How about you don't lump us all together as imperialist, culture-bound yahoos?
Abandon the idea of democracy and stop promoting it, and we will. As long as you insist that your country's government is controlled by its people and represents them, you are all responsible for its actions. If you will treated your government and businesses as oppressors, few would blame you.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of mail truck full of micro-SD cards of maximum available size (currently 32G, I believe)."
No, I did not calculate the actual bandwidth as it's late, and I don't have exact measurements of cards or space available for packages in a truck, or thought what would be optimal packaging that can be loaded into the truck, unloaded and connected to something that can read and write them (time for those operations should be counted along with the truck trip itself). But others are welcome to try. Take into account that gigabytes used for storage devices are decimal while bandwidth units are binary.
Actually it's what Capitalist propaganda wants people to do, just like how it redefines other terms. If you don't have a word for "Alien Overlord" in a world ruled by alien overlords, would you be able to imagine lack of them?
In particular, USSR had plenty of problems, and its destruction was a result of a rather complex process, however neither of those things are related to the fundamental ideas it was based upon. If anything, it was dissolved right after it got a good chance to start improving, because capitalism is incapable of applying advances in technology to industrial production until it runs out of desperate poor people.
You're not using the correct definition for irrational, then.
I do.
It's an interesting question if the right to life is a positive or negative right.
The difference between "positive" and "negative" rights is entirely artificial. Societies and governments have to both act in a certain ways, and avoid acting in some other ways to implement each of them regardless of the category.
don't be facile and confuse the two concepts as you're doing.
As I said, I do not recognize the distinction as anything meaningful in this context. It promotes interests of rich and powerful people who are more interested in the rest of society's inaction when they cause harm to others and use coercion based on their control over resources, organizations and social structures. Poor and powerless, on the other hand, require the rest of society to act to protect their interests -- proclaiming that society has no obligation to do so, deprives poor and powerless from their rights while protecting rich and powerful. This is immoral.
Outside of fundamentalists, maybe, I don't think you'd find any Christians supporting belief in contradictory or irrational things.
Belief in gods is irrational. It is not backed by anything other than folklore and wishful thinking.
For example, you might try to show that contradictions inherently arise from the belief that people have inherent value
Something does not have to contradict itself to be irrational. Self-contradictory statements are provably wrong, irrational ones are merely baseless speculation. While baseless speculation may happen to be true, it is still stupid to engage in it because there is no way to find out potential truth among virtually infinite number of other possible random claims.
As our Founding Fathers stated, inalienable rights absolutely do not mean that all governments recognize them, but rather that all governments should recognize them.
Your government refuses to provide medical treatment to people who need it to survive, and lets insurance companies to deny it. Even after both government and insurance companies taking those people's money over a lifetime, and even considering that both government and insurance companies have sufficient resources for such treatment. I wouldn't be able to invent a more anti-right-to-life policy if I tried.
Actual middle class starts at the level of small business owners. We are talking about socio-economic classes, not nebulous "ownership society" bullshit, right?
Pretty sure that's how banks work. They pretend to have money so they lend money out to people who give it to other people that put it in banks that lend it out again and the cycle continues.
FTFY. Creation of money should never ever be delegated to anything other than government's structures, working under clearly defined rules and operated by people who can't possibly benefit from any of this personally.
That's really a pot calling kettle black. Religious faith is irrational, it is even acknowledged by religious people (it is supposed to be dictated by moral obligation, not rationality).
Well, remind me to not live in whatever banana dictatorship you set up. I'd much rather live in a country where everyone ascribes to the idea that certain rights are inalienable, namely: life, liberty and property.
Life: people die all the time. Worse yet, people are frivolously deprived of things they need for life. Most societies, certainly US society, do not implement any meaningful protection for life no matter how easily achieved -- life is treated as a luxury and pretty much always was. Liberty: that's tautology for "having rights recognized". Property: Slavery is a form of property, and it was abolished, thus depriving all slave owners from most of what they had.
I repeat, rights are developed by society. They are not sacred and not absolute, they can be defined very, very wrong and often have to be rewritten as society develops.
Catholics, maybe. Certainly not "most Christians" world view.
As far as I know, Catholics outnumber all other Christian churches taken together, so they definitely qualify as "most Christians". Other Christian sects' beliefs are stupid and disgusting in other aspects, but "suffering is good" just takes the cake, placing the whole system of moral and ethics upside down.
Sometimes. And sometimes atheism can can fall into that category, though not always. I've met atheists that hate God, and as a result refuse to believe in him.
