forgetting the costs associated with automobile use. on our air quality, our security (al qaeda is funded by petrodollars), on our quality of life (aren't traffic jams and long commutes wonderful?), etc
and also expect a bunch of comments bloviating about socialism and communism, when the costs we already have (air quality, security, etc) are socialized: you pay for them, in group ways rather than individual ways. it's a socialized cost, and its a more abstract, nonmonetary cost. so because such costs don't appear as line items on a tax statement, but instead in lung cancer rates, terrorist bombings, and lost hours commuting, certain minds that can't see the bigger more abstract picture will of course see the federal government imposing unfair costs on them for no reason (or contrived, propagandistic reasons)
this is simply a reflection that certain subpar minds can't engage in more subtle thinking. they can only hammer home oversimplifications in issues like this tax, and many other issues. unfortunately, such shrill narrow minds are always the loudest voices in the room
poster said exactly that people should stop being civil to each other. if you don't understand that, you don't understand "objectivism," you don't understand civility, or you don't understand both
you can't fault me for understanding the subject matter better than some morons saying really fucking stupid things about altruism and selfishness and not understanding at all what kind of basic human bonds their "philosophy" unravels
"Bat shit crazy thinking from very smart people is how many breakthroughs begin"
i agree 100%. and i am happy we both agree that string theory is bat shit crazy thinking and not science
you should also make note of the fact that for ever bat shit crazy theory that went on to become hard science, 100 more went nowhere. so i don't know why you are angry at me, for not giving respect, where none is yet due
certain people have always blindly accepted what was in front of them, and certain other people looked around and challenged their own assumptions. the proportion between these classes of people is innate, a random spread, a constant of the human condition. so it always was, so it is, so it always will be
therefore, string theory is indeed the ramblings of a stoner. a very intelligent, mathematical stoner, but completely useless to the realm of actual science nonetheless
i don't understand much of the math in string theory, but i do know it is not testable. therefore, string theory is nothing but mental masturbation of the sort mildly stoned college students engage in. of no more value to us who are interested in actual scientific efforts
you can't ask for civility towards your thinking when your thinking makes no room for civility
you do realize that what "objectivists" propose is the antithesis of that which bonds us together as a society?
therefore, to ask for the simple social bonds of consideration and respect to continue to flow towards you... at the same time you make efforts to undermine those same social bonds... that's a failure of logic on your part
you want me to be civil to you, as you propose that people stop being civil to each other (and this is where you say there is plenty of civility in the randroid universe, thereby demonstrating you have no idea what civility is)
it's just so hilarious, if it weren't for the fact so many morons take this low iq pap seriously
altruism and cooperation are investments without guarantee of return on investment. cooperation is not a bartering situation. nor does your effort to redefine trade to be a form of altruism do anything but prove you don't know a fucking thing about what you are talking about
hey genius: yes, you've told us how he got the info off the system. now you tell me WHY the info was on that system. i'll give you some time for your vast intelligence to come up with the answer you are now denying. the sharing. HERP DERP HURR DURR DERP DERP
i don't have any authority over you. i don't have anything to do with you, thank god. because you're clearly a spastic immature moron
how do i derive that judgment?
by how you inject completely unrelated paranoia about basic rights into the discussion. meaning: you're a moron, because you don't understand why the topic you are responding to has nothing to do with the topics you are discussing. your inability to keep track of the topic matter is a demonstration of your spastic unfocused mentality. the freewheeling and wide ranging nature of the vastly unconnected issues that bother you shows a scattershot and feeble mind at work
finally, you are immature. that's not an insult, that's a hope for you. because then you have some the possibility of some future mental growth ahead of you. or, if you are an adult, you're a paranoid schizophrenic hysteric, and you are beyond redemption. either way, you exist in complete loserville right now, deeply and debilitatingly concerned about issues you don't even understand the rudiments of
either way, go do some more drugs, get more paranoid, and fuck off, you rambling twit. your mind is nothing but useless annoying low iq diarrhea
if you don't lock your doors, and i go into your house and steal your jewelry, i'm innocent?
for not locking your doors, you're a fool. but for going into a house uninvited and taking what is clearly not mine, that makes me a thief, no matter how incompetent you are
if a woman is drunk in a bad neighborhood, does she deserve to be raped? by your understanding of how morality is supposed to work, it would seem so. your way of thinking is "blame the victim". you actually aren't alone in this cognitive failure. i see a lot of people who rationalize crime this way: "they didn't resist properly, they didn't have adequate security, therefore, they deserve what happened to them"... and, the perpetrator of the crime is innocent
no, that's not morality
look: if you place $100 on your front porch for all to see who walk by, yes, you are an idiot. but whomever goes on your porch and takes that $100 is a thief, plain and clear. he took what clearly wasn't his
the difference is the difference between stupidity and evil. you seem interested in condemning the stupid, and forgiving the evil. real morality is about forgiving the stupid, and prosecuting the evil
if you transgress against that which is not yours uninvited, you are immoral. it doesn't matter how much resistance or security is involved by the victim of your crime. that has nothing to do with judging you
in the same way, what manning did is wrong, and he deserves to be punished. this is an observation that exists completely independent of how incompetent the us government is
pfc manning disclosed diplomatic and military secrets
true or false?
