Essentially a satellite is just a body orbiting its the parent planet. So there is really no lower limit on size.
It certainly seems like that is the case today, with many satellites being nothing more than large rocks, don't you think that definition is limited?
I mean, would a hydrogen atom orbiting jupitor be considered an satellite? I don't think you meant to say that would be the case. There isn't a lower limit, but there should be.
Well, it has, in absolute terms, but not in relative terms. The problem is that human psychology makes us view things using relative metrics instead of absolute ones. If you earn a 20% raise this year, but all your friends earn 100% raises, do you feel richer or poorer compared to last year?
Don't insult me with your first year of college economics discussion. You didn't read the essay. It is not a discussion of materialistic wealth, it is a discussion of time. 200 years ago, farmers did not work 50 hour weeks, commutting 2 hours a day to work. Outside of the planting and harvest times, leisure was the rule. Time could be spent working on the house, hunting, or enjoying other productive activties at your own pace.
If you want to have a 1950s comfortable standard of living regarding possessions, health care, entertainment, food, etc. you can do so by working far fewer hours than a 1950s human had to. But if you want a 2000s standard of living... ah, then you still have to work, or otherwise procure income. But at least work tends to be less menial and physically taxing than it did in the 1950s, on the average at least.
If you believe that you are living in a dreamworld. Today, the average salary barely gets you an apartment anywhere in the US, save the most backwards of places. In the 1950's, the average salary easily got you a house, a car, and your wife didn't have to work. You have little knowledge of the averages of which you speak. I have no love for the 1950's, but those people had it easy. I will never be able to afford a house, two cars, and 3 kids by the time I am 32. I make well above the average salary.
It's a question of whether you measure standard of living by absolute standards or relative ones.
We are discussing an absolute standard. Human beings have a finite lifespan, only slightly higher than it was 100 years ago, without adjusting for infant mortality. (Lifespan averages are heavily skewed when many die at a young age).
The reality is today people have less time to themselves than they did in 100 years ago. People are now forced to go to school for 12 years, then to college for 4 years. Grad school even more. Not even touching on jobs, 12 years of compulsory education alone robs men of their most productive years. That is in fact, what it was designed to do. But thats another story.
THe simplist way to determine this however, which Mr. Russell discusses, is to look at leisure. Leisure today is a passive affair. People simply do not have the time for anything proactive. But I am not going to discuss that here. If you can't read an 8 page essay, written by one of the 20th century's greatest thinkiers... Well, you can continue to make your shallow observations on standards.
The reality is, your obsession with standards, is proof that you are a product of this very system Russell is condemning. We are discussing a fundamentally human problem, not a materialistic one. This is not an economics class.
This is a philosophical question, and your ridiculous inclusion of concepts such as metrics proves you are not only ignorant of the author of which I spoke, but of the most basic questions of philosophy.
I will give you a hint. None of the world's great philosophers discuss one's work as being at all relevant to life. Deal with it.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you on one point - there is more to life than the rat race. But you are free at any time to downshift and live a comfortable and leisuirely life, and viewed in absolute terms one has far more capability to do so now than in the past. It's only the relative viewpoint which seems to suggest that one cannot "afford" to be idle.
No, you are unfortunately quite wrong. You also prove once again you haven't read the essay you ignorant fuckwad. Have you ever wondered, for a moment, what truly is the essence of human civilization? Leisure is not about taking a vacation, it is about freeing men to write music, paint a picture, write poetry, practice the violin, or countless other pursuits. Its about freeing dilitantes like yourself from the academic cage so you can study without the dictates of some professor.
It is also about not having to choose between these things and other human activities, like raising a family.
All of the things that matter in our world, are born of leisure. Without leisure, there would be no Mozart, no Michaelangelo, no Olmstead, or countless other artists.
Anyway, don't be a fucking tool. If someone posts an interesting link, read it or not. Don't criticize in the most ignorant way possible, basing your entirely simplistic academic argument on a completely erroneous assumption. Perhaps you have never read any of Bertran Russell's works. That would make you lazy. But anyone with a college education should realize he was a philosopher, not an economist.
I'd just like to see some fanciful futuristic art that depicts technology that looks like it was designed with a large population in mind.
One place where you can see this kind of art is looking at turn of the century urban planning. Imagine if the whole of the US was designed with the foresight used to plan New York City in 1890?
All of the subways were constructed a long time before they were truly needed. Most of the area at the north end of Central Park was composed of farm land when the park was initially designed in 1859. Anyway, I have always believed urban planning is a lost art.
