Global warming supporters lose a lot of credibility when they turn a blind eye to these situations. When there's a string of severe winter storms, you see reports about how this is really global warming. When you see a hot winter, you don't get "Calm down, this is a fluke", you just get silence.
Keep in mind the global warming predictions are things like "1 degree Celsius in 20 years", not "January 2013 will be 50 degrees hotter than normal!!!!!"
I'm going to stick with the idea that respecting people as human beings is the way to go.
That only gets you so far. It leads to countless problems when different people have different ideas -- you can't always respect both (especially when they have different ideas of what 'respect' means), so you need some other criteria to determine which to respect and which to throw under the bus.
If people don't want to be described as religious because they're not, then it's rude to still call them religious.
I agree with that, but any time you've got contrasting belief systems there's the potential for rudeness.
Not many atheists would stop an 80 year old grandma coming out of a church and start arguing with her about her faith until she starts crying. That's not decent. On the internet though, there's a different standard. I don't see why the suggestion that atheism is a religion is more rude than atheists' suggestion that Christianity is bullshit. The de facto rule is if you're offended, stop reading the thread.
Since it's generally done as some sort of attack, atheists generally are especially sensitive to it. So, if you insist on it, you're just being rude.
I agree with you, but from my perspective as someone who has from time to time put forward the idea that atheism is a religion, you're completely missing out on the rudeness of atheists as well. And in this particular case, the original poster who said atheism is a belief system was *certainly* not phrasing it as an attack:
One could argue that, historically, atheism is the most persecuted belief system still in practice. It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.
That gets an anonymous reply of:
"Atheism is a belief system" is a definition born of an American cultural background. Since theism is the majority position (86%), the distinction between strong disbelief in make-believe beings Vs. mere indifference in same, is given exaggerated importance.
Now let me ask... honestly.. which do you consider more rude? The guy who said atheists are persecuted for their beliefs, or the guy who calls God "make-believe" (alluding to a child-like level of thought) rather than using a more respectful term? I mean even hardcore atheists are allowed to say "God" or "gods" instead of using phrases intending to belittle the opposition.
I know you said "generally", not necessarily meaning this specific instance, but there must be a reason you brought it up -- why would you want to dampen a discussion that is not rude if your only wish is for people to not be rude.
I knew it wouldn't be about you, that's why I added the "not to the same level." It's like 50-50 odds on the internet that the person whining about others not paying taxes is themselves pretty well off and is "happy to pay" because you're so morally pure and all that garbage.
You're richer than me, congrats, and you think you're a better person, double score!
By the way, fuck you for dragging in those tired old political talking points.
By the way, fuck you? nice
Sure I may use phrases like "taxes are taken at gun point" because they convey a lot that is previously understood by both of us without me having to explain it all. But I'm not just regurgitating talking points. They have meaning that I felt was appropriate to the situation.
Apple used public resources to get rich. They owe it to the public to pay to keep those resources available. Try to get over your all-consuming sense of greed, and understand that.
Greed, do you even listen to yourself? You're the one who is a millionaire (or soon to be with that income) and yet you're still envious of those richer than you or those getting a "free ride" by not paying their "fair share".
It's funny if you didn't overhear the beginning bit about Apple, people would think you're a greedy conservative who is complaining about the poor. Quite funny, really.
I have to point out the difference between public resources like oil or fresh water versus human labor and ingenuity. Some companies really do take the resources of a country in a way that means they are unavailable for use by others. Like Exxon. Apple doesn't do that and you're using bullshit rhetoric. They didn't deprive you or anyone else or make it so you don't have the same opportunities as they have.
By the way, awesome how you focused on like 3 phrases that pissed you off and ignored every point I was trying to make. You have nothing to say about the idea of buying their stock to profit cooperatively, or the idea that all the support in the world is worthless if nobody builds a success on top of it? You won't pitch the idea that the government should buy 30% of Apple's stock if they want 30% of Apple's profits, kind of like how China operates?
It's disappointing really. You're like.. a rich guy who wastes his time trolling on slashdot?
Frank Hanzlik, the current managing director for the Wi-Fi Alliance, was not at the meetings where the Interbrand names were discussed, but he was a member of WECA and he is now entrusted with protecting and perpetuating the Wi-Fi brand. He confirms that "wireless fidelity" has no meaning, is not part of the trademark, and is not used or encouraged to be used by the Wi-Fi Alliance. However, he feels no need to aggressively correct those who use it, since what's most important to his organization is simply that "Wi-Fi" continues to be a household name.
"In the very early days of building the brand, there was a linkage to the hi-fi chronology," says Hanzlik. "It was successful in creating a positive connotation of what that could mean to a user. Over the last seven years, the term Wi-Fi has become quite ubiquitous in the developed part of the world. We just try to keep it simple and use only Wi-Fi."
"We declared victory when we made the Merriam-Webster dictionary," says Hanzlik. "Now we encourage everyone to use Wi-Fi versus 'wireless LAN,' because it resonates more with folks -- but we do enforce the Wi-Fi Certified and the Wi-Fi Alliance brands and logos."