No. One can't hate something that he does not believe to exist.
I hate the concept of god because it's absolutely idiotic, because it enslaves people, and because it is used to enslave people. That would be impossible if I have seen any validity in it. If I believed that god existed, it is possible that I would be opposed to him (just to give a fictional example Azathoth, Cthulhu, Hastur and friends are hardly sympathetic), but I would be by definition theist if I professed any relationship to any kind of god, even a fictional one.
At a more abstract level, there's a pragmatic value to religion, even if you set aside the problem of the existence of God. Most of us don't see the benefits of living in a Christian country, as it's a fish-in-the-water sort of thing. "Of course all countries should respect natural rights!" people will claim, without knowing why they believe that, or where the doctrine of natural rights comes from. (Hint: Enlightenment philosophy based on Christianity.)
Actually I find doctrine of natural rights to be stupid and dangerous. Rights are society's constructs developed in a complex historical process that has very little to do with folklore and mythology. Among other things, this process is fallible -- it is not guaranteed to produce eternal truths, and rights recognized by societies and governments must be under just as much scrutiny as all other aspects of societies' activity. False proclamations of rights being supported by deities lead to various God-Emperors, God-chosen races, God-blessed property rights over whole countries and populations, and other hideous crap.
The telling point is that atheists generally agree with the moral code of Christianity, for pretty much everything except when it comes to money and sex, and most Christians get the sex bits wrong. (The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex, for example, which drove Calvin crazy when founding his theocratic version of Geneva.)
The similarity is merely superficial. Atheists absolutely do not subscribe to the idea that suffering is a virtue, the idea at the core of most Christians' (Catholics) world view. Not because all atheists subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular idea about moral code but because this idea is blatantly idiotic in any context other than Christian mythology as interpreted by the most backwards demagogues who ever ever interpreted it.
And it is no longer socially acceptable because it was always immoral, turning trade into a game of mutual intimidation. Everyone must pay the same price for the same product.
Haggling is supposed to be acceptable when product is unusual, or it is known that the product is flawed, and a buyer for some unusual reason can accept it with such flaws.
You are still fundamentally wrong -- the look of fonts, or anything at all, is not any worse in GNOME 2 / GTK+ 2 compared to GNOME 3 / GTK+ 3. Composite window manager works just fine, however GNOME 2 did not make it mandatory out of the blue or made its core functionality dependent on it like GNOME 3 and Unity did.
Overall functionality of GNOME 2, especially considering the availability of applets and working window manager options, is far superior.
P.S. KDE is currently the only desktop I can use in 11.10, and it is also the only desktop that can be configured to resemble GNOME2 enough to be usable with my workflow. Of all things, KDE!
Because it breaks Compiz just as much as Gnome does. You select a window on some other viewport/desktop, and Compiz helpfully switches to a completely different viewport. Not to mention, Compiz un current Ubuntu is some kind of pre-alpha that flickers all windows every time a rotating cube switches a desktop (tne above problem was found by switching into "Desktop Wall" mode because otherwise it's a massive clusterfuck of flicker.
To keep track of in how many ways someone is wrong.
1. Then why does MATE look like shit compared to Gnome?
Either, you are blind, or you are noticing difference in composite window manager effects, and attribute them to fonts. Compositing works just fine under everything now, just not everyone enables it by default.
2. Yes, but you know what I mean.
Unless you mean "I have no idea what a UI toolkit is", I do not.
The Christian monks in the middle ages saved a lot of our pre-Dark Age history. They weren't paid very much to do it, but without them we wouldn't know half of what we do now about our history as a human race.
I would argue that we would be better off if we didn't. Selective preservation and endless translations/rewriting/interpretations given false authority to their ideas, and now world is still drowning in Christianity and its crap.
Legitimate research of ancient cultures was performed later, based on excavations and few verifiable original sources, monks contributed nothing to that.
Rights are whatever government recognized as such. A belief that some "sacred" set of right is a important, and any amount of well-being of people can be sacrificed to preserve such "rights" is nothing but a propaganda formula that is used to distract people from real problems in their societies.
Slashdot Mirror
How about you don't lump us all together as imperialist, culture-bound yahoos?
Abandon the idea of democracy and stop promoting it, and we will. As long as you insist that your country's government is controlled by its people and represents them, you are all responsible for its actions. If you will treated your government and businesses as oppressors, few would blame you.
Ayn Rand, aren't you supposed to be dead?
I think, it should be:
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of mail truck full of micro-SD cards of maximum available size (currently 32G, I believe)."
