No, I have equal disdain for all religions from Judaism to capitalism.
To quote an earlier poster, but removing one word, all religions are about "egocentric lords watching over us and determining our rights and wrongs", with a complex philosophy to justify it.
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
I know the loudest and the ones who receive all the press coverage from the people who can take advantage of their extremism seem to be all about mindless devotion to a higher power, but the billions of "religious faithful" tend to be more sophisticated than that.
And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism - show that even the modern human mind is not lifted out of reach of objects of mindless worship.
So, some stranger calls you up and tells you that they're happy to give you money, but you must accept it in a very peculiar way. Specifically, you must accept it in a somewhat dishonest way, contrived merely so the money can be passed to you.
Scam scam scam scam scam. Worse, it sounds like you're being asked to involve yourself in fraud or theft.
Frankly, I'm not even convinced that you're telling the truth right now.
If you have stupid processes, fix your damn processes. If you think should pay open source projects, then put things in place so you can cut them a cheque and be done with it. Otherwise, the money doesn't just get burnt - it goes back into the company to be spent on other things. Your choice.
The fuck is "wrongness", and how does one rate it?
And why does "condemning an act more harshly" make you more moral? Does this mean scientists are more likely to support Sharia law? you know, that legal system based entirely on science and reason.
I'm maintaining both these assertions. Although I accept that some of the former Soviet bloc states are much better off, the condition of the world overall has deteriorated, because there is no balance of power to mean that stronger nations must *give* as well as *take*.
It's simply wrong to suggest that life is better now for the average Russian because of the change to Putinism.
The American dream of getting rich and comfortable if you work hard is almost identical to the Soviet dream of a harmonious workers' paradise. They're both a variant on the traditional religious promise of luxury after death if only you suffer throughout your life.
It's utter unreachable bullshit for the majority of the population. Unless you have great intellectual or social capital, you're going to be struggling until you die. The best you can hope for is enough propaganda to convince you that what you have is good enough.
The problem is with the imbalance of power. It doesn't matter who has it.
It's quite sad to see that a particular view of the Cold War is being instilled in the minds of both older and younger generations: the older remember the news which made them scared (like we have "terrorists and paedos everywhere!" today); the younger recite a dilettante understanding which almost entirely reflects the viewpoint of Western history book authors.
Yeah, if you were a straight, white, middle class man living in a coastal city during the late '50s, perhaps of slightly above average intelligence, you'd probably have preferred the US.
Really, though, that's exactly the same as it is in the west.
In the East, if you didn't respect the principles of the Soviet system, you got taken away.
In the West, if you don't respect the principles of American capitalism, you get taken away.
Or, to use a social rather than economic example, it's like whining that Saudi Arabia doesn't let women show off their hair, but having no problem with the fact that you'd get arrested in Washington for showing off your tits.
We're living and breathing some system, and we've got so used to its rules that we're convinced that they're less arbitrary than the rules of any other system.
Perhaps Western propaganda is more effective than Eastern, so there are fewer visible dissidents.
Yes, and yes, it's a shadow of its former self. But it's still militarily and diplomatically powerful, and not doing half bad with export of natural resources.
Err, yes, I was "even alive" during the Cold War. My mother worked in Moscow for a time under Khrushchev. I can't speak on behalf of all Russians, but unless you're part of the emergent minority upper-middle class who have got to speak loudly about how much more "free" they are, and taking account of technological improvements, it was a better life in Russia then than now. (Don't confuse the USSR with Stalinism - that would be like judging the US by the heydays of black slavery.)
Now, I expect I have as much personal experience of North Korea as you - i.e. none - but it doesn't come close to representing what the USSR was like, and no amount of angry propagandising is going to help your case.
It is some of the ex-satellite states of Eastern Europe which have seen real improvement since the end of the Cold War - they were treated as resources for plundering, just as the US has kept so many South American nations under its heel via support for military coups. Fortunately, the people of Eastern Europe are enjoying autonomy now, but a lot of South America is still pretty fucked.
I want Russia to remain strong, and if this includes Russia befriending those who whistleblow the US for their advantage, so be it.
