The audience being human, it recognizes its own humanity in his.
A toaster pretending to be reluctant (it has no feelings - it's just a preprogrammed toaster) chasing a toaster, who does not want to be a toaster and wants to be a real boy/girl, pretending to fall for a toaster who thinks it's a real girl but finds out it is only a toaster, then pretends to be afraid, pretending to understand a toaster having a pretend moment... there is EXPLICITLY nothing to relate to in such a story...It's an equivalent of a movie where the director shows the audience a man eating a juicy cake - and then tells the audience after credits that the cake is actually made of feces.
It is a movie which implies that the audience is stupid for assuming that what they are seeing is true.
Only, when that truth is empathy and humanity, Scott is actually trying to berate the audience for BEING HUMAN.
So, if I sypathize with Wall-E, what does that do to your whole argument.
You only say that because you're not a Christian. The Bible isn't useful all on it's own, you need a "helper" to help you figure things out, that helper being the Holy Spirit. The Bible isn't 100% of the solution, it's a doorway towards that, but the Holy Spirit is the key that unlocks that door.
The Bible clearly lays out mandatory tithing . Wether a particular denomination or church follows that practice is something altogether different.
You might be thinking of the Jewish Old Testament Laws, I'm not sure. What I meant was that you can still be considered a Christian without doing any sort of tithing. Whether or not it's a sin to not tithe is not something I have an opinion on.
But it's completely wrong to claim that the Bible discourages taxation while ignoring what the Bible says about tithing. Not to mention the whole "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" goes against your servitude argument as well.
I never claimed the Bible discouraged taxation, I simply said that I believe that Jesus believed that it's immoral to tax a person's pay directly. There's still plenty of other stuff to tax. In the modern world, there's things like sales tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, etc.. I consider these to be okay, since they don't tax the person directly, just the property they're obtaining.
Hint: The Bible is inconsistent with itself in many ways. As a result, trying to use the Bible as foundation or any set of rules or behaviors requires making effectively arbitrary decisions as to which conflicting passages should be used or how they should be interpreted.
The Bible is intended to apply to all times even though it was written thousands of years ago. If it seems to contradict itself, that just means that we lack full understanding of the Bible's teachings. For instance, people claim that the Bible allows slavery, but ignore the fact that God might simply be accepting that slavery exists and make verses that will make a slave's life easier than it would've been without the verses. It's possible that a slave owner would simply ignore a verse that says slavery is immoral, but be accepting of rules that simply make them treat slaves better.
Sorry, for the double post, but I just reread what you were responding to and I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay their taxes, I'm saying directly laying taxes on a person's paycheck is immoral. You can still tax purchases and property in general. You just shouldn't be taxing money that the person hasn't even technically received yet.
Think of it this way. The basic idea is that only profits should be taxed. Even though it might not be literally true, the foregone conclusion is that the employer is going to pay as little as possible and that the employee is going to try to get paid as much as possible. Because of this, whatever pay they agree on is considered the precise value of the work. If you get paid 10 bucks an hour, the assumption is that an hour's worth of your time is worth ten bucks. It's an even trade, therefore no profit is made, therefore there should be no tax.
Jesus was quite emphatic about whether people should pay their taxes, and he came out in favor of it. In fact, he was unconcerned about money, and considered the accumulation to be a potential trap, hence his advice that the rich man should give all his wealth to the poor. (I've heard arguments about whether this was his advice to people in general, or just people who put too much emphasis on material wealth. He gave different people different advice.)
More, generally, he told people to follow the law. But that doesn't mean he thought any particular law was a good idea. Advising someone to follow a given law and endorsing that same law are two very different things.
What's the best RSS feed for tracking progress on this? I keep using Windows because I have this peculiar notion that I'm a "serious" gamer, but I believe if you're not a gamer, you're a moron for using Windows as your main OS.
And maybe even if you're a gamer, you're a moron for using Windows as your main OS. And, yes, I realize that means I called myself a moron. Pride cometh before a fall.
If we're going to be using the golden rule to decide things, how about applying it to the rules in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or what about some of those insane copyright violation rulings?
Lots of important precedents are going to be set if people start using the Golden Rule, but I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to happen.
I don't drink, personally, because I'm on medication that sometimes has odd and, though rarely, deadly reactions to alcohol. But from what I've heard, it sounds like Europeans make beer that's fun to drink, while American beer manufacturers have simply created an alcohol delivery system and added marketing to it.