No, I did not calculate the actual bandwidth as it's late, and I don't have exact measurements of cards or space available for packages in a truck, or thought what would be optimal packaging that can be loaded into the truck, unloaded and connected to something that can read and write them (time for those operations should be counted along with the truck trip itself). But others are welcome to try. Take into account that gigabytes used for storage devices are decimal while bandwidth units are binary.
Actually it's what Capitalist propaganda wants people to do, just like how it redefines other terms. If you don't have a word for "Alien Overlord" in a world ruled by alien overlords, would you be able to imagine lack of them?
He doesn't.
I however do, and I have seen both for decades.
In particular, USSR had plenty of problems, and its destruction was a result of a rather complex process, however neither of those things are related to the fundamental ideas it was based upon. If anything, it was dissolved right after it got a good chance to start improving, because capitalism is incapable of applying advances in technology to industrial production until it runs out of desperate poor people.
You're not using the correct definition for irrational, then.
I do.
It's an interesting question if the right to life is a positive or negative right.
The difference between "positive" and "negative" rights is entirely artificial. Societies and governments have to both act in a certain ways, and avoid acting in some other ways to implement each of them regardless of the category.
don't be facile and confuse the two concepts as you're doing.
As I said, I do not recognize the distinction as anything meaningful in this context. It promotes interests of rich and powerful people who are more interested in the rest of society's inaction when they cause harm to others and use coercion based on their control over resources, organizations and social structures. Poor and powerless, on the other hand, require the rest of society to act to protect their interests -- proclaiming that society has no obligation to do so, deprives poor and powerless from their rights while protecting rich and powerful. This is immoral.
Really?
Outside of fundamentalists, maybe, I don't think you'd find any Christians supporting belief in contradictory or irrational things.
Belief in gods is irrational. It is not backed by anything other than folklore and wishful thinking.
For example, you might try to show that contradictions inherently arise from the belief that people have inherent value
Something does not have to contradict itself to be irrational. Self-contradictory statements are provably wrong, irrational ones are merely baseless speculation. While baseless speculation may happen to be true, it is still stupid to engage in it because there is no way to find out potential truth among virtually infinite number of other possible random claims.
As our Founding Fathers stated, inalienable rights absolutely do not mean that all governments recognize them, but rather that all governments should recognize them.
Your government refuses to provide medical treatment to people who need it to survive, and lets insurance companies to deny it. Even after both government and insurance companies taking those people's money over a lifetime, and even considering that both government and insurance companies have sufficient resources for such treatment. I wouldn't be able to invent a more anti-right-to-life policy if I tried.
Middle class = hundreds of millions of people.
Actual middle class starts at the level of small business owners. We are talking about socio-economic classes, not nebulous "ownership society" bullshit, right?
Pretty sure that's how banks work. They pretend to have money so they lend money out to people who give it to other people that put it in banks that lend it out again and the cycle continues.
FTFY. Creation of money should never ever be delegated to anything other than government's structures, working under clearly defined rules and operated by people who can't possibly benefit from any of this personally.
People doing most donating to charities are nowhere close to "regular people".
One can, if one is irrational. That's my point.
That's really a pot calling kettle black. Religious faith is irrational, it is even acknowledged by religious people (it is supposed to be dictated by moral obligation, not rationality).
Well, remind me to not live in whatever banana dictatorship you set up. I'd much rather live in a country where everyone ascribes to the idea that certain rights are inalienable, namely: life, liberty and property.
Life: people die all the time. Worse yet, people are frivolously deprived of things they need for life. Most societies, certainly US society, do not implement any meaningful protection for life no matter how easily achieved -- life is treated as a luxury and pretty much always was.
Liberty: that's tautology for "having rights recognized".
Property: Slavery is a form of property, and it was abolished, thus depriving all slave owners from most of what they had.
I repeat, rights are developed by society. They are not sacred and not absolute, they can be defined very, very wrong and often have to be rewritten as society develops.
Catholics, maybe. Certainly not "most Christians" world view.
As far as I know, Catholics outnumber all other Christian churches taken together, so they definitely qualify as "most Christians". Other Christian sects' beliefs are stupid and disgusting in other aspects, but "suffering is good" just takes the cake, placing the whole system of moral and ethics upside down.
Congratulations! You made a comment with everything in it completely wrong.
just because they avoid all of this design and testing, in service of getting the job done....
lol. Enjoy your "job done" wrong every time, and not even knowing it.