"Classifying material that exposes corruption isn't protection of our secrets, it's censorship"
i agree 100%. i look forward to continued wikileaks on corporations. i wonder why you believe what manning did is only exposing corruption though, where you got this false impression
"it's censorship, no matter how you try to homogenize the data."
homogenizing the data in determining the heroicism/ villainy of what manning did seems to be your judgment failure sir, not mine
if you think corp intel should be released in the manning model, we have no argument. and i look forward to, for example, more wikileaks data of the type on the bank of america shenanigans
but if you think military or diplomatic intel should be released in the manning model, then yes, you're a fucking moron, and there is no possibility to respect your opinion, because you lack the cognitive ability to understand the dangers with releasing publicly this kind of info
unfortunately, what you written doesn't mean anything, because yes, the choice is between full public disclosure and secrecy. that's not a false dichotomy, that's the actual choice that was made with the pfc manning data dump
and i'm glad that pfc manning, all on his own, made the judgment that the usa's secrets needed to be aired. i'm certain the dude's judgment was impeccable.
pffffffffffffft
are you telling me the us ambassador to, for example, malaysia can't be frank in his or her appraisals of the malaysian government and its personalities? he or she has to be careful what he or she says? because a transparency in diplomatic pouches means that the ambassador can't speak honestly about his or findings, out of fear of offending the government of malaysia?
and you support it when some junior analyst goes "the ambassador said WHAT about the malaysian PM? omg, TMZ has to hear about this! to wikileaks! lol"
really? you support that judgment call? because that's exactly what this asshole manning did
how in any way is this sort of transparency superior? you really want you to defend your characterization of what manning did as somehow better for the usa and the world?
obviously, secrets are far superior in the realm of military, diplomacy, terrorism, war. do you understand that or not? this doesn't mean i think that some congresscritters shady deal with xyz corp should be a secret. and i welcome wikileaks leaking corp espionage
but i unfortunately get the impression a lot of teenaged idiots out there actually believe in government transparency to a ridiculous extent. they celebrate what pfc manning did, thinking it was a blow against corruption. no, he hurt diplomatic and war time efforts. if you don't understand how or why what pfc manning did hurt the usa, hurt you, you are a naive idealistic teenaged idiot, even if you are chronologically an adult
let's get into this: are you saying the us ambassador to, for example, malaysia can't be frank in his or her appraisals of the malaysian government and its personalities? he or she has to be careful what he or she says? because a transparency in diplomatic pouches means that the ambassador can't speak honestly about his or findings, out of fear of offending the government of malaysia
how in any way is this sort of transparency superior?
obviously, secrets are far superior in the realm of military, diplomacy, terrorism, war. this doesn't mean i think that some congresscritters shady deal with xyz corp should be a secret. and i welcome wikileaks leaking corp espionage
but i unfortunately get the impression a lot of teenaged idiots out there actually believe in government transparency to a ridiculous extent. they celebrate what pfc manning did, thinking it was a blow against corruption. no, he hurt diplomatic and war time efforts. if you don't understand how or why what pfc manning did hurt the usa, hurt you, you are a naive idealistic teenaged idiot, even if you are chronologically an adult
"i'm sure wikileaks will find a few more government info gems. and i actually welcome wikileaks in the realm of corporate intel and nonmilitary government secrets. but when it comes to terrorism intel, wikileaks is a disaster, and may even contribute to the next terrorist attack succeeding"
are you trying to say no war intel was in the pfc manning wikileaks? a lot of it was military intel/ war intel/ terrorism intel
also a lot of state dept intel
so let's get into this: are you saying the us ambassador to, for example, malaysia can't be frank in his or her appraisals of the malaysian government and its personalities? he or she has to be careful what he or she says? because a transparency in diplomatic pouches means that either the ambassador can't speak honestly about his or findings, out of fear of offending the government of malaysia
how in any way is this sort of transparency superior?