I think this essay by the great Bertrand Russell not only outlines the historical point you have made, but why the cult of efficiency and productivity which infects our society is so destructive and devisive.
Perhaps you read it, but for those out there who have not quite realized that the promise of technology, more free time, has not materialized, please read this essay.
Tell that to Dave and Busters. They seem to be popular everywhere I go, and have quite a few interesting games which go beyond the standard arcade box from the 80's.
What exactly is so "real" about gold? Just because people want to possess this shiny metal its inherent worth is no greater than that of green pieces of paper that people also want to possess. (Except, of course, gold's supply is limited, granted).
You answered your own question. The relative scarcity of gold, combined with its resistance to corrosion and resulting long life, and its aesthetic qualities make it an ideal currency.
I don't particularly care what the currency is, but it either must be scarce and virtually impossible to forge, or it must be actually useful (like chickens).
The reason a piece of paper is a poor currency is because it can be instantly created, making it worthless over time. This is in fact what happens.
This is obviously a huge debate, but as you can see, the term "real" is quite applicabale. Paper is not a real currency because anyone can make it.
I don't believe people should have the hard earned fruits of their labor devalued. Whether by companies screwing the shareholders byt issuing more stock "awards" to their executives, or the government secretly taxing the people by inflating the currency, or a thief counterfeiting money.
Its all wrong. Gold is our best solution to this problem, at least until that can be easily created.
Of course, in time, money will be useless. I am not sure if that enlightened age will come, but it will.
If those were enforced, the vast mass of plastic addicted people could fuck their way into mutual bankruptcy with their enabling credit card companies WITHOUT BOTHERING ME.
Of course, you can't forget that our currency is no longer "real", ie backed by gold or chickens or whatever. The value of the dollars you possess is dervied by the potential profit realized through interest paid on government debt.
Essentially, if usury were to be outlawed tomorrow by constitutional amendment, our entire financial system would collapse.
I feel just like you do, but debt is such a foundation of our society, it can't be swept away. I choose not to participate in the debt system, but I shudder when I think about the future...
Is there no ambition or willingness left in the television/film business to create new and inspiring shows/stories that people will replay in generations to come as examples of pioneering work ?
No.
Move to a city and see some theater. That is where the original stories are.
I always thought that mystical rubbish was an attempt to capitalize on Star Wars, which seemed to throw together all sorts of legends. But now I know why it was so revolting.
Those mormons are sick puppies.
Anyone ever go to one of those churches and see the snarling, devilish looking goats holding up their baptismal pool?
I saw that when I was like 9 years old, spooked me for years...
Not to mention those freaks behave like the Pod People. Maybe thats what Battle Star Galactica is all about. The mormons are really alients coming to destroy humanity!
Hey, just pointing it out. I completely understand, and appreciate exactly where you are coming from.
I don't remember quite how I got into the discussion, outside of the real estate market discussion, but I think about the same things all the time.
THe social system we have in place was created to keep people busy, primarily to prevent revolution. You have to remember that from a scientific standpoint, 90% of people have no useful reason to exist. Schools, companies, government rules, conscription, wars... It is all part of a gigantic ruse, to maintain the non-producers as you say. Its really a great substitute for slavery. Slaves know they are slaves, so they resist. Better to train them to serve and do so willingly.
Hell, people actually believe a "service" economy is the ideal form of human life! 2000 years ago, service was something slaves did for their masters.
Anyway, we can't have 8 hour work week, or god forbid, true freedom. Otherwise, people would want to really live. Instead of teenagers rebelling by listening to bad music and living hedonistic lifestyles, they might do what their ancestors did... stage an armed rebellion. Can't let that happen. 12-17 years of school gets rid of those tendencies for most. The rest go to prison.
500 million sure isn't much.. over here in Southern California, USA, it is not surprising to see something like a high class home go for something like that.
I just wanted to point out that figure is HIGHLY innacurate. I seriously doubt there are any private homes in the entire state of California which go for 10% of that value. $500 million is a lot of money.
As an example, AOL Time Warner are building a fairly large mixed use development by Columbus Circle in Manhattan. This is a HIGHLY desirable area. The complex has two 55 story towers. As you can see from this story, the entire cost of this building is $1.7 billion, a little more than 3 times the value of this house of which you speak.
Even in Manhattan, the most expensive real estate market in the nation, I have never seen any residential property close to $500 million, unless you are referring to a while high rise. A full floor, 20,000 square foot condo on 5th avenue accross from central park might cost $50 million, maybe more. But not much.
