Maybe because it's not a small group of religious conservatives but a local majority of religious conservatives. How did this happen? Maybe due to the normal machinations of democracy. Why do people put up with it? Maybe because they approve of it. How many religious what jobs are there in Texax? Maybe there really are a lot more of them down there than up here.
I think of science and scientific knowledge as like an arrow, and the arrow points at naturalism.
It certainly could have been possible that when we built telescopes and pointed them at the sky, we discovered an unmoving crystaline enclosure with dots of lights, and a human-shaped deity sitting on a golden throne up there. It certainly could have been possible that the fossil record ended six thousand years ago, and that the DNA of different animals shared nothing in common. It could have been possible that when we looked at a mustard seed with a microscope, we found an unbreakable pod from which the whole tree arose miraculously.
All that could have been possible, but lo and behold it turned out not to be right when we checked. Every time we've found an answer to any question about the universe, the answer has always turned out to be natural not supernatural. That's why I am a naturalist. Does that mean there are no gods? Yes, if supernatural powers are essential to your concept of a god, which they are to most people.
It's "effective" because it sufficed to induce people to subscribe to the website -- your freeloading notwithstanding. You know, in the 1990s some people took newspapers out of trash cans and read them, too, so you're not the first person to cheat around the "paywall", and the standard of "effective" is lower than 100%.
This article is way past, but I'm genuinely curious how we are miscommunicating. What do you think I'm saying? The original question is how does Debian manage to be cross-platform if Apple can't, and my answer is, obviously, because all Debian has to do is recompile the source code for the target platform and Apple doesn't have that option. I'm a programmer by trade so I definitely know what source code is. How is what I'm saying even the slightest bit disagreeable?
"one in particular has strongly enforced sharia law"
No, it doesn't, because there is no law there because there is no government there. What there is, is a "free market" of "private actors" each "pursuing his own interests" which, apparently, includes cutting the heads off of infidels. Don't like it? Surely you can raise your own army to enforce your own interests. FREEDOM!
Oh, suddenly the free market isn't good enough for you? Freeloader.
Apple doesn't have the source code (and would never require it) so it can't recompile code into new binaries for different platforms. Was I not clear enough before?
Okay. The place you described exists, in fact there are two such places. Places with lax government oversight, places where individuals are free to make economic deals with each other and to manage their own affairs. The two "free-est" places in the world are Sudan and Afghanistan, and since ZERO of you big-talking libertarians are rushing to move there, that proves that you know, deep down, that a reasonable amount of moderate government regulation is one of the things that makes a country a nice place to live in.
Think of the gun rights you'll have in Sudan! You can hire your own private army to guard your compound and you can crouch down in your spider-hole bunker thinking about how awesome it is that you don't rely on gubmint for your safety. Think about the unregulated crops you can grow in Afghanistan without Big Brother trying to stop you from growing opium poppies, or stopping your fertilizer runoff from polluting the watershed. FREEDOM!
Send me a postcard from your new address in one of those two countries, and then I will issue you an apology. Until then you're a freeloader complaining about exactly the system that delivers your high standard of living.
Word. Mostly agreed, except a lot of things that I don't pay $3 for are worth my time.
And you know what, fuck me anyways because I've never even seen the show. Maybe it really is ten times better than the best TV show I've ever seen, which is why it costs ten times more than I can ever imagine paying.
What you describe is tolerance, for which libertarians are well known. I also tolerate libertarians, insofar as I don't try to round them up, put them in jail, or silence them.
It's just that they believe things that aren't true, and I think people should shed untrue beliefs.
Apple wants/gets THREE DOLLARS per person per episode of TV watched? Holymotherfuck, are TV watchers millionaires or something? How can you afford to pay three dollars to watch an hour of TV? I'm sort of a TV outsider, not a luddite but not a participant -- but my market price for watching TV (always without commercials, except for Football) is one tenth that amount. I would think three dollars for the whole eight episodes would be about right.
Ideology is religion. It's believing things are true when the evidence says otherwise. It's choosing to believe something is true when you WANT it to be true, but it isn't true.
Is it true that humans respond rationally to incentives? No. That is [true in rare cases but but mostly] not true, and all libertarianism is based on it.
Bush was definitely elected (won the most electoral votes) in 2004, but Bush was definitely not elected in 2000 because he got fewer votes than Gore in Florida, thus Gore won the most electoral votes. The recounts done by the media afterwards came to two conclusions:
1. If you counted all the votes, Gore won.
2. If you counted only the votes that Bush or Gore were advocating for, then Bush won.
Obviously the only permissible standard in a democracy is to count all the votes therefore Gore was the elected President. A conspiracy of Republicans installed the unelected candidate to the Presidency, ending with the Supreme Court's preposterous decision that in a democracy it's okay not to count all the votes. That sounds terrible and corrupt, and of course it is, but it's only terrible and corrupt by a little tiny bit, since Bush did in fact come really really close to winning. The eventual outcome, however, was the worst four years of governance in the history of the nation.
"In the last 30 years, when has the losing party every accepted the loss gracefully?"
Uh, almost always? I don't know about Australia but in America it's almost always pretty 'graceful'.
When it's dispensed from a drive through while at a temperature hot enough to melt off a woman's labia, and also when your company has already lost a long series of previous lawsuits with exactly the same circumstance.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a poe? Who thinks this guy is kidding? It sounds carefully worded as a hoax to me.
Maybe because it's not a small group of religious conservatives but a local majority of religious conservatives. How did this happen? Maybe due to the normal machinations of democracy. Why do people put up with it? Maybe because they approve of it. How many religious what jobs are there in Texax? Maybe there really are a lot more of them down there than up here.
