I'm not loyal to any specific idealogy but Militarism and imperalism is rampant and is a byproduct of commercial/stategic interests of a country, any serious scholar KNOWS this.
You are truly delirious if you believe that.
I have news for you, my materialistic drone, there are some whose vision of the world has nothing to do with who gets the most useless shit.
War in and of itself is a valid, normal, and healthy state of civilization. War has given us every virtue, it is the one time the greatness of humanity manifests itself.
If anything, we need MORE war, MORE destruction, and MORE death to destroy this materialistic decadence.
As for imperialism, people such as yourself clearly have no idea what the most ideal form of human existence truly is. You SHOULD be subjugated. Your place is not as a leader of anything.
Leave this stuff to the pros to figure out a reliable way to deliver internet.
Why do you assume a municipal government is incapable of hiring a professional to perform city services?
Do you find a lack of "pros" working at the department of sanitation? department of water and sewers? What about the many municipal utility companies? Some of which operate nuclear reactors?
Someone here is in clear and complete breach of agreement (as is dictated by the detail and clarity of the leaked information), obviously, you can see that is illegal.
It is NOT illegal to break an agreement. There is no law that states "Thou shalt never break an agreement". We abolished debtor prisons long ago.
Much of the problem with our teeth is due to the modern diet. Go check out a fossilized remain of a pre-modern humanoid. You can find some that are 40 years old with no noticable tooth decay. Many sea mammals live long lifespans with no significant tooth decay as well.
Early tooth decay is a unique problem limited to humans and the animals they keep captive.
But the problem is Chinamen are oriental mongoloids. The majority of people in Asia are in fact Caucasian. Saying "Asian Americans" more likely refers to Russians, Arabs, Turkic peoples, and Indians than orientals of any type.
Just as a Scotsman is a man from Scotland, a Chinaman is a man from China. If it is the racial category that concerns you, "Asian American" is about as inaccurate as you can possibly get.
Have you ever used Windows 2003 Server? It comes with the standard Windows 95 interface. I imagine they would do the same thing with the next release of Windows.
Oooh, you just love coming back to this thread. I'll address your more detailed email later.
In all honesty, there are two separate issues here.
a) Law degrees, out of all other degrees, are the least valuable for the system of leadership I am discussing. A knowledge of rhetoric and the bureaucratic system of the US does not make you qualified to discuss specific technical problems, of any scope.
b) Ivy League universities, while providing a better than average education I am sure, are really the heart of the problem in the US. You said before that I was advocating an oligarchy, but the reality is ALL governments are oligarchies. While I advocate a more honest and public oligarchy, Ivy League schools exist to undermine any system of representative government with deceit. How else do you explain their disproportionate representation in federal politics? Not only do Ivy League schools contribute far too many persons to the elite who control the US, their student bodies are completely dissimilar to the population at large. The average American has little chance of becoming a national leader simply because so few students at Ivy League schools are average Americans.
When we have NO presidential candidates who are Ivy League grads, I will perhaps consider the possibility that an oligarchy does not exist in the US.
As for an alternative, fundamentally I am satisfied with the basic concept of the university system. So, if anything, I am excluding Ivy League universities not because they are universities, but because of the political agenda they represent, as well as the leaders they put forth to govern our lives. They are broken institutions, which must be abolished for the good of our future.
The basic needs of humanity are very simple- food, clothing, shelter, water, medical care.
But you have to admit that the real problem here is the fact there are too many people. It is the unrestricted right of reproduction which makes it difficult to maintain a high level of culture. If the population of the planet was 500 million instead of 6 billion those basics would be easy to cover, and such luxuries items would simply be the stuff we make with the rest of our spare time.
While what you say is true regarding chemistry, the word organic is derived from the word organ, which is derived from the latin word organum, which simply means instrument.
The word organic only applies to biological life in that scientists from another era referred to the composite parts of living things as instruments. They knew that living things worked something like a machine.
Its best to think like a philosopher, rather than focus on one particular discipline like you apparently have done.
