceived notions is a preconceived (biased) notion. What is important is whether his bias is correct or not. Then the questions which remain are:
1. How do we determine if his bias is correct or not?
2. Who gets to determine if his bias is correct or not?
3. Who gets to hold him accountable for what has been determined to be the correct bias?
4. What will those who're responsible for holding him accountable do if he decides to renege or otherwise fail in upholding what has been determined to be the correct bias?
Go jump to conclusions and cast guilt-association aspersions elsewhere, shill.
Tell that to the Syrians, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Russians, the French ("le muskets are useless against le mighty warships of Le Rois! C'est madness to resist!").
You have no idea how a war is fought or even what the term "Guerrilla warfare" is let alone the fact that at least half the current military would be fighting against the feds.
"The question whether a machine can think is about as interesting as the question whether a submarine can swim". -- Edsger D. Dijkstra
I think anthropomorphism is worst of all. I have now seen programs "trying to do things", "wanting to do things", "believing things to be true", "knowing things" etc. Don't be so naive as to believe that this use of language is harmless. It invites the programmer to identify himself with the execution of the program and almost forces upon him the use of operational semantics. -- Edsger D. Dijkstra
The rhapsodizing and daydreaming on this subject really should embarrass the hell out of a lot of people in this thread. Aren't you all the same ones scoffing and raging over pseudoscience, creationism, and climate change denial? Then you all get hot and bothered as soon as someone mentions AI?! You're doing EXACTLY the same thing you accuse religions and those who are religious of doing.
And here's some more Dijkstra on the subject of anthropomorphising machines and other non-human things
Oh, and just to prove my point let's see how many down votes I get as soon as the trans-humanists and science worshipers read this post which disagrees with them.