I never said the hummer was more cost effective than a Prius, so thanks for that completely unrelated article linking to a clearly skewed site. If you got an axe to grind, you are doing it with the wrong guy.
Yet somehow, to Randian Republicans, requiring more money to insure the increasing wealth of the wealthy than the constant wealth of the poor is a bad thing if it's done by taxes.
You're right. I'm not sure anyone thought of that. Also, you might want to have your head examined. Its like you had five ideas and face rolled your keyboard to put them down.
You entirely missed my point. Regulating car companies to provide seat belts and making it mandatory for people to use them are two entirely different things. There is only one base type of government, from a philosophical perspective, that allows for regulating what one does to oneself (ie it effects no one but them), Totalitarianism (Authoritarianism).
Regulations on seat belts did cause accident rates to rise...
Not to mention, where does the government get off on telling people what to do in their own automobile? This coming from a constant seat belt wearer. Regulations telling people what to do to protect themselves from themselves is always a bad slippery slope. Just saying, that's a bad example.
Really? The US as corrupt as China and India? I'm not saying we live in a bed of roses over here. Corruption is a real problem in the US, but 30 minutes off the plane in either of those countries and you'd do a 180 on that statement.
Its not hard to except that. All great things build upon each other. Its the way it was said. Even reading the direct quote isn't too bad, but there is the subtle overtone that the government was responsible for all that success. Then watching the video, its the brash, cocky nature and tone of Obama that I found the most off putting. He comes across with this "You need us and you need me" tone that made me sick, and I liked most of his other speeches for there oratory prowess.
You are assigning causation where there is only correlation. That is a common logical fallacy. I am saying there is a correlation between being educated, being wealthy and discussing ethical theory. You are saying because someone is wealthy and well educated, they created ethical theory to maintain wealth.
You are inferring causation where there is none, and it seems to be based on your predisposition to dislike people with money.
This is a huge oversimplification of many concepts stemming from your predisposed views of the world.
Foremost, amoralism is systemic to the human condition. Rich people, poor people average people, all have the capacity for moral and immoral acts.
Secondly, ethics is always based on what someone else deems as right and wrong. Ethics is the code of conduct between one person and everyone else. Even if you decided what was right and wrong, the rest of the world would be subject to the right and wrong decided by someone else. It is a group effort.
Lastly, classical ethics for the most part was created by the rich and powerful. But that is because they were the educated, not because they were trying to take over the world. The uneducated, even today, don't sit around thinking about the fundamentals of ethical theory.
There are many classical ethical philosophies, which you clearly don't understand. Social contract isn't then end all be all of theories. If you warp one philosophy you tend to end up actually using another or a blend of several. Our current state is a mix of egoism, social contract and utilitarianism, all poorly implemented.
Blame the theory all you want, but it's only a fool who blames his tools.
What have you been smoking? Social contract theory is a philosophy; it's an idea. It was not perpetrated by some Illuminati conspiracy theory to keep people in check. Even within your own argument, you bash social contract theory in one paragraph, then praise its merits in the next based on the implementing class.
If you want to argue over the merits of an ethical philosophy, have some idea of what you are talking about: http://www.philosophybasics.co...
If you want to complain about the overbearing police state the US has become, that's ok to. But don't string big words together if you don't know what they mean.
It was also built to be a living document; to change and flow with the will of the governed. Since majority of the governed don't seem to care or are ok with it, its completely constitutional. That being said, I'm moving to the Caymans, or I hear Amsterdam is nice this time of year.
I think this shows the desperate need for talented developers in the US. Personally, I am all for this program. The more medium to sub par programmers that get pushed out is more work for me to come back and clean up.
That may be, but I posted my comment in rebuttal to this statement:
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S. It's a de facto oligopoly, which free market -- as much as I believe in the concept -- won't fix. There IS a time for government regulation, and this is one of them.
Again, the reason cable companies have a monopoly is because of regulation, so how does more regulation fix the problem?
Retardation would imply the inability to progress our ethical behavior. I'd prefer to think, while infantile, we still posses the power to improve our understanding of ethics. But I digress, as that is someone else's words, and while I may not be religious, the underlying sentiment holds true.
Hmm... Its not mentioned in the article you linked, but all instances of net neutrality bills I've seen have the caveat of not blocking or throttling "legal" content.
There is a calculable number of variables in bullet trajectory, so with the correct algorithms one could theoretically hit a bullet with another bullet.
Furthermore, one of these is a laser, which is traveling at the speed of light, reducing the complexity of the formulas involved by almost negating the effects of velocity and gravity on that projectile.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one welcome our new ICOMS overlords
Yeah, but saying it doesn't make it so. That's just twisting facts to suit theories.
Umm... mine is backed by large amounts of research: http://content.time.com/time/n...
I never said the hummer was more cost effective than a Prius, so thanks for that completely unrelated article linking to a clearly skewed site. If you got an axe to grind, you are doing it with the wrong guy.