So they had no problem with people using wi-fi incorrectly, assigning it an incorrect meaning, or any desire to prevent it from becoming a common word in the dictionary, or a household name (which I think is pretty close to saying generic). I mean he's even saying "just use wi-fi instead of wireless lan." Okay... that's like kleenex saying "Just say kleenex instead of tissue paper" and then getting mad when people use kleenex to refer to tissue paper. All they care about was "wi-fi certified" and "wi-fi alliance". Well, nobody called it super "wi-fi certified".
—used to certify the interoperability of wireless computer networking devices
Doesn't even mention 802.11a/b/g/n.. just wireless. Based on that definition, any wireless networking standard can call itself wi-fi. That's just plain English at this point, and that was endorsed by the wifi alliance just a few years ago.
But that's ignoring the developments that would happen if everybody has symmetric 1gbps (for instance) connections.
I bet you'd have local mirrors of a lot of content.
I bet http would be altered or new protocols would arise that were more bittorrent like to take advantage of nearby unused bandwidth.
In fact years ago I knew someone who lived in Russia whose town had super fast internet but fairly crappy international transfers. So their ISPs gave everybody FTP accounts and shared FTP spaces... and most of the "heavy users" who were pirating songs and movies got it locally. Problem solved.
Yeah I understand your argument but you're acting like one half is more important than the other.
There's a reason Apple is making billions of dollars and you're not. You both have the advantage of American prosperity and stability. But they made it and you didn't (not to the same level). And yet you want your "piece" of their success.. and the only thing you did to earn it is to be born into this backdrop of prosperity and stability which you have very little responsibility for. So why do you deserve anything more than the same opportunity that the people high up in Apple have? And you already have that opportunity because you live here, you don't need to steal their money to have it.
Even this late in the game you could get a piece of the action by working for them or buying a tiny amount of their stock.
Let's do some calcs.. you said $1.8 billion, divided by 300 million, that's $6 per person. How many shares of Apple would you need to buy to get that same $6 legitimately and morally, not by just taking it from them at gunpoint? Well probably about 1 share the way their price has been appreciating, you'll get more than $6 per quarter.
But nope, that's not good enough for you! They "owe" it to you, because they happen to benefit from American prosperity (just like you).
You know, I can totally get on board with this sense of entitlement. I'll do you one better. China's economy is heavily dependent on American wealth.. so they owe their success to us too. In fact we should own like 60% of China. Africa takes a bunch of aid money from us, I propose a 75% tax for everybody in Africa, payable to us.
Btw this is exactly why so many left wing movements evolve into fascism, from unions to communist regimes. Turns out everybody owes you everything, and you and your buddies are just the men to make them pay their fair share. Screw freedom, it's wealth that makes us all happy and successful.
Why would you say that? It's not at all obvious. As an example, in the US we currently call non-white folk "minorities" but nobody would say that "minority" is a skin color.
What traits do minorities share? Certainly not color. So you wouldn't say "minority" is an answer to a set of questions about skin color. So you're right, nobody would say that.
I think you're confusing my argument. I'm not saying there's some logical reason why anything not-X is actually X. That's dumb. I'm saying if the language is using atheism in the same sense that it's using other religious beliefs, then atheism is a religious belief. Nobody in the real world is using minority as a skin color, so your example doesn't fit my argument in the slightest.
A better example would be if some people had clear skin, i.e. no skin color. People would ask "What is your skin color" and they would say "Clear." So my argument is that "clear" would become a skin color, even though it's not a color, because of how it's used in language.
It's you that needs to be more careful with words. Atheism is a religion only as far as say, polytheism is a religion, which it isn't.
What did I do wrong? Anyway would you agree that if not a religion, polytheism is at least a religious conviction? And so is atheism?
I think you don't have the right to define yourself and make other people use your words when they think about you.
For instance citizens of Canada may call themselves citizens but citizens of America may call citizens of Canada foreigners. They don't get to say "that's self-centered, we are citizens just like you" etc. It's just the way it is.
You yourself seem like you would agree that it would be ridiculous to define everyone as having a religion if only say, 5% of people had an actual religion and the rest of the world never really thought about it. Why is it any less ridiculous when 95% of people have a religion?
I believe that's how language and the human mind works. If people put atheism in the same category as religion, then it is a religion, even if they're "wrong" in some technical sense that only a few people believe in.
"No, one is the absence of belief, one is the belief in nothing. It makes no sense!!!! You can't believe in nothing, it's not there to be believed in!" --There you go, you can't believe in nothing (well, some forms of nihilists believe in nothing in an almost religious way, but most don't). Lack of belief is not a religion.
The guy who doesn't understand that "owning zero horses" is equivalent to "not owning horses" is wrong though! Surely you agree that you can in fact own zero horses, and people who insist on saying "no, you just don't own horses" are being stupid.
The only reason Apple exists is because they made great products, not because of what you did for them. Do you think American prosperity doesn't depend on successful businesses as much as successful businesses depend on American prosperity?