Some oversized mansions from another age might fetch $100 million, but they are rarely on the market.
Anyway, just wanted to make that correction while the coffee has me spirited.
I think the MTA's primary concern right now is avoiding a fare hike.
I for one am willing to tolerate a little hypocrisy to keep that fare $1.50.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
If "Google" becomes the common word that means "to search on a search engine", then everybody can and will set up "google engines". That can confuse people, and allow competitors to ride on the marketing and popularity of Google. I remember an advertisement from Xerox that pleaded for people to use "photocopy" instead of "xerox", for the same reason.
Of course, if you read the article, you would see that this very example you cite is discussed to the exact opposite point. Having a dictionary document the use of this verb in the english language is entirely different from competitive corporations using in their advertisements or documentations.
You will notice that Xerox is in fact included in the dictionary. Even today I hear old folks using the term. Xerox tried to claim the use of the verb form of its name was a trademark infringement, and they failed.
This is absolutely true. I have a Compaq LTE Elite 4/50CX with a 486DX/2 50 and 16 megs of ram. It runs Windows 95 and Office 2000 without a hitch. I was amazed.
However, I have to use Opera 4.0. Newer web browsers are way to slow. Clippy and on the fly spell checking/grammar checking also need to be turned off.
She is a genius, and one of the most influential writers of the last decade.
You may not agree with what she believes, but suggesting she is extremely right wing is flawed. She is no more right wing than The New York Press, with mugger's similar criticisms.
Besides, she has written her column for years in the New York Times, the premire liberal news rag in the world. No one bitched there.
I will admit that east coast liberals are more rational and tolerant of the opposition, where it is the left coast liberals who seem to desire a totalitarian state where a government body censors media based on liberal ideals.
4) I have almost zero confidence that any government will be able to fix global warming, but I have even less confidence that unregulated corporations would do so. There's just no incentive to do so.
The parent poster wasn't suggesting the market would find a solution to global warming, he was suggesting that the market will find an alternative fuel source to oil, with the positive ecological benefits.
Further, he was making the point that government will not mandate a new energy source based on fair appraisal of the alternatives, but by who can bribe them the most. I assume the parent poster would be open to taxes being levied on oil however to
Christianity created by a dying empire? With all due respect, that doesn't logically follow. You appear to assert that Christianity killed a thriving society, and at the same time suggest that the thriving society invented the very thing that subsequently killed it. There's the other niggling detail that the facts don't support your argument.
One evidence of your ignorance of my previous stated works is Nietzsche heavily discusses this subject. As I also said, I can't discuss 2000 years of Christian history and how today, our society is a perverted contorsion of Roman society. It is a huge topic.
One example I can give you however, is the Olympic games. They lasted for over 12 centuries, a shining example of human good will and solidarity in a divisive world. Do you know why they ended until 100 years ago? Emperor Theodosius I outlawed the games as a pagan festival in 393, only 20 years after Christianity became the official Roman religion.
Also, why do you think its called the "dark ages"?
The Roman Empire was dying, slowly. What greatness it had was what was left of the world before the Empire manifest itself. Christianity certainly did not KILL the empire, it hastened its demise, and threw the world into over 1000 years of intellectual darkness and stagnation. Christianity wasn't created to maintain the classical ideal of civilization, simply to maintain control. It succeeded in doing what Constantine wanted. His city remained the capital of the east for one 1100 years. But, everything was lost in the process.
We have over 400 years of scholars writing on the loss to mankind of this period of darkness, from 500-1500AD. Read up on it. (Please do not profess your ignorance of logic by stating this is an ARGUMENT. It is not)
I strongly disagree with both of them. I would assert that each held true to a religion - perhaps the religion of "rejection of religion."
That proves your true ignorance right there. None of those authors claim there is no god, or that religion has no value. Nietzsche never once says god does not exist. Bertrand Russel praises christianity for many of its ethics. You can't understand why religion is bad because you are blinded by it. You presume shit which is false. You are terribly afraid to open a single book that could change your life, because it will make you realize you have wasted a lot of it. A willing participant in the new slavery.
I guess the largest question that I would ask you, and other brilliant folks who share your life outlook is this: "Who was Jesus Christ?"
A fictional character of the Christian religion.
Was he a madman, a liar, or who He claimed to be?
Most likely he was a fictional creation. There is no evidence currently to support any other explanation. The only mention of him is in an obviously fictional book. Even the gospels can't seem to agree on exactly what Jesus did in his lifetime. Not to mention the discarded gospels like the gospel of Timothy.