Yet somehow, to Randian Republicans, requiring more money to insure the increasing wealth of the wealthy than the constant wealth of the poor is a bad thing if it's done by taxes.
You're right. I'm not sure anyone thought of that. Also, you might want to have your head examined. Its like you had five ideas and face rolled your keyboard to put them down.
You entirely missed my point. Regulating car companies to provide seat belts and making it mandatory for people to use them are two entirely different things. There is only one base type of government, from a philosophical perspective, that allows for regulating what one does to oneself (ie it effects no one but them), Totalitarianism (Authoritarianism).
Also, check your facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Regulations on seat belts did cause accident rates to rise...
Not to mention, where does the government get off on telling people what to do in their own automobile? This coming from a constant seat belt wearer. Regulations telling people what to do to protect themselves from themselves is always a bad slippery slope. Just saying, that's a bad example.
Really? The US as corrupt as China and India? I'm not saying we live in a bed of roses over here. Corruption is a real problem in the US, but 30 minutes off the plane in either of those countries and you'd do a 180 on that statement.
Its not hard to except that. All great things build upon each other. Its the way it was said. Even reading the direct quote isn't too bad, but there is the subtle overtone that the government was responsible for all that success. Then watching the video, its the brash, cocky nature and tone of Obama that I found the most off putting. He comes across with this "You need us and you need me" tone that made me sick, and I liked most of his other speeches for there oratory prowess.
Science and technology research are a great use of tax dollars. Its one of the few areas with a positive ROI.
Managing anything is not the governments strong suit. Name one abundantly successful regulatory agency.
What do you write software for? I'd like to avoid those products.
You are assigning causation where there is only correlation. That is a common logical fallacy. I am saying there is a correlation between being educated, being wealthy and discussing ethical theory. You are saying because someone is wealthy and well educated, they created ethical theory to maintain wealth.
You are inferring causation where there is none, and it seems to be based on your predisposition to dislike people with money.
This is a huge oversimplification of many concepts stemming from your predisposed views of the world.
Foremost, amoralism is systemic to the human condition. Rich people, poor people average people, all have the capacity for moral and immoral acts.
Secondly, ethics is always based on what someone else deems as right and wrong. Ethics is the code of conduct between one person and everyone else. Even if you decided what was right and wrong, the rest of the world would be subject to the right and wrong decided by someone else. It is a group effort.
Lastly, classical ethics for the most part was created by the rich and powerful. But that is because they were the educated, not because they were trying to take over the world. The uneducated, even today, don't sit around thinking about the fundamentals of ethical theory.
There are many classical ethical philosophies, which you clearly don't understand. Social contract isn't then end all be all of theories. If you warp one philosophy you tend to end up actually using another or a blend of several. Our current state is a mix of egoism, social contract and utilitarianism, all poorly implemented.
Blame the theory all you want, but it's only a fool who blames his tools.
What have you been smoking? Social contract theory is a philosophy; it's an idea. It was not perpetrated by some Illuminati conspiracy theory to keep people in check. Even within your own argument, you bash social contract theory in one paragraph, then praise its merits in the next based on the implementing class.
If you want to argue over the merits of an ethical philosophy, have some idea of what you are talking about: http://www.philosophybasics.co...
If you want to complain about the overbearing police state the US has become, that's ok to. But don't string big words together if you don't know what they mean.
Psychopaths don't sympathize with anything...
It was also built to be a living document; to change and flow with the will of the governed. Since majority of the governed don't seem to care or are ok with it, its completely constitutional. That being said, I'm moving to the Caymans, or I hear Amsterdam is nice this time of year.
I think this shows the desperate need for talented developers in the US. Personally, I am all for this program. The more medium to sub par programmers that get pushed out is more work for me to come back and clean up.
That's what I was thinking. Maybe time to short some stock...
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S. It's a de facto oligopoly, which free market -- as much as I believe in the concept -- won't fix. There IS a time for government regulation, and this is one of them.
Again, the reason cable companies have a monopoly is because of regulation, so how does more regulation fix the problem?
Retardation would imply the inability to progress our ethical behavior. I'd prefer to think, while infantile, we still posses the power to improve our understanding of ethics. But I digress, as that is someone else's words, and while I may not be religious, the underlying sentiment holds true.
What these statics show is that an increased police presence reduces crime. I know, lets put a police officer in every home!
Umm... Its a government instituted monopoly. How does giving the government more regulation over the industry going to fix that?
What moron put the table of contents in paragraphs? How do I know what page a paragraph is on?
Hmm... Its not mentioned in the article you linked, but all instances of net neutrality bills I've seen have the caveat of not blocking or throttling "legal" content.
Oh ye, of little faith.
There is a calculable number of variables in bullet trajectory, so with the correct algorithms one could theoretically hit a bullet with another bullet.
Furthermore, one of these is a laser, which is traveling at the speed of light, reducing the complexity of the formulas involved by almost negating the effects of velocity and gravity on that projectile.
Who said science and math cant be fun?