Yes, people do not identify themselves by their stamp collecting habits. That was my point! That's why the original quote was clever but useless.
People do identify themselves as atheists though. They use the term as a collection of answers to questions about beliefs -- thus they are a set of beliefs.
Saying their answers don't constitute a religious conviction (unlike the other common sets of answers) is stupid. It's a lack of ability to separate language constructs from what the constructs represent. I think it must be related to whatever causes people to have trouble with negatives and double negatives as well. It's also like the transition to a number system including zero... at some point most people understand that you can HAVE zero things, and it means the same thing as NOT HAVING things. Other people don't get it.
"I own zero horses."
"I'm confused.. I think you meant to say you do not own horses."
"Well yeah that's the same thing."
"No, one is the absence of ownership, one is the ownership of nothing. It makes no sense!!!! You can't own nothing, it's not there to be owned!"
You say there's no point in believing unfalsifiable claims, but do you really mean that? It seems like it cuts out a huge swath of normal human activity.
In what sense is the belief that men and women/should/ earn equal pay for equal work falsifiable?
How about the belief that a woman has the/right/ to choose? Falsifiable or not?
Seems like you would have a very restricted set of beliefs, all based on readily observable physical phenomena. No higher level human function.
Then there's the question of whether falsifiability does any good if you're unwilling to do the actual falsification. Do you believe your cat is alive? Have you killed it to find out? If your nature prevents you from investigating those questions they might as well be unfalsifiable.
Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That's catchy but pointless.
We don't have a commonly used word that describes the state of not collecting stamps, or a word that describes people who avoid collecting stamps. People don't identify themselves as not-stamp-collectors.
If we did... it would in fact be a hobby.
It's just the way language works. You can't fight it. Atheists who beat this horse to death just sound stupid. Atheism is a religious conviction because it's in the same class of answers as all the other religious convictions. It's why black is considered a color by most even when some people define it as the absence of color. Others consider white the absence of color, yet white is also a color in the broader population. Some see white or black as the presence of all "real" colors. Why is that? Hmm so mysterious! Not really.
It's like this. "What do I see? I'm calling that orange. Oh what's that? Hmm, I'll call it mauve. Oh look, when I mix it all together I get what I call white/black. So all my positive answers to the question of what I see should have a common name so I can refer to them generally... since I can see white and interpret it in my mind just like how I see red or green or dull pink, they are the same kind of thing, I'll call that color." And thus we have colors that are really not-colors or all-colors.
And religions that are really not-religions or all-religions.
I think on some level atheists understand the language roots of why people call them a religion, but they refuse to acknowledge it because they don't want to be *associated* with other religions..
A: I'm an a-leprechaunist. B: So you mean.. you *believe* leprechauns don't exist. A: NO GODDAMNIT YOU IDIOT IT'S NOT A BELIEF IT'S A LACK OF BELIEF GET IT STRAIGHT ARGHGHGHHGG.
Normal person:
A: I'm an a-leprechaunist. B: So you mean.. you *believe* leprechauns don't exist. A: Yeah that's right.
How stupid it is to get all worked up about belief vs. lack of belief about something you don't even believe in anyway.
Maybe it wants people in China to be wealthy enough to buy its products. There are more of them after all.
The only argument to be made is the America-for-Americans argument, not anything about their global economic interests. It's rather obvious that moving things to China is in their economic interest both short term and long term.
If I, as a private citizen, were to hide taxable income off-shore in order to avoid paying taxes on it, I would be jailed for Income Tax evasion.
I don't think that's right. From what I recall, you can avoid paying taxes on the income you earned abroad as long as you don't try to bring the money into the country and spend it domestically.
Up to $46 million will be saved in taxes. How many employees do you think they will create with that $46 million dollar break? And if the taxes are paying the employees salaries, why the hell doesn't the state just employ them directly and put them to work doing something that benefits the public directly, and not a billion dollar corporation?
Simple, the difference is between a tax break and an expenditure. If Apple didn't build the plant there, they wouldn't get the $46 million anyway, plus they wouldn't have the extra jobs.
I think men from western cultures aren't upset about women, but about authoritarian approaches to furthering women at the expense of men. Which makes perfect sense when you're from a culture that values equality.
In my experience, women from non-western cultures are much more likely to be involved in computers and math than women from western cultures. The difference seems, to me, to be that non-western women take it for what it is. They don't want the whole computer industry to change to accommodate them, they are willing to change to accommodate it. That means being nerdy and uncool sometimes, or putting in long hours and sacrificing a bit of family if you're talking about work instead of school.
Sure we can't properly define intelligence, but there are enough tests with racial differences in achievement that the results point to a difference in intelligence. There are enough tests that taken in total, most people would look at them and say in most cases they correlate well with intelligence. Yeah you'll get the 1 in a million who is clearly a genius but fails every test.. that's probably statistically insignificant. So why aren't the existing tests good enough? It seems a case of arguing from a conclusion that you don't like -- one refuses to believe race impacts intelligence, so every test that shows a racial difference is not really measuring intelligence.