When I say the above, I'm simply regurgitating what my dad has said and what I've read online. Bcause, as i said before, I don't actually drink.
Puns are never funny, I think it's more of the ironic idea of being entertained by thinking,"What moron is entertained by this?"
No one is entertained by puns, but it's entertaining to think some poor sap with a double digit age is entertained by them. That imaginary buffoon is the source of the hilarity.
They also could've let the employees use their servers to back up important information. An extra perk for working at Sony Films, or whatever it's called.
Or you could have a society that is not dependent upon central banks and the fractional reserve system - one which prints its own currency debt-free and backed by a commodity such as gold or silver.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it's backed by gold or silver, it's based on gold or silver, which means it isn't currency. If you use paper to track metal so that you don't have to carry it around, than it's no more money than a check is money. Paper money is the problem, since it's simply backed by the bankers reputation.
People like to complain about taxes, but inflation is also a tax of sorts. Inflation is how most modern governments control the citizens, by devaluing their money. But this can only be done with paper money.
Better mining methods aside, an ounce of gold can buy about the same amount of blood, sweat and tears that it could 100 years ago. I believe gold reflects the true value of a currency.
And, not to sound like a Bible thumper, I believe gold is the money God intended. No direct taxation of a citizen and gold as money, that's the way it's supposed to be. The Bible equates a country directly taxing it's own citizens to a form of servitude. Perhaps the people that run the IRS haven't heard that peonage is a version of slavery.
"Sixteen tons and whattaya get? Another day older and deeper in debt."
As long as the liquidated parts are West, Central and East Africa, I think there might actually be rejoicing in the streets if it's done... humanely... enough, at least after the benefits start becoming apparent. Heck, China and India both may voluntarily insist that 20-50% of their populations get liquidated, too. Preferably the useless eaters who have no ambition.
Focusing on that last part, rather than the racist first part, lack of job doesn't equate to lack of ambition. I have an anxiety disorder which makes it difficult to perform in a normal 40-hour a week job, but I'm certainly not lazy. Jobless, yes, lazy, no.
Just go straight to the Ell Donsaii author and ask him how he feels about the technological potential of carbon.
(for the humor impaired, I'm kidding. Ell Donsaii novels are like soap operas for nerds, kind of like "so bad, they're good" movies. I recommend reading the first book to see if you like it, and I believe the first book is free as an e-book on Kindle. It's not until a couple books later that you get into the really scifi stuff.)
Do the pilots fully comprehend the fact that even though there's nobody inside the thing that it's still being controlled. Couldn't this be more about human psychology than actual danger?
If someone is deathly afraid of pit bulls and a totally tame one gets loose and tries to play with them, wouldn't they later talk about how they feared for their life from this beast, even though they were never in danger?
If it's highly radioactive, doesn't that mean it has unspent energy in it? I think anything dangerous for than a certain number of years simply needs to be sent through again. I've heard people say anything that stays dangerous for more than a few hundred years still has unspent energy.
"Minimal abstraction is a goal. Sheep are fools." A very christian concept I'm sure.
I think minimal abstraction is an awesome goal. The US has 10s of thousands of pages of laws and all it does is fuck us up more. I know you might not be an American. But filing a tax return in the US is horrendous, people do their best, but you never know when the IRS is going to pounce on you for some random reason.
Having tons and tons of laws is a recipe for disaster. We need a small amount of laws and just use juries and courts for edge cases. And abolish stupid shit like claiming companies are people.
Slashdot Mirror
I love that it's impossible to get Facebook results when searching Google, I don't want to deal with Facebook anyway.
BEST. ACCIDENTAL GIFT. EVER.
The audience being human, it recognizes its own humanity in his.
A toaster pretending to be reluctant (it has no feelings - it's just a preprogrammed toaster) chasing a toaster, who does not want to be a toaster and wants to be a real boy/girl, pretending to fall for a toaster who thinks it's a real girl but finds out it is only a toaster, then pretends to be afraid, pretending to understand a toaster having a pretend moment... there is EXPLICITLY nothing to relate to in such a story...It's an equivalent of a movie where the director shows the audience a man eating a juicy cake - and then tells the audience after credits that the cake is actually made of feces.
It is a movie which implies that the audience is stupid for assuming that what they are seeing is true.