I'm going to fill you in on a little secret. Hippies are the purest example of democracy and egalitarianism in the US. How, pray tell, can you possibily associate me with hippies? I just don't get it.
We've tried other ideas. There are reasons why we chopped Charles I's head off. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and George Bush (or Bill Clinton, if you happen to be a conservative), for all his problems, is better then most of the emperors and kings of history.
I don't agree. We haven't come close to experiencing the kind of increase in standard of living, as well as overall peace as that which occurred during the Pax Romana.
The 20th century will be remembered as the age when the decadent democracies endlessly battled each other for nothing, where the explosive population growth of the inferior was tempered by endless human death and suffering, and the environmental degradation of overpopulation.
Wisdom is more important than intelligence.
This is quite the banal comment. You do realize I am proposing a system of society most akin that described in Plato's Republic, I hope?
Global warming, for example, balances the effect increased cooling and energy costs will have on the third world and elsewhere versus the possibility that it's doing damage to the environment and the questions about how much damage.
I don't see how this is relevant.
Is it worth killing a hundred people now, due to a lack of cheap refrigeration, to possibly save more people later, if we might find a way to fix it later or deal with the consequences later? How do you weigh the risks of a nuclear power plant versus the constant dangers of a coal plant?
These are important questions. I don't quite see how an uneducated animal who lives in a housing project is qualified to elect ANYONE to deal with them however. I'll let you in on a secret. Presenting political and ethical questions that seem confusing to YOU does not mean democracy is somehow better equipped to deal with those questions. Try again.
An environmentalist can't answer the economic and social questions involved; an economist or sociologist can't answer the scientific questions; and none of them may be qualified to answer the moral and ethical questions.
Yes, that's why I am not proposing a dictatorship here. The idea is that the expert environmental engineers sit down with expert sociologists, psychologists, and economists to determine the best solution, thus removing any concern for immediate political ramifications. We want the experts to make their decisions without having to turn their solution into a popularity contest.
I fear to put the world in charge of people who may randomly boot lusers off the net, or blow up religous monuments to make way for new highways. The antielitism, that we all matter and that no one person can make the right decision, is one of the things that makes democracy work.
I really don't see how any of this is relevant. I could say the same thing about European "democracies" banning Mein Kampf or the swastika. "freedom" and "democracy" have nothing to do with each other. It is the rule of law which created the peaceful civilizations which allowed people to contemplate such nonsense. That rule of law was implemented by despots you likely despise.
Democracies don't hand power to the depraved. Honestly: Nero, Caligua, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, none of them were elected. Hitler came from a democracy, but was never elected. Bush, Clinton, Regan, Nixon, they all had their particular more issues, but if you look at the problems history and news records about them, they may be venal, stupid, arrogant, even a little bit paranoid, but not depraved.
How do you measure their depravity? By the number of people who supposedly died? Notice how many of those people lived in the 20th century? Despite all the supposed depravity of their actions, the population of the world has trippled in the last century.
I could care less if 90% of the world is slaughtered tomorrow. The pain I feel is how your sick view of morality makes human greatness irrelevant. Today, I see fewer great w
What's funny is that comment was directed towards the people doing the voting, not necessarily the leaders themselves.
The point is that there should be a relationship, based on merit, between those who elect and those who are elected.
That person with the 8th grade education has no place in deciding who will get us out of an environmental catastrophy for instance. His knowledge is so limited on the subject that it is almost certain he makes his decisions based solely on emotional propaganda or other superficial traits of the candidates.
Democrats and Republicans are the problem, not the solution. Both of them caters their party to the lowest common denominator. For democrats, they cater to the parasite and hedonist underclass. Republicans cater to the growing lower-middle class who work, but only in the most menial of positions and tend to be subservient to the various slave religions which infect our citizens.
The way our government is supposed to work is representatives, elected along geographic lines, together debate and decide solutions to problems, and the direction of the nation.
What if, instead of the various members of the elected body being elected along geographic lines they elected by members of the various disciplines. Instead, our representavies do NOT represent ALL citizens, only the citizens of their particular discipline.