People say we can't properly define race either, but I don't buy that. Self-identification seems good enough. Just guessing but probably 95% of self-assessments meet with 95% approval from a random sample of others. In other words, you don't find many people who self-identify as white who are not identified by others as white. Why isn't that good enough?
Surely there's a rigorous approach to dealing statistics on things that are poorly defined but on which there is widespread "fuzzy" agreement. There's got to be, I just don't know the proper name for it.
Would that be the reaction where all the white Democrats switched to the Republican ticket and Obama lost?
Or the reaction where all the white Republicans didn't like a black Democratic president? Just like how all the white Democrats didn't like the previous white Republican president?
Nuclear is expensive here because of environmental and legal concerns. It could well be a completely different animal in more liberal countries that are willing to take on higher risks.
He just described to me how the non-Union guys at his work got a pay cut so the Union guys could get a pay raise. He didn't even notice the company was pitting the non-Union against the Union, let alone ask why BOTH groups didn't get a raise...
Do you really think it was the company's idea to do that, and not the union's? That seems unlikely.
The only way to win is not to play. Don't have children. If you do; only have one.
It's the total opposite. The only way to win is to have more children and make them good citizens who care about each other.
Really? You believe that the government shouldn't step in to ensure fairness when a free-market isn't available?
Forcing people to engage with other people isn't fair, it's practically rape.
It seems like you must have never faced much discrimination in your life.
And I haven't discriminated against others much in my life. Most people are in this boat. What's your point? The example of the doctor who doesn't perform abortions isn't discrimination at all. He's not saying "I won't perform this abortion because you're black" he just doesn't do it period.
And with the gas station example, where maybe it is discrimination, it's so minor that it's hard to distinguish between it and non-discrimination. What if the gas station isn't open on Sunday, but you're there on Sunday? Should gas stations be forced to be open 24 hours / 7 days a week? What if it's Christmas, should all gas stations be open on Christmas?
What if the gas station owner isn't discriminating based on race, but he just doesn't like you? What if you ran over his dog and then he's like "I'm not selling you gas?" What about if the customer is the racist and he says stuff like "Hey n* boy, fill up my car" and the owner refuses?
All those examples seem justified to me, and they all have the same conclusion as when the owner is discriminating -- you don't get gas. So yeah I don't see the point in passing a law to address the 1/1000000 chance that the gas station owner doesn't sell you gas and he's the only one around for 150 miles when those other situations are just as likely, just as disruptive, and legal.
Quartering of troops is one of those things especially enshrined in the Constitution, and really isn't relevant.
The whole point of that is that the government isn't allowed to compel you and your family to personally engage with strangers, even in a time of great need (i.e. war). I don't see how it could be any more relevant.
If you are the only provider of a service in an area, it is only fair that you should be required by law to provide that service as fairly and equitably as possible.
What's your reasoning though? Fairness is surely about more than race. Why is it fair that some people have money and can pay for that service but others don't? What about children of poor vs rich, why should they get to fly to Europe and see castles, while poor kids can't? Should airlines provide free flights out of fairness?
It just doesn't make sense. You're talking about fighting all of human civilization and human nature.
I'm not contradicting myself at all. It's prudent advice that people in general ought to be cautious when they're out and about.
You're suggesting people should be shielded from information about whether an area is bad, and then make up for it by being cautious everywhere. But that means one of two things: 1. They are medium-cautious, which is more than necessary for good areas and less than necessary for bad areas 2. They are always as cautious as if they were in a bad area
The first doesn't do much good for the person, the second doesn't do much good for the community.
There are few neighborhoods out there that are so dangerous that you shouldn't ever go there or drive through there in the US.
I agree with you, but those few bad neighborhoods are often in large cities -- the kinds of cities people visit. If the app warns (or doesn't) people away from a two block area of Waterloo, Iowa, nobody is going to notice or care. But how about New York City? I've visited it twice but mainly stayed in Manhattan. Does Manhattan even have any bad parts? I don't know. I would walk right into one and have no idea unless something happened to me. I suspect the other boroughs do have bad areas, though. In fact I was going to go to an Indian restaurant in Jackson Heights but my friend heard Jackson Heights was one of these bad neighborhoods to be avoided. So we didn't go. Now is ALL of it bad? Or could this app have enabled us to go and enjoy ourselves without worrying about going down the wrong street.
Maybe we have different ideas of what "being cautious" means. When you say to be cautious, which I like to think I am, that means that if I heard an area is bad, I don't even go there. You seem to think it means go there and have fun and spend money, but have enough situational awareness that nonetheless nothing happens to you. I think you're overestimating people.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming supporters lose a lot of credibility when they turn a blind eye to these situations. When there's a string of severe winter storms, you see reports about how this is really global warming. When you see a hot winter, you don't get "Calm down, this is a fluke", you just get silence.
Keep in mind the global warming predictions are things like "1 degree Celsius in 20 years", not "January 2013 will be 50 degrees hotter than normal!!!!!"