It is more logical to assume that you believe God created us in his own likeness. No human, save the most pathetic sociopaths, would ever demand worship from anyone. IF your original assertions were correct, your God did not create you in his likeness.
Your logic does not follow. If God created us to worship Him, then how is that evil? It is repulsive for one human to worship another human, because we know all humans are faulty and evil. Therefore the act of worshipping another is misguided and corrupt. Besides this, it is also evil because worship is to God alone
I got news for you. That isn't logic. It is my opinion that your god is evil. However, I stand by the assertion that no human being would demand worship from anyone. If you read the bold statement, that IS a logical conclusion. No sane man demands worship from another. Your god creates men to worship him, thus desires said worship. Ergo, he is not like man.
If you feel a life of a mindless ass kisser is a good life, hey, feel free.
Let me take the classic example - the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. If you are genuinely wanting to know if this can be proven sufficiently (say, as much as we are sure about the authors of those works you mention later) then I suggest you read this book [amazon.com] as an introduction to where and to whom you look for the answers - not sufficient in itself to prove the case, but if you investigate and follow a similar journey you should find the answers.
I have read the book. It is typical of "pop" non-fiction today. The writing style is casual, the citiations are few, and the exploration of alternative explanations non-existant. Part of the reason such books have little impact on people like me, is I really don't care whether or not there is a god. Even if I find out there is a god, it will have no impact on my life. This book attempts ultimately, to suggest it is up to you to find Christ. Bullshit, that is not an answer.
If this world is perfect then how can you condemn my choices, or suggest we strive for heaven on earth? By perfect I must assume that you mean the way it is meant to be.
I am saying that when you rid yourself of the fear of death so common in theists, and the sick idea that life is suffering, you will realize what a beautiful world we live in. A child may dream a terrible dream, but every morning he awakes in paradise again. What makes life worth living is creating things of value in the world. Build a more beautiful house. Paint a pictures, write some music. Read, and learn. Start with the reading list in the parent post which I gave to the last clown. Don't be such an ignorant fool. So what if you die. Thats life. Deal with it.
And that meaning is derived by the inherent meaningless of a universe without God.
That is the reason for your sorrows. You are unable to create meaning in your own life. You desire some sort of master to tell you what to do.That is your problem. Learn to deal with it.
Humans raised outside of the slave morality of religions do not feel that way.
You are confusing the first with the last - the Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles with the pseudo-Christianity taught by Roman Catholicism, an abominable organisation.
I don't think you are as aware of Christian history as you think you are. There is virtually no evidence Christianity ever existed prior to 100AD. It is now absolutely certain that most of the new testimate was created in those years around the Council of Nicea in 323 AD. Christianity, as well as other religions which failed to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor, were legalized in 313 with the Edict of Milan.
The Council of Nicea focused on determing the exact nature of Jesus Christ. Note the banned gospel of thomas, which presents a much more vicious Jesus.
You dismiss 1700 years of Christian religion and expect me to believe that is the cause of my misunderstanding. Who do you think created your bible? Catholics.
By all means, tell me the singular difference between catholicism and these reformed religions. I have examined both bibles. Outside of the King Jame's version removing allusions to adultery, I cannot seem to find much substantial difference. They all clearly adhere to the council if Nicea conclusions on the nature of Jesus.
Yet I suggest that you don't understand that there are a few Christians who live to understand, yet this comprehension has led them to the inescapable conclusion that there is a God.
Note, I have not denied the existence of a god. It is impossible for me to make such a claim. There may very well be a god, but he obviously is not too concerned with people worshipping him, otherwise we would not have such confusion about which god to worship, let alone which bible to read, or any of the other inconsistencies amongst the worlds religions.
Live your life, treat humans humanely, use the head that you have. If there is a god, so what. Do good beacause it is the right thing to do, not because you are afraid of hell. Live your life knowing that you are going to die soon, but don't be afraid of death. But above all, focus on NOW, not the fictional world of heaven. Trust your passions, as that is what makes you human.
Slashdot Mirror
Essentially a satellite is just a body orbiting its the parent planet. So there is really no lower limit on size.
It certainly seems like that is the case today, with many satellites being nothing more than large rocks, don't you think that definition is limited?
I mean, would a hydrogen atom orbiting jupitor be considered an satellite? I don't think you meant to say that would be the case. There isn't a lower limit, but there should be.
Well, it has, in absolute terms, but not in relative terms. The problem is that human psychology makes us view things using relative metrics instead of absolute ones. If you earn a 20% raise this year, but all your friends earn 100% raises, do you feel richer or poorer compared to last year?