The idea is that the electrical engineers and chemists would both elect the best and most able to this council. Hell, we can call them senators if that is easier for you. Instead of idiots arguing with each other, each basing their information on a variety of "specialists" who are no more than paid liars who massage the facts to fit a preconceived conclusion, instead of this madness... the various elite of the various disciplines would work together, each contributing the sum of their knowledge to the best solution.
So the masses of folks have no respect for expertise and the elite of various fields. How is this different than society as a whole?
The problem that infects Wikipedia is not limited to a few simple trolls. It is a world-wide societal problem. It is the wicked child of the delusional advocates of democracy and egalitarianism, who in their naivete believe that all people are equal in their abilities and judgement.
How else can we explain the sick believe that masters of rhetoric and intrigue make decisions that are affecting the future of the world? How is it a moron with an 8th grade education is allowed to have a legitimate position on highly technical topics like environmental protection and global warming?
The world has become too complex for any one man to have the requisite knowledge to make decisions about anything other than his field of expertise. What we require is a new social order than recognizes the various discplines of each citizen and identifies his expertise. When our electorate is organized along these lines, only then can representative government work. Instead of a mass of rhetoricians ruling over the world, we should have a council of experts, each elected by the members of his respective field. Chemists should elect the most elite chemist. Electrical engineers, the most elite electrical engineer.
With this top down approach, Wikipedia and society at large will work far better. Further, we may prevent the complete destruction of our civilization by ceasing to hand power to the unqualified and depraved.
Slashdot Mirror
My god, some applications tell you to backup your data before installing them.
Wise people should ALWAYS keep a backup.
But, software companies in particular put that in there to limit liability.
I'm not loyal to any specific idealogy but Militarism and imperalism is rampant and is a byproduct of commercial/stategic interests of a country, any serious scholar KNOWS this.
You are truly delirious if you believe that.
I have news for you, my materialistic drone, there are some whose vision of the world has nothing to do with who gets the most useless shit.
War in and of itself is a valid, normal, and healthy state of civilization. War has given us every virtue, it is the one time the greatness of humanity manifests itself.
If anything, we need MORE war, MORE destruction, and MORE death to destroy this materialistic decadence.
As for imperialism, people such as yourself clearly have no idea what the most ideal form of human existence truly is. You SHOULD be subjugated. Your place is not as a leader of anything.
Leave this stuff to the pros to figure out a reliable way to deliver internet.
Why do you assume a municipal government is incapable of hiring a professional to perform city services?
Do you find a lack of "pros" working at the department of sanitation? department of water and sewers? What about the many municipal utility companies? Some of which operate nuclear reactors?
Just a word of advice, from some fool accross the internet.. I highly suggest you read This Article. Just a unique perspective on your life...
Someone here is in clear and complete breach of agreement (as is dictated by the detail and clarity of the leaked information), obviously, you can see that is illegal.
It is NOT illegal to break an agreement. There is no law that states "Thou shalt never break an agreement". We abolished debtor prisons long ago.
But how do the supplies stop?
Most spacecrafts are almost entirely cargo and fuel. This craft won't require much fuel so virtually all of the mass is going to be cargo.
We are stuck with the same problem.
FP???
Much of the problem with our teeth is due to the modern diet. Go check out a fossilized remain of a pre-modern humanoid. You can find some that are 40 years old with no noticable tooth decay. Many sea mammals live long lifespans with no significant tooth decay as well.
Early tooth decay is a unique problem limited to humans and the animals they keep captive.
But the problem is Chinamen are oriental mongoloids. The majority of people in Asia are in fact Caucasian. Saying "Asian Americans" more likely refers to Russians, Arabs, Turkic peoples, and Indians than orientals of any type.
Just as a Scotsman is a man from Scotland, a Chinaman is a man from China. If it is the racial category that concerns you, "Asian American" is about as inaccurate as you can possibly get.
Have you ever used Windows 2003 Server? It comes with the standard Windows 95 interface. I imagine they would do the same thing with the next release of Windows.
More importantly, guns such as this can be too easily disabled by government officials.