Sorry for the late response.
I'm going to stick with the idea that respecting people as human beings is the way to go.
That only gets you so far. It leads to countless problems when different people have different ideas -- you can't always respect both (especially when they have different ideas of what 'respect' means), so you need some other criteria to determine which to respect and which to throw under the bus.
If people don't want to be described as religious because they're not, then it's rude to still call them religious.
I agree with that, but any time you've got contrasting belief systems there's the potential for rudeness.
Not many atheists would stop an 80 year old grandma coming out of a church and start arguing with her about her faith until she starts crying. That's not decent. On the internet though, there's a different standard. I don't see why the suggestion that atheism is a religion is more rude than atheists' suggestion that Christianity is bullshit. The de facto rule is if you're offended, stop reading the thread.
Since it's generally done as some sort of attack, atheists generally are especially sensitive to it. So, if you insist on it, you're just being rude.
I agree with you, but from my perspective as someone who has from time to time put forward the idea that atheism is a religion, you're completely missing out on the rudeness of atheists as well. And in this particular case, the original poster who said atheism is a belief system was *certainly* not phrasing it as an attack:
One could argue that, historically, atheism is the most persecuted belief system still in practice. It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.
That gets an anonymous reply of:
"Atheism is a belief system" is a definition born of an American cultural background. Since theism is the majority position (86%), the distinction between strong disbelief in make-believe beings Vs. mere indifference in same, is given exaggerated importance.
Now let me ask... honestly.. which do you consider more rude? The guy who said atheists are persecuted for their beliefs, or the guy who calls God "make-believe" (alluding to a child-like level of thought) rather than using a more respectful term? I mean even hardcore atheists are allowed to say "God" or "gods" instead of using phrases intending to belittle the opposition.
I know you said "generally", not necessarily meaning this specific instance, but there must be a reason you brought it up -- why would you want to dampen a discussion that is not rude if your only wish is for people to not be rude.
This isn't about me. I'm wealthy myself.
I knew it wouldn't be about you, that's why I added the "not to the same level." It's like 50-50 odds on the internet that the person whining about others not paying taxes is themselves pretty well off and is "happy to pay" because you're so morally pure and all that garbage.
You're richer than me, congrats, and you think you're a better person, double score!
By the way, fuck you for dragging in those tired old political talking points.
By the way, fuck you? nice
Sure I may use phrases like "taxes are taken at gun point" because they convey a lot that is previously understood by both of us without me having to explain it all. But I'm not just regurgitating talking points. They have meaning that I felt was appropriate to the situation.
Apple used public resources to get rich. They owe it to the public to pay to keep those resources available. Try to get over your all-consuming sense of greed, and understand that.
Greed, do you even listen to yourself? You're the one who is a millionaire (or soon to be with that income) and yet you're still envious of those richer than you or those getting a "free ride" by not paying their "fair share".
It's funny if you didn't overhear the beginning bit about Apple, people would think you're a greedy conservative who is complaining about the poor. Quite funny, really.
I have to point out the difference between public resources like oil or fresh water versus human labor and ingenuity. Some companies really do take the resources of a country in a way that means they are unavailable for use by others. Like Exxon. Apple doesn't do that and you're using bullshit rhetoric. They didn't deprive you or anyone else or make it so you don't have the same opportunities as they have.
By the way, awesome how you focused on like 3 phrases that pissed you off and ignored every point I was trying to make. You have nothing to say about the idea of buying their stock to profit cooperatively, or the idea that all the support in the world is worthless if nobody builds a success on top of it? You won't pitch the idea that the government should buy 30% of Apple's stock if they want 30% of Apple's profits, kind of like how China operates?
It's disappointing really. You're like.. a rich guy who wastes his time trolling on slashdot?
No chance -- I think part of the thing for trademarks is you're supposed to protect them. Well look at this article from 2007:
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3674591
Frank Hanzlik, the current managing director for the Wi-Fi Alliance, was not at the meetings where the Interbrand names were discussed, but he was a member of WECA and he is now entrusted with protecting and perpetuating the Wi-Fi brand. He confirms that "wireless fidelity" has no meaning, is not part of the trademark, and is not used or encouraged to be used by the Wi-Fi Alliance. However, he feels no need to aggressively correct those who use it, since what's most important to his organization is simply that "Wi-Fi" continues to be a household name.
"In the very early days of building the brand, there was a linkage to the hi-fi chronology," says Hanzlik. "It was successful in creating a positive connotation of what that could mean to a user. Over the last seven years, the term Wi-Fi has become quite ubiquitous in the developed part of the world. We just try to keep it simple and use only Wi-Fi."
"We declared victory when we made the Merriam-Webster dictionary," says Hanzlik. "Now we encourage everyone to use Wi-Fi versus 'wireless LAN,' because it resonates more with folks -- but we do enforce the Wi-Fi Certified and the Wi-Fi Alliance brands and logos."