Don't insult me with your first year of college economics discussion. You didn't read the essay. It is not a discussion of materialistic wealth, it is a discussion of time. 200 years ago, farmers did not work 50 hour weeks, commutting 2 hours a day to work. Outside of the planting and harvest times, leisure was the rule. Time could be spent working on the house, hunting, or enjoying other productive activties at your own pace.
If you want to have a 1950s comfortable standard of living regarding possessions, health care, entertainment, food, etc. you can do so by working far fewer hours than a 1950s human had to. But if you want a 2000s standard of living... ah, then you still have to work, or otherwise procure income. But at least work tends to be less menial and physically taxing than it did in the 1950s, on the average at least.
If you believe that you are living in a dreamworld. Today, the average salary barely gets you an apartment anywhere in the US, save the most backwards of places. In the 1950's, the average salary easily got you a house, a car, and your wife didn't have to work. You have little knowledge of the averages of which you speak. I have no love for the 1950's, but those people had it easy. I will never be able to afford a house, two cars, and 3 kids by the time I am 32. I make well above the average salary.
It's a question of whether you measure standard of living by absolute standards or relative ones.
We are discussing an absolute standard. Human beings have a finite lifespan, only slightly higher than it was 100 years ago, without adjusting for infant mortality. (Lifespan averages are heavily skewed when many die at a young age).
The reality is today people have less time to themselves than they did in 100 years ago. People are now forced to go to school for 12 years, then to college for 4 years. Grad school even more. Not even touching on jobs, 12 years of compulsory education alone robs men of their most productive years. That is in fact, what it was designed to do. But thats another story.
THe simplist way to determine this however, which Mr. Russell discusses, is to look at leisure. Leisure today is a passive affair. People simply do not have the time for anything proactive. But I am not going to discuss that here. If you can't read an 8 page essay, written by one of the 20th century's greatest thinkiers... Well, you can continue to make your shallow observations on standards.
The reality is, your obsession with standards, is proof that you are a product of this very system Russell is condemning. We are discussing a fundamentally human problem, not a materialistic one. This is not an economics class.
This is a philosophical question, and your ridiculous inclusion of concepts such as metrics proves you are not only ignorant of the author of which I spoke, but of the most basic questions of philosophy.
I will give you a hint. None of the world's great philosophers discuss one's work as being at all relevant to life. Deal with it.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you on one point - there is more to life than the rat race. But you are free at any time to downshift and live a comfortable and leisuirely life, and viewed in absolute terms one has far more capability to do so now than in the past. It's only the relative viewpoint which seems to suggest that one cannot "afford" to be idle.
No, you are unfortunately quite wrong. You also prove once again you haven't read the essay you ignorant fuckwad. Have you ever wondered, for a moment, what truly is the essence of human civilization? Leisure is not about taking a vacation, it is about freeing men to write music, paint a picture, write poetry, practice the violin, or countless other pursuits. Its about freeing dilitantes like yourself from the academic cage so you can study without the dictates of some professor.
It is also about not having to choose between these things and other human activities, like raising a family.
All of the things that matter in our world, are born of leisure. Without leisure, there would be no Mozart, no Michaelangelo, no Olmstead, or countless other artists.
Anyway, don't be a fucking tool. If someone posts an interesting link, read it or not. Don't criticize in the most ignorant way possible, basing your entirely simplistic academic argument on a completely erroneous assumption. Perhaps you have never read any of Bertran Russell's works. That would make you lazy. But anyone with a college education should realize he was a philosopher, not an economist.
I'd just like to see some fanciful futuristic art that depicts technology that looks like it was designed with a large population in mind.
One place where you can see this kind of art is looking at turn of the century urban planning. Imagine if the whole of the US was designed with the foresight used to plan New York City in 1890?
All of the subways were constructed a long time before they were truly needed. Most of the area at the north end of Central Park was composed of farm land when the park was initially designed in 1859. Anyway, I have always believed urban planning is a lost art.
I think this essay by the great Bertrand Russell not only outlines the historical point you have made, but why the cult of efficiency and productivity which infects our society is so destructive and devisive.
Perhaps you read it, but for those out there who have not quite realized that the promise of technology, more free time, has not materialized, please read this essay.
Tell that to Dave and Busters. They seem to be popular everywhere I go, and have quite a few interesting games which go beyond the standard arcade box from the 80's.
It was, that dude was just a fuckwad
What exactly is so "real" about gold? Just because people want to possess this shiny metal its inherent worth is no greater than that of green pieces of paper that people also want to possess. (Except, of course, gold's supply is limited, granted).