No one will be waging any revolution with these ridiculous weapons.
Would you let me service you?
and apparently their detection of license keys has greatly improved... my key is invalid.
Anyone else have this problem using their obscure key of choice? SP2 installed fine a few months ago.
Oooh, you just love coming back to this thread. I'll address your more detailed email later.
In all honesty, there are two separate issues here.
a) Law degrees, out of all other degrees, are the least valuable for the system of leadership I am discussing. A knowledge of rhetoric and the bureaucratic system of the US does not make you qualified to discuss specific technical problems, of any scope.
b) Ivy League universities, while providing a better than average education I am sure, are really the heart of the problem in the US. You said before that I was advocating an oligarchy, but the reality is ALL governments are oligarchies. While I advocate a more honest and public oligarchy, Ivy League schools exist to undermine any system of representative government with deceit. How else do you explain their disproportionate representation in federal politics? Not only do Ivy League schools contribute far too many persons to the elite who control the US, their student bodies are completely dissimilar to the population at large. The average American has little chance of becoming a national leader simply because so few students at Ivy League schools are average Americans.
When we have NO presidential candidates who are Ivy League grads, I will perhaps consider the possibility that an oligarchy does not exist in the US.
As for an alternative, fundamentally I am satisfied with the basic concept of the university system. So, if anything, I am excluding Ivy League universities not because they are universities, but because of the political agenda they represent, as well as the leaders they put forth to govern our lives. They are broken institutions, which must be abolished for the good of our future.
The basic needs of humanity are very simple- food, clothing, shelter, water, medical care.
But you have to admit that the real problem here is the fact there are too many people. It is the unrestricted right of reproduction which makes it difficult to maintain a high level of culture. If the population of the planet was 500 million instead of 6 billion those basics would be easy to cover, and such luxuries items would simply be the stuff we make with the rest of our spare time.
While what you say is true regarding chemistry, the word organic is derived from the word organ, which is derived from the latin word organum, which simply means instrument.
The word organic only applies to biological life in that scientists from another era referred to the composite parts of living things as instruments. They knew that living things worked something like a machine.
Its best to think like a philosopher, rather than focus on one particular discipline like you apparently have done.
I'm going to fill you in on a little secret. Hippies are the purest example of democracy and egalitarianism in the US. How, pray tell, can you possibily associate me with hippies? I just don't get it.
We've tried other ideas. There are reasons why we chopped Charles I's head off. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and George Bush (or Bill Clinton, if you happen to be a conservative), for all his problems, is better then most of the emperors and kings of history.
I don't agree. We haven't come close to experiencing the kind of increase in standard of living, as well as overall peace as that which occurred during the Pax Romana.
The 20th century will be remembered as the age when the decadent democracies endlessly battled each other for nothing, where the explosive population growth of the inferior was tempered by endless human death and suffering, and the environmental degradation of overpopulation.
Wisdom is more important than intelligence.
This is quite the banal comment. You do realize I am proposing a system of society most akin that described in Plato's Republic, I hope?
Global warming, for example, balances the effect increased cooling and energy costs will have on the third world and elsewhere versus the possibility that it's doing damage to the environment and the questions about how much damage.
I don't see how this is relevant.
Is it worth killing a hundred people now, due to a lack of cheap refrigeration, to possibly save more people later, if we might find a way to fix it later or deal with the consequences later? How do you weigh the risks of a nuclear power plant versus the constant dangers of a coal plant?
These are important questions. I don't quite see how an uneducated animal who lives in a housing project is qualified to elect ANYONE to deal with them however. I'll let you in on a secret. Presenting political and ethical questions that seem confusing to YOU does not mean democracy is somehow better equipped to deal with those questions. Try again.
An environmentalist can't answer the economic and social questions involved; an economist or sociologist can't answer the scientific questions; and none of them may be qualified to answer the moral and ethical questions.
Yes, that's why I am not proposing a dictatorship here. The idea is that the expert environmental engineers sit down with expert sociologists, psychologists, and economists to determine the best solution, thus removing any concern for immediate political ramifications. We want the experts to make their decisions without having to turn their solution into a popularity contest.