So they had no problem with people using wi-fi incorrectly, assigning it an incorrect meaning, or any desire to prevent it from becoming a common word in the dictionary, or a household name (which I think is pretty close to saying generic). I mean he's even saying "just use wi-fi instead of wireless lan." Okay... that's like kleenex saying "Just say kleenex instead of tissue paper" and then getting mad when people use kleenex to refer to tissue paper. All they care about was "wi-fi certified" and "wi-fi alliance". Well, nobody called it super "wi-fi certified".
As for their victory in the dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wi-fi
Definition of WI-FI
—used to certify the interoperability of wireless computer networking devices
Doesn't even mention 802.11a/b/g/n.. just wireless. Based on that definition, any wireless networking standard can call itself wi-fi. That's just plain English at this point, and that was endorsed by the wifi alliance just a few years ago.
But that's ignoring the developments that would happen if everybody has symmetric 1gbps (for instance) connections.
I bet you'd have local mirrors of a lot of content.
I bet http would be altered or new protocols would arise that were more bittorrent like to take advantage of nearby unused bandwidth.
In fact years ago I knew someone who lived in Russia whose town had super fast internet but fairly crappy international transfers. So their ISPs gave everybody FTP accounts and shared FTP spaces... and most of the "heavy users" who were pirating songs and movies got it locally. Problem solved.
Odd, because Toyota doesn't pay the bill for inspections done on Toyota cars.
I think what you meant is "When weighing anything vs. their own power, governments always rule in favor of their own power."
Yeah I understand your argument but you're acting like one half is more important than the other.
There's a reason Apple is making billions of dollars and you're not. You both have the advantage of American prosperity and stability. But they made it and you didn't (not to the same level). And yet you want your "piece" of their success.. and the only thing you did to earn it is to be born into this backdrop of prosperity and stability which you have very little responsibility for. So why do you deserve anything more than the same opportunity that the people high up in Apple have? And you already have that opportunity because you live here, you don't need to steal their money to have it.
Even this late in the game you could get a piece of the action by working for them or buying a tiny amount of their stock.
Let's do some calcs.. you said $1.8 billion, divided by 300 million, that's $6 per person. How many shares of Apple would you need to buy to get that same $6 legitimately and morally, not by just taking it from them at gunpoint? Well probably about 1 share the way their price has been appreciating, you'll get more than $6 per quarter.
But nope, that's not good enough for you! They "owe" it to you, because they happen to benefit from American prosperity (just like you).
You know, I can totally get on board with this sense of entitlement. I'll do you one better. China's economy is heavily dependent on American wealth.. so they owe their success to us too. In fact we should own like 60% of China. Africa takes a bunch of aid money from us, I propose a 75% tax for everybody in Africa, payable to us.
Btw this is exactly why so many left wing movements evolve into fascism, from unions to communist regimes. Turns out everybody owes you everything, and you and your buddies are just the men to make them pay their fair share. Screw freedom, it's wealth that makes us all happy and successful.
"If we did... it would in fact be a hobby."
Why would you say that? It's not at all obvious. As an example, in the US we currently call non-white folk "minorities" but nobody would say that "minority" is a skin color.
What traits do minorities share? Certainly not color. So you wouldn't say "minority" is an answer to a set of questions about skin color. So you're right, nobody would say that.
I think you're confusing my argument. I'm not saying there's some logical reason why anything not-X is actually X. That's dumb. I'm saying if the language is using atheism in the same sense that it's using other religious beliefs, then atheism is a religious belief. Nobody in the real world is using minority as a skin color, so your example doesn't fit my argument in the slightest.
A better example would be if some people had clear skin, i.e. no skin color. People would ask "What is your skin color" and they would say "Clear." So my argument is that "clear" would become a skin color, even though it's not a color, because of how it's used in language.
It's you that needs to be more careful with words. Atheism is a religion only as far as say, polytheism is a religion, which it isn't.
What did I do wrong? Anyway would you agree that if not a religion, polytheism is at least a religious conviction? And so is atheism?
I think you don't have the right to define yourself and make other people use your words when they think about you.
For instance citizens of Canada may call themselves citizens but citizens of America may call citizens of Canada foreigners. They don't get to say "that's self-centered, we are citizens just like you" etc. It's just the way it is.
You yourself seem like you would agree that it would be ridiculous to define everyone as having a religion if only say, 5% of people had an actual religion and the rest of the world never really thought about it. Why is it any less ridiculous when 95% of people have a religion?
I believe that's how language and the human mind works. If people put atheism in the same category as religion, then it is a religion, even if they're "wrong" in some technical sense that only a few people believe in.
"No, one is the absence of belief, one is the belief in nothing. It makes no sense!!!! You can't believe in nothing, it's not there to be believed in!" --There you go, you can't believe in nothing (well, some forms of nihilists believe in nothing in an almost religious way, but most don't). Lack of belief is not a religion.
The guy who doesn't understand that "owning zero horses" is equivalent to "not owning horses" is wrong though! Surely you agree that you can in fact own zero horses, and people who insist on saying "no, you just don't own horses" are being stupid.