obviously, secrets are far superior in the realm of military, diplomacy, terrorism, war. this doesn't mean i think that some congresscritters shady deal with xyz corp should be a secret. and i welcome wikileaks leaking corp espionage
but i unfortunately get the impression a lot of teenaged idiots out there actually believe in government transparency to a ridiculous extent. they celebrate what pfc manning did, thinking it was a blow against corruption. no, he hurt diplomatic and war time efforts. if you don't understand how or why what pfc manning did hurt the usa, hurt you, you are a teenaged idiot, even if you are chronologically an adult
wikileaks, in regard to the big pfc manning data dump, was a one time event only
the huge size of sensitive info depended upon a government policy that encouraged information sharing between departments. this allowed pfc manning to get access to the data
so now, due to the wikileaks embarrassment, we have government departments adjusting their policies, discouraging information sharing and keeping their info segregated
that's a shame, because the more open sharing policy was a result of 9/11, which showed that departments not sharing data contributed to the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen
so, thanks to wikileaks leading to a decrease in information sharing between departments, maybe we'll have another intelligence failure that will lead to another 9/11
isn't wikileaks wonderful?
i know a lot of teenagers and adults with immature teenaged mentalities thinks government secrets are pure evil, but guess what: when it comes to fighting terrorism, they are absolutely necessary. for example: do you think bin laden would be alive or dead right now if the intel that led to him were more widely available?
people really have to grow up and understand that government secrets are actually a good thing. all teenaged idealism to the contrary
i'm sure wikileaks will find a few more government info gems. and i actually welcome wikileaks in the realm of corporate intel and nonmilitary government secrets. but when it comes to terrorism intel, wikileaks is a disaster, and may even contribute to the next terrorist attack succeeding
Slashdot Mirror
altruism (which randroids stand against)
civility (which you say randroids don't stand against)
someday, hopefully not the hard way, you will learn that altruism and civility are the same human impulse
any other intellectual charity i can help you with today?
forgetting the costs associated with automobile use. on our air quality, our security (al qaeda is funded by petrodollars), on our quality of life (aren't traffic jams and long commutes wonderful?), etc
and also expect a bunch of comments bloviating about socialism and communism, when the costs we already have (air quality, security, etc) are socialized: you pay for them, in group ways rather than individual ways. it's a socialized cost, and its a more abstract, nonmonetary cost. so because such costs don't appear as line items on a tax statement, but instead in lung cancer rates, terrorist bombings, and lost hours commuting, certain minds that can't see the bigger more abstract picture will of course see the federal government imposing unfair costs on them for no reason (or contrived, propagandistic reasons)
this is simply a reflection that certain subpar minds can't engage in more subtle thinking. they can only hammer home oversimplifications in issues like this tax, and many other issues. unfortunately, such shrill narrow minds are always the loudest voices in the room
poster said exactly that people should stop being civil to each other. if you don't understand that, you don't understand "objectivism," you don't understand civility, or you don't understand both
you can't fault me for understanding the subject matter better than some morons saying really fucking stupid things about altruism and selfishness and not understanding at all what kind of basic human bonds their "philosophy" unravels
"it's hard to test, but some tests have been put forth"
uh... really?
name one
and i mean a test for string theory itself, not tangential subject matter
"Bat shit crazy thinking from very smart people is how many breakthroughs begin"
i agree 100%. and i am happy we both agree that string theory is bat shit crazy thinking and not science
you should also make note of the fact that for ever bat shit crazy theory that went on to become hard science, 100 more went nowhere. so i don't know why you are angry at me, for not giving respect, where none is yet due
that never existed in the first place
"some of us no longer see the world as human beings have for thousands of years and simply accept whatever our gadgets show us"
LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind
certain people have always blindly accepted what was in front of them, and certain other people looked around and challenged their own assumptions. the proportion between these classes of people is innate, a random spread, a constant of the human condition. so it always was, so it is, so it always will be
technology is not changing essential human nature
not science
nothing about it is testable
therefore, string theory is indeed the ramblings of a stoner. a very intelligent, mathematical stoner, but completely useless to the realm of actual science nonetheless
i don't understand much of the math in string theory, but i do know it is not testable. therefore, string theory is nothing but mental masturbation of the sort mildly stoned college students engage in. of no more value to us who are interested in actual scientific efforts
look at my hands... our hands, human hands... did you ever actually look at your hands before? no i mean, really LOOK at them?
that i can never tell the difference between cosmology and the ramblings of a stoner?
you can't ask for civility towards your thinking when your thinking makes no room for civility
you do realize that what "objectivists" propose is the antithesis of that which bonds us together as a society?