Totally agreed except for this:
If your belief system is incompatible with the facts, you will suffer for it.
During my lifetime, which started when Carter was President, they haven't suffered for it rather the rest of us have suffered for it.
That reminds me of some lyrics: they say the world was created in seven days / thats a weak story, get it? a week story? .
In that verse they are describing a contemptible whore.
I think of science and scientific knowledge as like an arrow, and the arrow points at naturalism.
It certainly could have been possible that when we built telescopes and pointed them at the sky, we discovered an unmoving crystaline enclosure with dots of lights, and a human-shaped deity sitting on a golden throne up there. It certainly could have been possible that the fossil record ended six thousand years ago, and that the DNA of different animals shared nothing in common. It could have been possible that when we looked at a mustard seed with a microscope, we found an unbreakable pod from which the whole tree arose miraculously.
All that could have been possible, but lo and behold it turned out not to be right when we checked. Every time we've found an answer to any question about the universe, the answer has always turned out to be natural not supernatural. That's why I am a naturalist. Does that mean there are no gods? Yes, if supernatural powers are essential to your concept of a god, which they are to most people.
Okay, I accept your concession on the point about 'effectiveness'. Thanks, enjoy cheating NYT.
It's "effective" because it sufficed to induce people to subscribe to the website -- your freeloading notwithstanding. You know, in the 1990s some people took newspapers out of trash cans and read them, too, so you're not the first person to cheat around the "paywall", and the standard of "effective" is lower than 100%.
Oops, you mis-spelled "effective" as "ineffective". That little mistake sort of changes your thesis.
Where are all the normal Slashdot AGW deniers? Usually they'd be all over an article like this.
Hey, mods, can a bunch of you get together and mod parent +5, Insightful? Because he's right, if taken literally instead of sarcastically.
This article is way past, but I'm genuinely curious how we are miscommunicating. What do you think I'm saying? The original question is how does Debian manage to be cross-platform if Apple can't, and my answer is, obviously, because all Debian has to do is recompile the source code for the target platform and Apple doesn't have that option. I'm a programmer by trade so I definitely know what source code is. How is what I'm saying even the slightest bit disagreeable?
"one in particular has strongly enforced sharia law"
No, it doesn't, because there is no law there because there is no government there. What there is, is a "free market" of "private actors" each "pursuing his own interests" which, apparently, includes cutting the heads off of infidels. Don't like it? Surely you can raise your own army to enforce your own interests. FREEDOM!
Oh, suddenly the free market isn't good enough for you? Freeloader.
Apple doesn't have the source code (and would never require it) so it can't recompile code into new binaries for different platforms. Was I not clear enough before?
Magic? No, they do it with source code, which is a non-starter for Apple.
Okay. The place you described exists, in fact there are two such places. Places with lax government oversight, places where individuals are free to make economic deals with each other and to manage their own affairs. The two "free-est" places in the world are Sudan and Afghanistan, and since ZERO of you big-talking libertarians are rushing to move there, that proves that you know, deep down, that a reasonable amount of moderate government regulation is one of the things that makes a country a nice place to live in.
Think of the gun rights you'll have in Sudan! You can hire your own private army to guard your compound and you can crouch down in your spider-hole bunker thinking about how awesome it is that you don't rely on gubmint for your safety. Think about the unregulated crops you can grow in Afghanistan without Big Brother trying to stop you from growing opium poppies, or stopping your fertilizer runoff from polluting the watershed. FREEDOM!
Send me a postcard from your new address in one of those two countries, and then I will issue you an apology. Until then you're a freeloader complaining about exactly the system that delivers your high standard of living.
Word. Mostly agreed, except a lot of things that I don't pay $3 for are worth my time.
And you know what, fuck me anyways because I've never even seen the show. Maybe it really is ten times better than the best TV show I've ever seen, which is why it costs ten times more than I can ever imagine paying.
Indeed. I have a similar opinion about those box sets.
What you describe is tolerance, for which libertarians are well known. I also tolerate libertarians, insofar as I don't try to round them up, put them in jail, or silence them.
It's just that they believe things that aren't true, and I think people should shed untrue beliefs.
And have you ever checked what people pay for TV channels?
Yes! It's astonishingly expensive! AND those channels have commercials. The mind boggles.
Apple wants/gets THREE DOLLARS per person per episode of TV watched? Holymotherfuck, are TV watchers millionaires or something? How can you afford to pay three dollars to watch an hour of TV? I'm sort of a TV outsider, not a luddite but not a participant -- but my market price for watching TV (always without commercials, except for Football) is one tenth that amount. I would think three dollars for the whole eight episodes would be about right.
Ideology is religion. It's believing things are true when the evidence says otherwise. It's choosing to believe something is true when you WANT it to be true, but it isn't true. Is it true that humans respond rationally to incentives? No. That is [true in rare cases but but mostly] not true, and all libertarianism is based on it.
Obviously the only permissible standard in a democracy is to count all the votes therefore Gore was the elected President. A conspiracy of Republicans installed the unelected candidate to the Presidency, ending with the Supreme Court's preposterous decision that in a democracy it's okay not to count all the votes. That sounds terrible and corrupt, and of course it is, but it's only terrible and corrupt by a little tiny bit, since Bush did in fact come really really close to winning. The eventual outcome, however, was the worst four years of governance in the history of the nation.
"In the last 30 years, when has the losing party every accepted the loss gracefully?" Uh, almost always? I don't know about Australia but in America it's almost always pretty 'graceful'.
When it's dispensed from a drive through while at a temperature hot enough to melt off a woman's labia, and also when your company has already lost a long series of previous lawsuits with exactly the same circumstance.