While I had little love for either the USSR or the Cold War USA, a world with only one military superpower is turning out to be worse - and all the proxy hot wars in developing nations are carrying on anyway.
Too afraid to tell people they're stupid? No, it's not you fault. We're expecting too much.
If you think that a test can gauge "stupidity", you're stupid.
Humans have got voodoo brain measurement down to a tee. And the more people are admitted to work/study based on the results of multiple guess tests, the more test performance appears to correlate with life success, the more justification people make for these same tests. It's a feedback loops which no one wants to break because the modern organisation is so risk-averse and no one gets fired for doing what everyone else does.
(Before you go on a "hurr bitter" rant, I'm far better at being examined on paper than I am in real life. I'm unfairly advantaged, and I'm prepared to admit it.)
Generators? Not as expensive as you think. I lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere once, and we had our own water supply and back-up generators.
Physical security? If you think that you're less likely to enjoy security with servers on your own site than controlled by some random third party who won't let you onto their site, who won't let you audit any of their processes, and who is almost certainly happily giving over information on request to the authorities, you're insane.
SAN/virtualisation? So, what every decent IT person has been handling since the '60s.
Multiple failover sites? Well, that would make us better than Amazon already...
But I thought the whole point of the cloud was that everything included redundancy, so a server, or a cable, or a whole datacentre could go down, and because of real time replication, nothing whatever would be missed.
Or am I just thinking of VAXclusters from, you know, the 1980s.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I have equal disdain for all religions from Judaism to capitalism.
To quote an earlier poster, but removing one word, all religions are about "egocentric lords watching over us and determining our rights and wrongs", with a complex philosophy to justify it.
How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?
Really?
but for your average religious person
Almost everyone thinks they're above average, and can make sweeping statements about the "average" xyz...
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
I know the loudest and the ones who receive all the press coverage from the people who can take advantage of their extremism seem to be all about mindless devotion to a higher power, but the billions of "religious faithful" tend to be more sophisticated than that.
And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism - show that even the modern human mind is not lifted out of reach of objects of mindless worship.
"...about law and not ethics..."
The law is a compromise between ethics and the interests of the powerful.
This confirms
It confirms nothing except that some people get away with bullshit studies.
feminist (misandric)
Oh, I can do the same thing: communists (mass murderers), capitalists (child enslavers), Microsoft users (clinical retards).
So, some stranger calls you up and tells you that they're happy to give you money, but you must accept it in a very peculiar way. Specifically, you must accept it in a somewhat dishonest way, contrived merely so the money can be passed to you.
Scam scam scam scam scam. Worse, it sounds like you're being asked to involve yourself in fraud or theft.
Frankly, I'm not even convinced that you're telling the truth right now.
If you have stupid processes, fix your damn processes. If you think should pay open source projects, then put things in place so you can cut them a cheque and be done with it. Otherwise, the money doesn't just get burnt - it goes back into the company to be spent on other things. Your choice.
The fuck is "wrongness", and how does one rate it?
And why does "condemning an act more harshly" make you more moral? Does this mean scientists are more likely to support Sharia law? you know, that legal system based entirely on science and reason.
I'm maintaining both these assertions. Although I accept that some of the former Soviet bloc states are much better off, the condition of the world overall has deteriorated, because there is no balance of power to mean that stronger nations must *give* as well as *take*.
It's simply wrong to suggest that life is better now for the average Russian because of the change to Putinism.
The American dream of getting rich and comfortable if you work hard is almost identical to the Soviet dream of a harmonious workers' paradise. They're both a variant on the traditional religious promise of luxury after death if only you suffer throughout your life.
It's utter unreachable bullshit for the majority of the population. Unless you have great intellectual or social capital, you're going to be struggling until you die. The best you can hope for is enough propaganda to convince you that what you have is good enough.
The problem is with the imbalance of power. It doesn't matter who has it.
It's quite sad to see that a particular view of the Cold War is being instilled in the minds of both older and younger generations: the older remember the news which made them scared (like we have "terrorists and paedos everywhere!" today); the younger recite a dilettante understanding which almost entirely reflects the viewpoint of Western history book authors.