therefore, to ask for the simple social bonds of consideration and respect to continue to flow towards you... at the same time you make efforts to undermine those same social bonds... that's a failure of logic on your part
you want me to be civil to you, as you propose that people stop being civil to each other (and this is where you say there is plenty of civility in the randroid universe, thereby demonstrating you have no idea what civility is)
it's just so hilarious, if it weren't for the fact so many morons take this low iq pap seriously
altruism and cooperation are investments without guarantee of return on investment. cooperation is not a bartering situation. nor does your effort to redefine trade to be a form of altruism do anything but prove you don't know a fucking thing about what you are talking about
hey genius: yes, you've told us how he got the info off the system. now you tell me WHY the info was on that system. i'll give you some time for your vast intelligence to come up with the answer you are now denying. the sharing. HERP DERP HURR DURR DERP DERP
this is apparently a common ridiculous delusion
that the motivations of OBL is somehow the fault of the usa, or some other government
that his motivations are never the fault of gee, i dunno, maybe they are the fault of OBL?
wha?! nonunimpossible!
pffffffffft
i don't have any authority over you. i don't have anything to do with you, thank god. because you're clearly a spastic immature moron
how do i derive that judgment?
by how you inject completely unrelated paranoia about basic rights into the discussion. meaning: you're a moron, because you don't understand why the topic you are responding to has nothing to do with the topics you are discussing. your inability to keep track of the topic matter is a demonstration of your spastic unfocused mentality. the freewheeling and wide ranging nature of the vastly unconnected issues that bother you shows a scattershot and feeble mind at work
finally, you are immature. that's not an insult, that's a hope for you. because then you have some the possibility of some future mental growth ahead of you. or, if you are an adult, you're a paranoid schizophrenic hysteric, and you are beyond redemption. either way, you exist in complete loserville right now, deeply and debilitatingly concerned about issues you don't even understand the rudiments of
either way, go do some more drugs, get more paranoid, and fuck off, you rambling twit. your mind is nothing but useless annoying low iq diarrhea
i don't understand what you are trying to say
if you don't lock your doors, and i go into your house and steal your jewelry, i'm innocent?
for not locking your doors, you're a fool. but for going into a house uninvited and taking what is clearly not mine, that makes me a thief, no matter how incompetent you are
if a woman is drunk in a bad neighborhood, does she deserve to be raped? by your understanding of how morality is supposed to work, it would seem so. your way of thinking is "blame the victim". you actually aren't alone in this cognitive failure. i see a lot of people who rationalize crime this way: "they didn't resist properly, they didn't have adequate security, therefore, they deserve what happened to them"... and, the perpetrator of the crime is innocent
no, that's not morality
look: if you place $100 on your front porch for all to see who walk by, yes, you are an idiot. but whomever goes on your porch and takes that $100 is a thief, plain and clear. he took what clearly wasn't his
the difference is the difference between stupidity and evil. you seem interested in condemning the stupid, and forgiving the evil. real morality is about forgiving the stupid, and prosecuting the evil
if you transgress against that which is not yours uninvited, you are immoral. it doesn't matter how much resistance or security is involved by the victim of your crime. that has nothing to do with judging you
in the same way, what manning did is wrong, and he deserves to be punished. this is an observation that exists completely independent of how incompetent the us government is
pfc manning disclosed diplomatic and military secrets
true or false?
"Classifying material that exposes corruption isn't protection of our secrets, it's censorship"
i agree 100%. i look forward to continued wikileaks on corporations. i wonder why you believe what manning did is only exposing corruption though, where you got this false impression
"it's censorship, no matter how you try to homogenize the data."
homogenizing the data in determining the heroicism/ villainy of what manning did seems to be your judgment failure sir, not mine
OBL did what he did because of OBL. not because of the USA
how are OBL's motivations the fault of the usa?
it depends.
if you think corp intel should be released in the manning model, we have no argument. and i look forward to, for example, more wikileaks data of the type on the bank of america shenanigans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/13/bank-of-america-leak-anonymous-wikileaks_n_835185.html
but if you think military or diplomatic intel should be released in the manning model, then yes, you're a fucking moron, and there is no possibility to respect your opinion, because you lack the cognitive ability to understand the dangers with releasing publicly this kind of info
i refer to the stereotypical immature naive teenaged mentality, and you show up on cue as example A
that was some nice rhetoric
unfortunately, what you written doesn't mean anything, because yes, the choice is between full public disclosure and secrecy. that's not a false dichotomy, that's the actual choice that was made with the pfc manning data dump
and i'm glad that pfc manning, all on his own, made the judgment that the usa's secrets needed to be aired. i'm certain the dude's judgment was impeccable.