Only, when that truth is empathy and humanity, Scott is actually trying to berate the audience for BEING HUMAN.
So, if I sypathize with Wall-E, what does that do to your whole argument.
Yes, we know, you've always been a fan of Dick.
Statistically, it'd be more likely she turned herself into a lesbian, but you'd have to ask her to know for sure.
And I'm not claiming to speak for her.
And if she corrects me, I'll concede to her, I assume she'd be more likely to know.
What's truly needed is a disembodied finger alongside the tap so that the beer doesn't overflow. Problem solved.
Except where to get the finger.
You only say that because you're not a Christian. The Bible isn't useful all on it's own, you need a "helper" to help you figure things out, that helper being the Holy Spirit. The Bible isn't 100% of the solution, it's a doorway towards that, but the Holy Spirit is the key that unlocks that door.
The Bible clearly lays out mandatory tithing . Wether a particular denomination or church follows that practice is something altogether different.
You might be thinking of the Jewish Old Testament Laws, I'm not sure. What I meant was that you can still be considered a Christian without doing any sort of tithing. Whether or not it's a sin to not tithe is not something I have an opinion on.
But it's completely wrong to claim that the Bible discourages taxation while ignoring what the Bible says about tithing. Not to mention the whole "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" goes against your servitude argument as well.
I never claimed the Bible discouraged taxation, I simply said that I believe that Jesus believed that it's immoral to tax a person's pay directly. There's still plenty of other stuff to tax. In the modern world, there's things like sales tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, etc.. I consider these to be okay, since they don't tax the person directly, just the property they're obtaining.
Hint: The Bible is inconsistent with itself in many ways. As a result, trying to use the Bible as foundation or any set of rules or behaviors requires making effectively arbitrary decisions as to which conflicting passages should be used or how they should be interpreted.
The Bible is intended to apply to all times even though it was written thousands of years ago. If it seems to contradict itself, that just means that we lack full understanding of the Bible's teachings. For instance, people claim that the Bible allows slavery, but ignore the fact that God might simply be accepting that slavery exists and make verses that will make a slave's life easier than it would've been without the verses. It's possible that a slave owner would simply ignore a verse that says slavery is immoral, but be accepting of rules that simply make them treat slaves better.
The Bible also pushed for mandatory taxation, sorry, I meant tithing, to the prevaling religious power.
If you went to a church that said tithing was mandatory, you went to the wrong damn church, buddy.
Sorry, for the double post, but I just reread what you were responding to and I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay their taxes, I'm saying directly laying taxes on a person's paycheck is immoral. You can still tax purchases and property in general. You just shouldn't be taxing money that the person hasn't even technically received yet.
Think of it this way. The basic idea is that only profits should be taxed. Even though it might not be literally true, the foregone conclusion is that the employer is going to pay as little as possible and that the employee is going to try to get paid as much as possible. Because of this, whatever pay they agree on is considered the precise value of the work. If you get paid 10 bucks an hour, the assumption is that an hour's worth of your time is worth ten bucks. It's an even trade, therefore no profit is made, therefore there should be no tax.
Jesus was quite emphatic about whether people should pay their taxes, and he came out in favor of it. In fact, he was unconcerned about money, and considered the accumulation to be a potential trap, hence his advice that the rich man should give all his wealth to the poor. (I've heard arguments about whether this was his advice to people in general, or just people who put too much emphasis on material wealth. He gave different people different advice.)
More, generally, he told people to follow the law. But that doesn't mean he thought any particular law was a good idea. Advising someone to follow a given law and endorsing that same law are two very different things.
What's the best RSS feed for tracking progress on this? I keep using Windows because I have this peculiar notion that I'm a "serious" gamer, but I believe if you're not a gamer, you're a moron for using Windows as your main OS.
And maybe even if you're a gamer, you're a moron for using Windows as your main OS. And, yes, I realize that means I called myself a moron. Pride cometh before a fall.
If we're going to be using the golden rule to decide things, how about applying it to the rules in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or what about some of those insane copyright violation rulings?
Lots of important precedents are going to be set if people start using the Golden Rule, but I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to happen.
That's nothing, in my universe the Roman Empire never fell and we had the Internet in 1000AD.
You jokers haven't even made it past the moon, while I'm looking at a sky full of stars so prevalent that we don't even need streetlights.