You answered your own question. The relative scarcity of gold, combined with its resistance to corrosion and resulting long life, and its aesthetic qualities make it an ideal currency.
I don't particularly care what the currency is, but it either must be scarce and virtually impossible to forge, or it must be actually useful (like chickens).
The reason a piece of paper is a poor currency is because it can be instantly created, making it worthless over time. This is in fact what happens.
This is obviously a huge debate, but as you can see, the term "real" is quite applicabale. Paper is not a real currency because anyone can make it.
I don't believe people should have the hard earned fruits of their labor devalued. Whether by companies screwing the shareholders byt issuing more stock "awards" to their executives, or the government secretly taxing the people by inflating the currency, or a thief counterfeiting money.
Its all wrong. Gold is our best solution to this problem, at least until that can be easily created.
Of course, in time, money will be useless. I am not sure if that enlightened age will come, but it will.
If those were enforced, the vast mass of plastic addicted people could fuck their way into mutual bankruptcy with their enabling credit card companies WITHOUT BOTHERING ME.
Of course, you can't forget that our currency is no longer "real", ie backed by gold or chickens or whatever. The value of the dollars you possess is dervied by the potential profit realized through interest paid on government debt.
Essentially, if usury were to be outlawed tomorrow by constitutional amendment, our entire financial system would collapse.
I feel just like you do, but debt is such a foundation of our society, it can't be swept away. I choose not to participate in the debt system, but I shudder when I think about the future...
cheers to that.
The androids at Arthur Andersen were worse though.
Is there no ambition or willingness left in the television/film business to create new and inspiring shows/stories that people will replay in generations to come as examples of pioneering work ?
No.
Move to a city and see some theater. That is where the original stories are.
I always thought that mystical rubbish was an attempt to capitalize on Star Wars, which seemed to throw together all sorts of legends. But now I know why it was so revolting.
Those mormons are sick puppies.
Anyone ever go to one of those churches and see the snarling, devilish looking goats holding up their baptismal pool?
I saw that when I was like 9 years old, spooked me for years...
Not to mention those freaks behave like the Pod People. Maybe thats what Battle Star Galactica is all about. The mormons are really alients coming to destroy humanity!
to arms! to arm!
You know, I have been playing Homeworld a lot lately. While I agree its a great game, one of the best ever made, I really hope they make an update.
I remember first playing the game like three years ago, and I thought the artwork was amazing. But now, it seems really dated.
Anyone here of an update? We have MOO3/Galciv coming out. What about the real time combat games.
Hey, just pointing it out. I completely understand, and appreciate exactly where you are coming from.
I don't remember quite how I got into the discussion, outside of the real estate market discussion, but I think about the same things all the time.
THe social system we have in place was created to keep people busy, primarily to prevent revolution. You have to remember that from a scientific standpoint, 90% of people have no useful reason to exist. Schools, companies, government rules, conscription, wars... It is all part of a gigantic ruse, to maintain the non-producers as you say. Its really a great substitute for slavery. Slaves know they are slaves, so they resist. Better to train them to serve and do so willingly.
Hell, people actually believe a "service" economy is the ideal form of human life! 2000 years ago, service was something slaves did for their masters.
Anyway, we can't have 8 hour work week, or god forbid, true freedom. Otherwise, people would want to really live. Instead of teenagers rebelling by listening to bad music and living hedonistic lifestyles, they might do what their ancestors did... stage an armed rebellion. Can't let that happen. 12-17 years of school gets rid of those tendencies for most. The rest go to prison.
depressing huh.
500 million sure isn't much.. over here in Southern California, USA, it is not surprising to see something like a high class home go for something like that.
I just wanted to point out that figure is HIGHLY innacurate. I seriously doubt there are any private homes in the entire state of California which go for 10% of that value. $500 million is a lot of money.
As an example, AOL Time Warner are building a fairly large mixed use development by Columbus Circle in Manhattan. This is a HIGHLY desirable area. The complex has two 55 story towers. As you can see from this story, the entire cost of this building is $1.7 billion, a little more than 3 times the value of this house of which you speak.
Even in Manhattan, the most expensive real estate market in the nation, I have never seen any residential property close to $500 million, unless you are referring to a while high rise. A full floor, 20,000 square foot condo on 5th avenue accross from central park might cost $50 million, maybe more. But not much.
Some oversized mansions from another age might fetch $100 million, but they are rarely on the market.
Anyway, just wanted to make that correction while the coffee has me spirited.