pffffffffffffft
are you telling me the us ambassador to, for example, malaysia can't be frank in his or her appraisals of the malaysian government and its personalities? he or she has to be careful what he or she says? because a transparency in diplomatic pouches means that the ambassador can't speak honestly about his or findings, out of fear of offending the government of malaysia?
and you support it when some junior analyst goes "the ambassador said WHAT about the malaysian PM? omg, TMZ has to hear about this! to wikileaks! lol"
really? you support that judgment call? because that's exactly what this asshole manning did
how in any way is this sort of transparency superior? you really want you to defend your characterization of what manning did as somehow better for the usa and the world?
obviously, secrets are far superior in the realm of military, diplomacy, terrorism, war. do you understand that or not? this doesn't mean i think that some congresscritters shady deal with xyz corp should be a secret. and i welcome wikileaks leaking corp espionage
but i unfortunately get the impression a lot of teenaged idiots out there actually believe in government transparency to a ridiculous extent. they celebrate what pfc manning did, thinking it was a blow against corruption. no, he hurt diplomatic and war time efforts. if you don't understand how or why what pfc manning did hurt the usa, hurt you, you are a naive idealistic teenaged idiot, even if you are chronologically an adult
let's get into this: are you saying the us ambassador to, for example, malaysia can't be frank in his or her appraisals of the malaysian government and its personalities? he or she has to be careful what he or she says? because a transparency in diplomatic pouches means that the ambassador can't speak honestly about his or findings, out of fear of offending the government of malaysia
how in any way is this sort of transparency superior?
obviously, secrets are far superior in the realm of military, diplomacy, terrorism, war. this doesn't mean i think that some congresscritters shady deal with xyz corp should be a secret. and i welcome wikileaks leaking corp espionage
but i unfortunately get the impression a lot of teenaged idiots out there actually believe in government transparency to a ridiculous extent. they celebrate what pfc manning did, thinking it was a blow against corruption. no, he hurt diplomatic and war time efforts. if you don't understand how or why what pfc manning did hurt the usa, hurt you, you are a naive idealistic teenaged idiot, even if you are chronologically an adult
you see i write at the bottom:
"i'm sure wikileaks will find a few more government info gems. and i actually welcome wikileaks in the realm of corporate intel and nonmilitary government secrets. but when it comes to terrorism intel, wikileaks is a disaster, and may even contribute to the next terrorist attack succeeding"
are you trying to say no war intel was in the pfc manning wikileaks? a lot of it was military intel/ war intel/ terrorism intel
also a lot of state dept intel
so let's get into this: are you saying the us ambassador to, for example, malaysia can't be frank in his or her appraisals of the malaysian government and its personalities? he or she has to be careful what he or she says? because a transparency in diplomatic pouches means that either the ambassador can't speak honestly about his or findings, out of fear of offending the government of malaysia
how in any way is this sort of transparency superior?
obviously, secrets are far superior in the realm of military, diplomacy, terrorism, war. this doesn't mean i think that some congresscritters shady deal with xyz corp should be a secret. and i welcome wikileaks leaking corp espionage
but i unfortunately get the impression a lot of teenaged idiots out there actually believe in government transparency to a ridiculous extent. they celebrate what pfc manning did, thinking it was a blow against corruption. no, he hurt diplomatic and war time efforts. if you don't understand how or why what pfc manning did hurt the usa, hurt you, you are a teenaged idiot, even if you are chronologically an adult
wikileaks, in regard to the big pfc manning data dump, was a one time event only
the huge size of sensitive info depended upon a government policy that encouraged information sharing between departments. this allowed pfc manning to get access to the data
so now, due to the wikileaks embarrassment, we have government departments adjusting their policies, discouraging information sharing and keeping their info segregated
that's a shame, because the more open sharing policy was a result of 9/11, which showed that departments not sharing data contributed to the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen
so, thanks to wikileaks leading to a decrease in information sharing between departments, maybe we'll have another intelligence failure that will lead to another 9/11
isn't wikileaks wonderful?
i know a lot of teenagers and adults with immature teenaged mentalities thinks government secrets are pure evil, but guess what: when it comes to fighting terrorism, they are absolutely necessary. for example: do you think bin laden would be alive or dead right now if the intel that led to him were more widely available?
people really have to grow up and understand that government secrets are actually a good thing. all teenaged idealism to the contrary
i'm sure wikileaks will find a few more government info gems. and i actually welcome wikileaks in the realm of corporate intel and nonmilitary government secrets. but when it comes to terrorism intel, wikileaks is a disaster, and may even contribute to the next terrorist attack succeeding
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdong
is this website run by someone named Commander Meat Taco?