(yes, I'm being imaginative)
I don't drink, personally, because I'm on medication that sometimes has odd and, though rarely, deadly reactions to alcohol. But from what I've heard, it sounds like Europeans make beer that's fun to drink, while American beer manufacturers have simply created an alcohol delivery system and added marketing to it.
When I say the above, I'm simply regurgitating what my dad has said and what I've read online. Bcause, as i said before, I don't actually drink.
Puns are never funny, I think it's more of the ironic idea of being entertained by thinking,"What moron is entertained by this?"
No one is entertained by puns, but it's entertaining to think some poor sap with a double digit age is entertained by them. That imaginary buffoon is the source of the hilarity.
In my opinion.
They also could've let the employees use their servers to back up important information. An extra perk for working at Sony Films, or whatever it's called.
Or you could have a society that is not dependent upon central banks and the fractional reserve system - one which prints its own currency debt-free and backed by a commodity such as gold or silver.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it's backed by gold or silver, it's based on gold or silver, which means it isn't currency. If you use paper to track metal so that you don't have to carry it around, than it's no more money than a check is money. Paper money is the problem, since it's simply backed by the bankers reputation.
People like to complain about taxes, but inflation is also a tax of sorts. Inflation is how most modern governments control the citizens, by devaluing their money. But this can only be done with paper money.
Better mining methods aside, an ounce of gold can buy about the same amount of blood, sweat and tears that it could 100 years ago. I believe gold reflects the true value of a currency.
And, not to sound like a Bible thumper, I believe gold is the money God intended. No direct taxation of a citizen and gold as money, that's the way it's supposed to be. The Bible equates a country directly taxing it's own citizens to a form of servitude. Perhaps the people that run the IRS haven't heard that peonage is a version of slavery.
"Sixteen tons and whattaya get? Another day older and deeper in debt."
As long as the liquidated parts are West, Central and East Africa, I think there might actually be rejoicing in the streets if it's done ... humanely ... enough, at least after the benefits start becoming apparent. Heck, China and India both may voluntarily insist that 20-50% of their populations get liquidated, too. Preferably the useless eaters who have no ambition.
Focusing on that last part, rather than the racist first part, lack of job doesn't equate to lack of ambition. I have an anxiety disorder which makes it difficult to perform in a normal 40-hour a week job, but I'm certainly not lazy. Jobless, yes, lazy, no.
I'm going to use my free speech to say that anyone who takes the lyrics in rap music seriously is a fucking idiot.
Just go straight to the Ell Donsaii author and ask him how he feels about the technological potential of carbon.
(for the humor impaired, I'm kidding. Ell Donsaii novels are like soap operas for nerds, kind of like "so bad, they're good" movies. I recommend reading the first book to see if you like it, and I believe the first book is free as an e-book on Kindle. It's not until a couple books later that you get into the really scifi stuff.)
Do the pilots fully comprehend the fact that even though there's nobody inside the thing that it's still being controlled. Couldn't this be more about human psychology than actual danger?
If someone is deathly afraid of pit bulls and a totally tame one gets loose and tries to play with them, wouldn't they later talk about how they feared for their life from this beast, even though they were never in danger?
If it's highly radioactive, doesn't that mean it has unspent energy in it? I think anything dangerous for than a certain number of years simply needs to be sent through again. I've heard people say anything that stays dangerous for more than a few hundred years still has unspent energy.
Don't you see? We don't actually WANT a replacement for marijuana. Why can't you just let us smoke our weed in peace?
Full disclosure:I don't smoke or take drugs, but I think cigarettes are WAAAAAAAYYYY more dangerous than weed, considering the normal usage patterns.
Boring.
Yeah, I bet Hitler found his detractors equally boring.
If I may invoke Godwin's Law in a rather unique way, everyone is a potential Hitler if they lack humility. We're ALL limited, and we're ALL flawed.
It's when we deny our limitations that we have the potential to truly fuck things up.
Sorry, ADD and free association made me post that, forgot we were talking about an operating system.
"Minimal abstraction is a goal. Sheep are fools." A very christian concept I'm sure.
I think minimal abstraction is an awesome goal. The US has 10s of thousands of pages of laws and all it does is fuck us up more. I know you might not be an American. But filing a tax return in the US is horrendous, people do their best, but you never know when the IRS is going to pounce on you for some random reason.
Having tons and tons of laws is a recipe for disaster. We need a small amount of laws and just use juries and courts for edge cases. And abolish stupid shit like claiming companies are people.