Yeah, if you were a straight, white, middle class man living in a coastal city during the late '50s, perhaps of slightly above average intelligence, you'd probably have preferred the US.
Really, though, that's exactly the same as it is in the west.
In the East, if you didn't respect the principles of the Soviet system, you got taken away.
In the West, if you don't respect the principles of American capitalism, you get taken away.
Or, to use a social rather than economic example, it's like whining that Saudi Arabia doesn't let women show off their hair, but having no problem with the fact that you'd get arrested in Washington for showing off your tits.
We're living and breathing some system, and we've got so used to its rules that we're convinced that they're less arbitrary than the rules of any other system.
Perhaps Western propaganda is more effective than Eastern, so there are fewer visible dissidents.
Nice equivocation on "test", there.
Yes, and yes, it's a shadow of its former self. But it's still militarily and diplomatically powerful, and not doing half bad with export of natural resources.
Yeah and there's a terrorist hiding on every street corner.
The propaganda was strong then, too.
Err, yes, I was "even alive" during the Cold War. My mother worked in Moscow for a time under Khrushchev. I can't speak on behalf of all Russians, but unless you're part of the emergent minority upper-middle class who have got to speak loudly about how much more "free" they are, and taking account of technological improvements, it was a better life in Russia then than now. (Don't confuse the USSR with Stalinism - that would be like judging the US by the heydays of black slavery.)
Now, I expect I have as much personal experience of North Korea as you - i.e. none - but it doesn't come close to representing what the USSR was like, and no amount of angry propagandising is going to help your case.
It is some of the ex-satellite states of Eastern Europe which have seen real improvement since the end of the Cold War - they were treated as resources for plundering, just as the US has kept so many South American nations under its heel via support for military coups. Fortunately, the people of Eastern Europe are enjoying autonomy now, but a lot of South America is still pretty fucked.
As you were saying...
I want Russia to remain strong, and if this includes Russia befriending those who whistleblow the US for their advantage, so be it.
While I had little love for either the USSR or the Cold War USA, a world with only one military superpower is turning out to be worse - and all the proxy hot wars in developing nations are carrying on anyway.
Too afraid to tell people they're stupid? No, it's not you fault. We're expecting too much.
If you think that a test can gauge "stupidity", you're stupid.
Humans have got voodoo brain measurement down to a tee. And the more people are admitted to work/study based on the results of multiple guess tests, the more test performance appears to correlate with life success, the more justification people make for these same tests. It's a feedback loops which no one wants to break because the modern organisation is so risk-averse and no one gets fired for doing what everyone else does.
(Before you go on a "hurr bitter" rant, I'm far better at being examined on paper than I am in real life. I'm unfairly advantaged, and I'm prepared to admit it.)
Oh that's right US domestic justice and foreign policy is totes about equal treatment for all.
I heard some white guys have done some pretty bad shit in their time.
Really, are we stooping to that level of journalism?
A rose by any other name.
Cooling? Everyone has that.
Power? Yeah, you pay for that anyway.
Generators? Not as expensive as you think. I lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere once, and we had our own water supply and back-up generators.
Physical security? If you think that you're less likely to enjoy security with servers on your own site than controlled by some random third party who won't let you onto their site, who won't let you audit any of their processes, and who is almost certainly happily giving over information on request to the authorities, you're insane.
SAN/virtualisation? So, what every decent IT person has been handling since the '60s.
Multiple failover sites? Well, that would make us better than Amazon already...
But I thought the whole point of the cloud was that everything included redundancy, so a server, or a cable, or a whole datacentre could go down, and because of real time replication, nothing whatever would be missed.
Or am I just thinking of VAXclusters from, you know, the 1980s.
Each entity works independently towards their best interests
And sometimes best interests occur when people cooperate, negotiate and compromise, durrrr.
You speak like you've never run a business. Cooperation, negotiation and compromise are key to every successful contract.
Meanwhile, outside of the basement, employees have to associate with each other to get work done.