Sometimes. And sometimes atheism can can fall into that category, though not always. I've met atheists that hate God, and as a result refuse to believe in him.
No. One can't hate something that he does not believe to exist.
I hate the concept of god because it's absolutely idiotic, because it enslaves people, and because it is used to enslave people. That would be impossible if I have seen any validity in it. If I believed that god existed, it is possible that I would be opposed to him (just to give a fictional example Azathoth, Cthulhu, Hastur and friends are hardly sympathetic), but I would be by definition theist if I professed any relationship to any kind of god, even a fictional one.
At a more abstract level, there's a pragmatic value to religion, even if you set aside the problem of the existence of God. Most of us don't see the benefits of living in a Christian country, as it's a fish-in-the-water sort of thing. "Of course all countries should respect natural rights!" people will claim, without knowing why they believe that, or where the doctrine of natural rights comes from. (Hint: Enlightenment philosophy based on Christianity.)
Actually I find doctrine of natural rights to be stupid and dangerous. Rights are society's constructs developed in a complex historical process that has very little to do with folklore and mythology. Among other things, this process is fallible -- it is not guaranteed to produce eternal truths, and rights recognized by societies and governments must be under just as much scrutiny as all other aspects of societies' activity. False proclamations of rights being supported by deities lead to various God-Emperors, God-chosen races, God-blessed property rights over whole countries and populations, and other hideous crap.
The telling point is that atheists generally agree with the moral code of Christianity, for pretty much everything except when it comes to money and sex, and most Christians get the sex bits wrong. (The Bible doesn't prohibit premarital sex, for example, which drove Calvin crazy when founding his theocratic version of Geneva.)
The similarity is merely superficial. Atheists absolutely do not subscribe to the idea that suffering is a virtue, the idea at the core of most Christians' (Catholics) world view. Not because all atheists subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular idea about moral code but because this idea is blatantly idiotic in any context other than Christian mythology as interpreted by the most backwards demagogues who ever ever interpreted it.
And it is no longer socially acceptable because it was always immoral, turning trade into a game of mutual intimidation. Everyone must pay the same price for the same product.
Haggling is supposed to be acceptable when product is unusual, or it is known that the product is flawed, and a buyer for some unusual reason can accept it with such flaws.
There is a fundamental difference between rationality and lunacy that masquerades as rationality. Religion is firmly in the latter category.
You are still fundamentally wrong -- the look of fonts, or anything at all, is not any worse in GNOME 2 / GTK+ 2 compared to GNOME 3 / GTK+ 3. Composite window manager works just fine, however GNOME 2 did not make it mandatory out of the blue or made its core functionality dependent on it like GNOME 3 and Unity did.
Overall functionality of GNOME 2, especially considering the availability of applets and working window manager options, is far superior.
P.S. KDE is currently the only desktop I can use in 11.10, and it is also the only desktop that can be configured to resemble GNOME2 enough to be usable with my workflow. Of all things, KDE!
Because it breaks Compiz just as much as Gnome does. You select a window on some other viewport/desktop, and Compiz helpfully switches to a completely different viewport. Not to mention, Compiz un current Ubuntu is some kind of pre-alpha that flickers all windows every time a rotating cube switches a desktop (tne above problem was found by switching into "Desktop Wall" mode because otherwise it's a massive clusterfuck of flicker.
0. Why make everything in lists?
To keep track of in how many ways someone is wrong.
1. Then why does MATE look like shit compared to Gnome?
Either, you are blind, or you are noticing difference in composite window manager effects, and attribute them to fonts. Compositing works just fine under everything now, just not everyone enables it by default.
2. Yes, but you know what I mean.
Unless you mean "I have no idea what a UI toolkit is", I do not.
1. Font rendering in anything Gnome is all done by freetype regardless of the toolkit libraries.
2. fvwm is a window manager.
The Christian monks in the middle ages saved a lot of our pre-Dark Age history. They weren't paid very much to do it, but without them we wouldn't know half of what we do now about our history as a human race.
I would argue that we would be better off if we didn't. Selective preservation and endless translations/rewriting/interpretations given false authority to their ideas, and now world is still drowning in Christianity and its crap.
Legitimate research of ancient cultures was performed later, based on excavations and few verifiable original sources, monks contributed nothing to that.
a important
Supposed to be "all-important".
Rights are whatever government recognized as such. A belief that some "sacred" set of right is a important, and any amount of well-being of people can be sacrificed to preserve such "rights" is nothing but a propaganda formula that is used to distract people from real problems in their societies.