I don't think Kant would appreciate this use of a priori
I think the MTA's primary concern right now is avoiding a fare hike.
I for one am willing to tolerate a little hypocrisy to keep that fare $1.50.
If "Google" becomes the common word that means "to search on a search engine", then everybody can and will set up "google engines". That can confuse people, and allow competitors to ride on the marketing and popularity of Google. I remember an advertisement from Xerox that pleaded for people to use "photocopy" instead of "xerox", for the same reason.
Of course, if you read the article, you would see that this very example you cite is discussed to the exact opposite point. Having a dictionary document the use of this verb in the english language is entirely different from competitive corporations using in their advertisements or documentations.
You will notice that Xerox is in fact included in the dictionary. Even today I hear old folks using the term. Xerox tried to claim the use of the verb form of its name was a trademark infringement, and they failed.
Please erase my student loan debt. Please Please Please.
I will do anything you ask. I will be your slave for a month.
Free human servitude.
You will never get caught, I promise.
This is absolutely true. I have a Compaq LTE Elite 4/50CX with a 486DX/2 50 and 16 megs of ram. It runs Windows 95 and Office 2000 without a hitch. I was amazed.
However, I have to use Opera 4.0. Newer web browsers are way to slow. Clippy and on the fly spell checking/grammar checking also need to be turned off.
PocketMVP
BTW, how did you manage to fit a CD's worth of music onto a 32MB CF card? That must be some compression algorithm!
64kbps and 48kbps ogg files are pretty good. Especially if you are blasting your headphones over a subway..
Few headphones really have the quality where you notice artifacts. The ones that are of that high quality are pretty expensive.
Anyway, at 64kbps, ogg files are 2 minutes per megabyte. So, 32 megs will give you an hour long CD.
Camille Paglia
.
She is a genius, and one of the most influential writers of the last decade.
You may not agree with what she believes, but suggesting she is extremely right wing is flawed. She is no more right wing than The New York Press, with mugger's similar criticisms
Besides, she has written her column for years in the New York Times, the premire liberal news rag in the world. No one bitched there.
I will admit that east coast liberals are more rational and tolerant of the opposition, where it is the left coast liberals who seem to desire a totalitarian state where a government body censors media based on liberal ideals.
4) I have almost zero confidence that any government will be able to fix global warming, but I have even less confidence that unregulated corporations would do so. There's just no incentive to do so.
The parent poster wasn't suggesting the market would find a solution to global warming, he was suggesting that the market will find an alternative fuel source to oil, with the positive ecological benefits.
Further, he was making the point that government will not mandate a new energy source based on fair appraisal of the alternatives, but by who can bribe them the most. I assume the parent poster would be open to taxes being levied on oil however to
Christianity created by a dying empire? With all due respect, that doesn't logically follow. You appear to assert that Christianity killed a thriving society, and at the same time suggest that the thriving society invented the very thing that subsequently killed it. There's the other niggling detail that the facts don't support your argument.
One evidence of your ignorance of my previous stated works is Nietzsche heavily discusses this subject. As I also said, I can't discuss 2000 years of Christian history and how today, our society is a perverted contorsion of Roman society. It is a huge topic.
One example I can give you however, is the Olympic games. They lasted for over 12 centuries, a shining example of human good will and solidarity in a divisive world. Do you know why they ended until 100 years ago? Emperor Theodosius I outlawed the games as a pagan festival in 393, only 20 years after Christianity became the official Roman religion.
Also, why do you think its called the "dark ages"?
The Roman Empire was dying, slowly. What greatness it had was what was left of the world before the Empire manifest itself. Christianity certainly did not KILL the empire, it hastened its demise, and threw the world into over 1000 years of intellectual darkness and stagnation. Christianity wasn't created to maintain the classical ideal of civilization, simply to maintain control. It succeeded in doing what Constantine wanted. His city remained the capital of the east for one 1100 years. But, everything was lost in the process.
We have over 400 years of scholars writing on the loss to mankind of this period of darkness, from 500-1500AD. Read up on it. (Please do not profess your ignorance of logic by stating this is an ARGUMENT. It is not)
I strongly disagree with both of them. I would assert that each held true to a religion - perhaps the religion of "rejection of religion."
That proves your true ignorance right there. None of those authors claim there is no god, or that religion has no value. Nietzsche never once says god does not exist. Bertrand Russel praises christianity for many of its ethics. You can't understand why religion is bad because you are blinded by it. You presume shit which is false. You are terribly afraid to open a single book that could change your life, because it will make you realize you have wasted a lot of it. A willing participant in the new slavery.