The only reason Apple exists is because they made great products, not because of what you did for them. Do you think American prosperity doesn't depend on successful businesses as much as successful businesses depend on American prosperity?
Yes, people do not identify themselves by their stamp collecting habits. That was my point! That's why the original quote was clever but useless.
People do identify themselves as atheists though. They use the term as a collection of answers to questions about beliefs -- thus they are a set of beliefs.
Saying their answers don't constitute a religious conviction (unlike the other common sets of answers) is stupid. It's a lack of ability to separate language constructs from what the constructs represent. I think it must be related to whatever causes people to have trouble with negatives and double negatives as well. It's also like the transition to a number system including zero... at some point most people understand that you can HAVE zero things, and it means the same thing as NOT HAVING things. Other people don't get it.
"I own zero horses."
"I'm confused.. I think you meant to say you do not own horses."
"Well yeah that's the same thing."
"No, one is the absence of ownership, one is the ownership of nothing. It makes no sense!!!! You can't own nothing, it's not there to be owned!"
You say there's no point in believing unfalsifiable claims, but do you really mean that? It seems like it cuts out a huge swath of normal human activity.
In what sense is the belief that men and women /should/ earn equal pay for equal work falsifiable?
How about the belief that a woman has the /right/ to choose? Falsifiable or not?
Seems like you would have a very restricted set of beliefs, all based on readily observable physical phenomena. No higher level human function.
Then there's the question of whether falsifiability does any good if you're unwilling to do the actual falsification. Do you believe your cat is alive? Have you killed it to find out? If your nature prevents you from investigating those questions they might as well be unfalsifiable.
Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That's catchy but pointless.
We don't have a commonly used word that describes the state of not collecting stamps, or a word that describes people who avoid collecting stamps. People don't identify themselves as not-stamp-collectors.
If we did... it would in fact be a hobby.
It's just the way language works. You can't fight it. Atheists who beat this horse to death just sound stupid. Atheism is a religious conviction because it's in the same class of answers as all the other religious convictions. It's why black is considered a color by most even when some people define it as the absence of color. Others consider white the absence of color, yet white is also a color in the broader population. Some see white or black as the presence of all "real" colors. Why is that? Hmm so mysterious! Not really.
It's like this. "What do I see? I'm calling that orange. Oh what's that? Hmm, I'll call it mauve. Oh look, when I mix it all together I get what I call white/black. So all my positive answers to the question of what I see should have a common name so I can refer to them generally... since I can see white and interpret it in my mind just like how I see red or green or dull pink, they are the same kind of thing, I'll call that color." And thus we have colors that are really not-colors or all-colors.
And religions that are really not-religions or all-religions.
I think on some level atheists understand the language roots of why people call them a religion, but they refuse to acknowledge it because they don't want to be *associated* with other religions..
Yes great examples.
Vocal atheist:
A: I'm an a-leprechaunist.
B: So you mean.. you *believe* leprechauns don't exist.
A: NO GODDAMNIT YOU IDIOT IT'S NOT A BELIEF IT'S A LACK OF BELIEF GET IT STRAIGHT ARGHGHGHHGG.
Normal person:
A: I'm an a-leprechaunist.
B: So you mean.. you *believe* leprechauns don't exist.
A: Yeah that's right.
How stupid it is to get all worked up about belief vs. lack of belief about something you don't even believe in anyway.
Maybe it wants people in China to be wealthy enough to buy its products. There are more of them after all.
The only argument to be made is the America-for-Americans argument, not anything about their global economic interests. It's rather obvious that moving things to China is in their economic interest both short term and long term.
If I, as a private citizen, were to hide taxable income off-shore in order to avoid paying taxes on it, I would be jailed for Income Tax evasion.
I don't think that's right. From what I recall, you can avoid paying taxes on the income you earned abroad as long as you don't try to bring the money into the country and spend it domestically.
Up to $46 million will be saved in taxes. How many employees do you think they will create with that $46 million dollar break? And if the taxes are paying the employees salaries, why the hell doesn't the state just employ them directly and put them to work doing something that benefits the public directly, and not a billion dollar corporation?
Simple, the difference is between a tax break and an expenditure. If Apple didn't build the plant there, they wouldn't get the $46 million anyway, plus they wouldn't have the extra jobs.
I think men from western cultures aren't upset about women, but about authoritarian approaches to furthering women at the expense of men. Which makes perfect sense when you're from a culture that values equality.
In my experience, women from non-western cultures are much more likely to be involved in computers and math than women from western cultures. The difference seems, to me, to be that non-western women take it for what it is. They don't want the whole computer industry to change to accommodate them, they are willing to change to accommodate it. That means being nerdy and uncool sometimes, or putting in long hours and sacrificing a bit of family if you're talking about work instead of school.