I fear to put the world in charge of people who may randomly boot lusers off the net, or blow up religous monuments to make way for new highways. The antielitism, that we all matter and that no one person can make the right decision, is one of the things that makes democracy work.
I really don't see how any of this is relevant. I could say the same thing about European "democracies" banning Mein Kampf or the swastika. "freedom" and "democracy" have nothing to do with each other. It is the rule of law which created the peaceful civilizations which allowed people to contemplate such nonsense. That rule of law was implemented by despots you likely despise.
Democracies don't hand power to the depraved. Honestly: Nero, Caligua, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, none of them were elected. Hitler came from a democracy, but was never elected. Bush, Clinton, Regan, Nixon, they all had their particular more issues, but if you look at the problems history and news records about them, they may be venal, stupid, arrogant, even a little bit paranoid, but not depraved.
How do you measure their depravity? By the number of people who supposedly died? Notice how many of those people lived in the 20th century? Despite all the supposed depravity of their actions, the population of the world has trippled in the last century.
I could care less if 90% of the world is slaughtered tomorrow. The pain I feel is how your sick view of morality makes human greatness irrelevant. Today, I see fewer great w
What's funny is that comment was directed towards the people doing the voting, not necessarily the leaders themselves.
The point is that there should be a relationship, based on merit, between those who elect and those who are elected.
That person with the 8th grade education has no place in deciding who will get us out of an environmental catastrophy for instance. His knowledge is so limited on the subject that it is almost certain he makes his decisions based solely on emotional propaganda or other superficial traits of the candidates.
Democrats and Republicans are the problem, not the solution. Both of them caters their party to the lowest common denominator. For democrats, they cater to the parasite and hedonist underclass. Republicans cater to the growing lower-middle class who work, but only in the most menial of positions and tend to be subservient to the various slave religions which infect our citizens.
Did you not see the bit about a council?
The way our government is supposed to work is representatives, elected along geographic lines, together debate and decide solutions to problems, and the direction of the nation.
What if, instead of the various members of the elected body being elected along geographic lines they elected by members of the various disciplines. Instead, our representavies do NOT represent ALL citizens, only the citizens of their particular discipline.
The idea is that the electrical engineers and chemists would both elect the best and most able to this council. Hell, we can call them senators if that is easier for you. Instead of idiots arguing with each other, each basing their information on a variety of "specialists" who are no more than paid liars who massage the facts to fit a preconceived conclusion, instead of this madness... the various elite of the various disciplines would work together, each contributing the sum of their knowledge to the best solution.
So the masses of folks have no respect for expertise and the elite of various fields. How is this different than society as a whole?
The problem that infects Wikipedia is not limited to a few simple trolls. It is a world-wide societal problem. It is the wicked child of the delusional advocates of democracy and egalitarianism, who in their naivete believe that all people are equal in their abilities and judgement.
How else can we explain the sick believe that masters of rhetoric and intrigue make decisions that are affecting the future of the world? How is it a moron with an 8th grade education is allowed to have a legitimate position on highly technical topics like environmental protection and global warming?
The world has become too complex for any one man to have the requisite knowledge to make decisions about anything other than his field of expertise. What we require is a new social order than recognizes the various discplines of each citizen and identifies his expertise. When our electorate is organized along these lines, only then can representative government work. Instead of a mass of rhetoricians ruling over the world, we should have a council of experts, each elected by the members of his respective field. Chemists should elect the most elite chemist. Electrical engineers, the most elite electrical engineer.
With this top down approach, Wikipedia and society at large will work far better. Further, we may prevent the complete destruction of our civilization by ceasing to hand power to the unqualified and depraved.
That's an even more amusing way to think about it.
Thanks!
Thats the sort of moral support I need out there.
Actually, Texas is slightly smaller than (Post WWII) Germany, and much smaller than France.
Your handle is well chosen. A true materialist, who has no life.
Well, it must be comforting to you to know that someday, you will at least be dead.