I guess the largest question that I would ask you, and other brilliant folks who share your life outlook is this: "Who was Jesus Christ?"
A fictional character of the Christian religion.
Was he a madman, a liar, or who He claimed to be?
Most likely he was a fictional creation. There is no evidence currently to support any other explanation. The only mention of him is in an obviously fictional book. Even the gospels can't seem to agree on exactly what Jesus did in his lifetime. Not to mention the discarded gospels like the gospel of Timothy.
It is more logical to assume that you believe God created us in his own likeness. No human, save the most pathetic sociopaths, would ever demand worship from anyone. IF your original assertions were correct, your God did not create you in his likeness.
Your logic does not follow. If God created us to worship Him, then how is that evil? It is repulsive for one human to worship another human, because we know all humans are faulty and evil. Therefore the act of worshipping another is misguided and corrupt. Besides this, it is also evil because worship is to God alone
I got news for you. That isn't logic. It is my opinion that your god is evil. However, I stand by the assertion that no human being would demand worship from anyone. If you read the bold statement, that IS a logical conclusion. No sane man demands worship from another. Your god creates men to worship him, thus desires said worship. Ergo, he is not like man.
If you feel a life of a mindless ass kisser is a good life, hey, feel free.
Let me take the classic example - the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. If you are genuinely wanting to know if this can be proven sufficiently (say, as much as we are sure about the authors of those works you mention later) then I suggest you read this book [amazon.com] as an introduction to where and to whom you look for the answers - not sufficient in itself to prove the case, but if you investigate and follow a similar journey you should find the answers.
I have read the book. It is typical of "pop" non-fiction today. The writing style is casual, the citiations are few, and the exploration of alternative explanations non-existant. Part of the reason such books have little impact on people like me, is I really don't care whether or not there is a god. Even if I find out there is a god, it will have no impact on my life. This book attempts ultimately, to suggest it is up to you to find Christ. Bullshit, that is not an answer.
If this world is perfect then how can you condemn my choices, or suggest we strive for heaven on earth? By perfect I must assume that you mean the way it is meant to be.
I am saying that when you rid yourself of the fear of death so common in theists, and the sick idea that life is suffering, you will realize what a beautiful world we live in. A child may dream a terrible dream, but every morning he awakes in paradise again. What makes life worth living is creating things of value in the world. Build a more beautiful house. Paint a pictures, write some music. Read, and learn. Start with the reading list in the parent post which I gave to the last clown. Don't be such an ignorant fool. So what if you die. Thats life. Deal with it.
And that meaning is derived by the inherent meaningless of a universe without God.
That is the reason for your sorrows. You are unable to create meaning in your own life. You desire some sort of master to tell you what to do.That is your problem. Learn to deal with it.
Humans raised outside of the slave morality of religions do not feel that way.
You are confusing the first with the last - the Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles with the pseudo-Christianity taught by Roman Catholicism, an abominable organisation.
I don't think you are as aware of Christian history as you think you are. There is virtually no evidence Christianity ever existed prior to 100AD. It is now absolutely certain that most of the new testimate was created in those years around the Council of Nicea in 323 AD. Christianity, as well as other religions which failed to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor, were legalized in 313 with the Edict of Milan.
The Council of Nicea focused on determing the exact nature of Jesus Christ. Note the banned gospel of thomas, which presents a much more vicious Jesus.
You dismiss 1700 years of Christian religion and expect me to believe that is the cause of my misunderstanding. Who do you think created your bible? Catholics.
By all means, tell me the singular difference between catholicism and these reformed religions. I have examined both bibles. Outside of the King Jame's version removing allusions to adultery, I cannot seem to find much substantial difference. They all clearly adhere to the council if Nicea conclusions on the nature of Jesus.
Yet I suggest that you don't understand that there are a few Christians who live to understand, yet this comprehension has led them to the inescapable conclusion that there is a God.
Note, I have not denied the existence of a god. It is impossible for me to make such a claim. There may very well be a god, but he obviously is not too concerned with people worshipping him, otherwise we would not have such confusion about which god to worship, let alone which bible to read, or any of the other inconsistencies amongst the worlds religions.
Live your life, treat humans humanely, use the head that you have. If there is a god, so what. Do good beacause it is the right thing to do, not because you are afraid of hell. Live your life knowing that you are going to die soon, but don't be afraid of death. But above all, focus on NOW, not the fictional world of heaven. Trust your passions, as that is what makes you human.
Love your humanity, do not despise it.