Sure we can't properly define intelligence, but there are enough tests with racial differences in achievement that the results point to a difference in intelligence. There are enough tests that taken in total, most people would look at them and say in most cases they correlate well with intelligence. Yeah you'll get the 1 in a million who is clearly a genius but fails every test.. that's probably statistically insignificant. So why aren't the existing tests good enough? It seems a case of arguing from a conclusion that you don't like -- one refuses to believe race impacts intelligence, so every test that shows a racial difference is not really measuring intelligence.
People say we can't properly define race either, but I don't buy that. Self-identification seems good enough. Just guessing but probably 95% of self-assessments meet with 95% approval from a random sample of others. In other words, you don't find many people who self-identify as white who are not identified by others as white. Why isn't that good enough?
Surely there's a rigorous approach to dealing statistics on things that are poorly defined but on which there is widespread "fuzzy" agreement. There's got to be, I just don't know the proper name for it.
Would that be the reaction where all the white Democrats switched to the Republican ticket and Obama lost?
Or the reaction where all the white Republicans didn't like a black Democratic president? Just like how all the white Democrats didn't like the previous white Republican president?
Nuclear is expensive here because of environmental and legal concerns. It could well be a completely different animal in more liberal countries that are willing to take on higher risks.
He just described to me how the non-Union guys at his work got a pay cut so the Union guys could get a pay raise. He didn't even notice the company was pitting the non-Union against the Union, let alone ask why BOTH groups didn't get a raise...
Do you really think it was the company's idea to do that, and not the union's? That seems unlikely.
The only way to win is not to play. Don't have children. If you do; only have one.
It's the total opposite. The only way to win is to have more children and make them good citizens who care about each other.
Really? You believe that the government shouldn't step in to ensure fairness when a free-market isn't available?
Forcing people to engage with other people isn't fair, it's practically rape.
It seems like you must have never faced much discrimination in your life.
And I haven't discriminated against others much in my life. Most people are in this boat. What's your point? The example of the doctor who doesn't perform abortions isn't discrimination at all. He's not saying "I won't perform this abortion because you're black" he just doesn't do it period.
And with the gas station example, where maybe it is discrimination, it's so minor that it's hard to distinguish between it and non-discrimination. What if the gas station isn't open on Sunday, but you're there on Sunday? Should gas stations be forced to be open 24 hours / 7 days a week? What if it's Christmas, should all gas stations be open on Christmas?
What if the gas station owner isn't discriminating based on race, but he just doesn't like you? What if you ran over his dog and then he's like "I'm not selling you gas?" What about if the customer is the racist and he says stuff like "Hey n* boy, fill up my car" and the owner refuses?
All those examples seem justified to me, and they all have the same conclusion as when the owner is discriminating -- you don't get gas. So yeah I don't see the point in passing a law to address the 1/1000000 chance that the gas station owner doesn't sell you gas and he's the only one around for 150 miles when those other situations are just as likely, just as disruptive, and legal.
Quartering of troops is one of those things especially enshrined in the Constitution, and really isn't relevant.
The whole point of that is that the government isn't allowed to compel you and your family to personally engage with strangers, even in a time of great need (i.e. war). I don't see how it could be any more relevant.
If you are the only provider of a service in an area, it is only fair that you should be required by law to provide that service as fairly and equitably as possible.
What's your reasoning though? Fairness is surely about more than race. Why is it fair that some people have money and can pay for that service but others don't? What about children of poor vs rich, why should they get to fly to Europe and see castles, while poor kids can't? Should airlines provide free flights out of fairness?
It just doesn't make sense. You're talking about fighting all of human civilization and human nature.
Are you pretending that in urban neighborhood environments there's no correlation between income/education and crime? Ok then.
I'm not contradicting myself at all. It's prudent advice that people in general ought to be cautious when they're out and about.
You're suggesting people should be shielded from information about whether an area is bad, and then make up for it by being cautious everywhere. But that means one of two things:
1. They are medium-cautious, which is more than necessary for good areas and less than necessary for bad areas
2. They are always as cautious as if they were in a bad area
The first doesn't do much good for the person, the second doesn't do much good for the community.
There are few neighborhoods out there that are so dangerous that you shouldn't ever go there or drive through there in the US.
I agree with you, but those few bad neighborhoods are often in large cities -- the kinds of cities people visit. If the app warns (or doesn't) people away from a two block area of Waterloo, Iowa, nobody is going to notice or care. But how about New York City? I've visited it twice but mainly stayed in Manhattan. Does Manhattan even have any bad parts? I don't know. I would walk right into one and have no idea unless something happened to me. I suspect the other boroughs do have bad areas, though. In fact I was going to go to an Indian restaurant in Jackson Heights but my friend heard Jackson Heights was one of these bad neighborhoods to be avoided. So we didn't go. Now is ALL of it bad? Or could this app have enabled us to go and enjoy ourselves without worrying about going down the wrong street.
Maybe we have different ideas of what "being cautious" means. When you say to be cautious, which I like to think I am, that means that if I heard an area is bad, I don't even go there. You seem to think it means go there and have fun and spend money, but have enough situational awareness that nonetheless nothing happens to you. I think you're overestimating people.